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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Our Disaffiliation Process Looked Like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six years. That was the length of time St. John’s Lutheran Church of Nanticoke, PA, went without a called pastor. For six years, this incredibly close-knit group of strong lay leaders worked hard to keep their church family together and to remain an active congregation.

Why so long? While it would be nice if there were only one reason, such as only having one pastoral candidate offered to them over those six years, sadly, that was not the case. As time passed, several factors ultimately led to their decision to consider alternative Lutheran church bodies with which to affiliate.

The most consistent factor was a lack of support from the Synod. Initially, the congregation had two or three pulpit supply options, but it later dropped to just one: a pastor who was dying of lung cancer. Ironically, this pastor was once their called pastor, whom they put under a one-year review and eventually dismissed because her sermons were highly volatile, divisive, and not centered around the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Over time, conditions worsened as the Synod could no longer provide or guarantee bi-weekly or even monthly pulpit supply, leaving St. John’s to fend for itself. St. John’s had no choice but to seek support from other Lutheran groups that could assist fellow Christians in need on an occasional basis. Rotating between lay leaders and occasional visiting supply pastors, church leadership started to question the future of the ELCA and whether they wanted to stay in it.

What about their interim? Their decision to consider other Lutheran bodies had nothing to do with her. They felt sorry for her because she had her own congregation and was also serving as an interim at St. John’s and a few other parishes simultaneously. She did what she could to support them.

In 2018, the congregation was surprised to learn that an eight-year-old, who had transitioned from his biological sex to the opposite with parental permission, was a featured speaker at the national youth gathering.

That same year, Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton was interviewed by the Chicago Sun-Times, where she expressed her opinion as a representative of the most prominent American Lutheran Church body, suggesting that she believed there may be a hell, and in her view, it would be empty. Her publicly expressed opinion, as a representative of the ELCA, constitutes a denial of her ordination vows, which state that the ordinand is to affirm what the Church confesses, accepts, and teaches concerning the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. The ordinand is then asked, “Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and these creeds and confessions?” How can an ordained Lutheran Pastor confess the Creeds and then say something that could cause others to doubt the existence of hell, contradicting the authority of Scripture? When someone no longer believes Scripture to be the norming norm, it is easy to understand such an answer.  

While I could continue, events like these prompted St. John’s church council to reach out and start discussions to find which denominations might be a good fit. As they learned more about the denomination they once proudly belonged to, the council shared their findings with the congregation. During the last three years of their pastoral vacancy, the congregation—which considers itself a church family—held many conversations and came together as one.

Feeling fed up, they took the necessary steps to initiate the vote process for disaffiliation. On November 19, 2023, they held their first vote. Afterwards, a representative from their Synod conducted a building inspection and asked whether the congregation had ever received a loan or grant to meet its church needs, which it had not. Following the constitutional rules, they held their second vote on February 18, 2024. Both votes were unanimous, and that is how St. John’s Lutheran Church of Nanticoke, PA, became the 500th congregation to join the North American Lutheran Church. By August of that year, they had completed their paperwork and gone through the call process. I was ordained and installed as their pastor on October 24, 2024. They prayed and worked to keep their church family together and are all the stronger for it.  

Editor’s Note: The author is writing about the outlandishness of the 1994 draft.  It promoted same sex relationships and masturbation.  And it was released to the press before it was released to ELCA pastors which caused an enormous uproar. 

Several of us on the current board of Lutheran CORE have been tasked with sharing where we are in our journey in or out of the ELCA. 

It was the early 1980’s and my then first pastoral “boss” (I was his associate) and mentor used to say things like, “In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., everyone has a puke point. You’ll know it when you reach it.”  He often said graphic things like that such as, “Stay somewhere long enough and you can outlast your bastards” and “The milk of human kindness flows sparingly in the church.”  Wow, burned out much?  Please Lord, don’t let me get that hopeless.  A newly ordained still aglow with the infused idealism of stepping into the role I was wondering if I’d make a mistake learning from him.  But (and you knew that was coming) in some ways the years proved him correct.  Stay somewhere long enough that you form deep, abiding relationships with your members and it’s amazing what you can accomplish together.  Leaders shape culture and over time the character and competence of the Pastor will inform the priorities of a congregation’s mission and ministry.  People who don’t like the direction will drift out, sometimes with all the finesse of a toddler’s tantrum, but they’ll go. Hint: you know you’ve achieved that when you want to weep at members’ funerals because you’re now burying friends and not just people who called you to the role. That’s an important dynamic for this article, deep connections versus doing what’s right.  Relationship while feeling the tug of responsibility.

As per the “Puke Point” teaching that was harder to nail down.  In sitting down to write this tome I searched in vain about the internet’s nooks and crannies to substantiate the quote, but I couldn’t, but the notion is something I carried for years.  I didn’t reach that point when the 1994 draft on human sexuality was released.  While most reacted strongly to the call on the church to recognize same sex unions, something that started rattling around in the ELCA since its inception in 1988 so no surprise there, I noted that our confirmation instruction should now include the positive aspects of masturbation.  Where did that come from and why the sudden interest in budding adolescent sexuality? When the church started paying for abortions one exiting pastor wrote his Suma, “Real churches don’t kill babies.”   During my brief stint as an assistant to the bishop of Sierra Pacific Synod an openly gay pastor was called to be chaplain at UC Berkeley and several churches in Oakland held joint youth group activities with an openly gay seminarian leading. That should have been my early clue. Like a magician’s sleight of hand, adult relationships were waved in front of us but in my opinion the real target was children.

At the June 2018 national ELCA Youth Gathering a chemically and surgically mutilated child was paraded across the stage as an inspirational symbol of acceptance.  Adults who make such decisions are one thing.  I think they need therapy and not surgery, but that’s on them.  A child, one whose prefrontal cortex was not yet fully developed, was subjected to irreversible medical procedures and revealed as blessed by God. I was done.  I’d finally reached that unverifiable quote point. Six months later I announced my early retirement.  Relationships kept me in, but a quad bypass and the potential stress of taking out the entire congregation wasn’t something I could do, although much to his credit, my replacement soon had them out the door.  This is a short article, and the full story is more nuanced, but such is my journey.  I know you have your own.  May you find community and peace of Christ outside the ELCA.

The events that put me at the front line of leading our church out of the ELCA began with an unexpected phone call from our founding pastor. Unbeknownst to him, I was frustrated with our congregation’s direction and the ELCA’s unbiblical stance on various issues.  Pastor wanted to know if I would be interested in being the Council President. Here I was ready to leave the church, and God provided a path to church leadership and fixing the problems that I saw. I agreed to his request, but it wasn’t with the fervor of ‘Here I Am Lord, Send Me!’

I had numerous discussions with the Pastor about leaving the ELCA, how to do that, and its impact.  He was led to believe that he would lose his pension if we left the ELCA. We now know this to be untrue, but it kept us in the ELCA for another decade.

Pastor retired during this period.  By this time, I was all-in on getting the right pastor to lead our church and made that known within the council and general congregational membership.  This led to my interest in serving on our church’s Call Committee. Now I was enthusiastically responding to ‘Here I Am Lord, Send Me!’  I knew that to save our church from the ELCA and lead us on a biblical path, we needed the right pastor.

I was asked to serve on the Call Committee the day after my father passed away. It was a blessing in a time of grief. I was relieved and grateful that I was part of that committee. We went right to work and started developing a questionnaire to ask our congregation what it wanted in a new pastor.

During this process I had an opportunity to attend the Synod Assembly. I left home expecting to be filled with the Holy Spirit while there. I could not have been more wrong. I was fed lectures on white privilege, listened to poems from young black activists about why my whiteness was a problem and why I should ask for forgiveness, The list goes on. Nothing about Christ, nothing about Christianity, nothing except a church manifesting itself as a  political organization and promoting LGBTQ agenda with no regard to sin.

I came back early from the Synod Assembly, reached out to the entire call committee and asked for a special meeting.  “Houston, we have a problem!” echoed in my mind. I put together a synopsis of my trip and all members of the call committee were speechless.  One member said, “Well, I thought I was a liberal but apparently I’m a conservative and didn’t know it.” We contemplated our next steps. Since our congregation asked us to find a pastor, should we go back to them and suggest looking outside of the ELCA?

We felt this was a good course of action but eventually realized that we could not take that path…yet. We focused our search and questions on a path that would lead us to the right pastor…then we prayed…a lot! With God’s help and our listening, we finally found our pastor. But that was the beginning, not the end of our journey. I immediately approached our new pastor (before he was selected) to make sure he was willing to support our plan to leave the ELCA. He said the road would be tough, but we could do it if we wanted. 

When the ELCA announced that it would be a Sanctuary Church, there was a significant amount of publicity that went along with its decision. This worked in our favor because many more members became aware of what the ELCA was doing. Now I didn’t have to find people to talk to and convince them the ELCA was not aligned with our congregation’s beliefs. They started looking for me and saying we need to leave the ELCA.

 I started gathering signatures on a petition. It called for the formation of a Discernment Committee where we could prayerfully determine our church’s path forward. Over 25% of the active congregation members signed it; the council could not refuse our request.

We formed the committee with a mix of members who wanted to stay or leave the ELCA. This was harder than it needed to be because we wanted to hear all voices and concerns.  Pastor led four classes for the congregation which discussed issues within the ELCA and how it had strayed from Luther’s foundational beliefs. These meetings focused on:

These classes informed our congregation that the ELCA had changed. Our patience and plan worked out. Our first vote was 88% and the second was 89% in affirmation to leave the ELCA and become part of the NALC.

It started with Holy Communion.  When people ask me to share my experience with leaving the ELCA, the story begins where questions of church fellowship must always begin: the altar.

Following the churchwide votes of 2009, people started using “impaired communion” more frequently to describe the ELCA’s situation.  I particularly recall David Yeago using it to good effect.  To commune is to share something in common, and what the Church shares is Christ.  Not only the 2009 votes, but also the long trajectory of the ELCA’s doctrinal development, made it clear that differing Christs were confessed in the ELCA.

I remember a dedicated revisionist agreeing with me, already in 2003.  “Yes,” he said, “that would be the classical Lutheran understanding of our situation.”  Communion could not proceed as usual.  I realize that many people, including many conservatives, might disagree with that diagnosis.  But that’s where my experience began: the simple recognition that “impaired communion” impairs Communion.  It is there, at the altar, that impaired communion is either repaired, or it is not.

Our first bishop under this new circumstance didn’t like our perspective, especially when we informed him that we would no longer host the Supper at conference or synodical events, but he did not press us to change.  The second bishop was far less sympathetic.  Here I should pause and note that we’ve already encountered two key points about leaving the ELCA.  Having led two congregations out of the ELCA, and counseled and accompanied several others, I’ve seen these points prove valuable time and again.

First, start by asking what your dissatisfaction with the ELCA has to do with doctrine, if anything at all—determine if you disagree on the fundamental question of “Who do you say that I am?”—and distinguish those concerns from other, lesser ones (like, “We’re willing to bet we can get a pastor faster and cheaper somehow else” [unfavorable odds, honestly]).  Then, if you have a doctrinal disagreement, ask yourself how Jesus repairs that sort of thing.  Is it at the conference table, debating constitutions, or at His table, communing or not communing? 

At the very least, that sort of reflection will help clarify your thought.  Constitutions are works; Communion is grace.  Are your problems with the ELCA work problems or grace problems?  If grace is being misunderstood, then the place to begin the remedy (and, potentially, to begin changes in fellowship) is where grace is clarified.  Trying to address a grace problem through a works solution (i.e., trusting a constitutional rearrangement alone) won’t get at it, ever, because the problem is not disagreement about your works, but about the Lord’s gifts. 

Fumbling this distinction continues to hound the various departure movements, I would suggest.   Holy Communion is where Jesus forgives sins.  So, if we now disagree over what sins He forgives, how He forgives them, or who He even is, then we also disagree about what He does at His altar.  Burying that simple problem under layers of constitutional finesse will not clarify the situation to you or to the people whom you serve—and when I say, “the people whom you serve,” I include representatives of your synod, which brings me to the second point.

One bishop is not like another.  Like you and me, each is his or her own little bundle of insecurities, aspirations, and ideas half finished.  If you think it’s hard to be you, being you as an ELCA bishop would be ten times worse for everyone.  I don’t say so out of any animus towards those who hold the office.  We should sympathize with them.  The office as presently constituted is a nightmare, as if someone had found the corpse of a thirteenth-century bishop of Bangor and used an electrical storm to try combining it with Grok, only to find too much personality remained.  The point is: the bishops need your help.

The bishops and their representatives belong to a much larger organization that tries to solve grace problems with work solutions.  “Synod means walking together,” apparently, and each churchwide assembly tries to lock the step, but the differences only widen because they’re trying to heal a flesh wound with a welding torch.  Still, that’s the solution they have, and so the bishops and their representatives will come to you by way of constitution, not Communion.  If your beef is a grace problem, you will need to help them face it, not for the sake of justice or something like it (you’re a Christian, so there’s no room for revenge here), but for the sake of their own souls.  

They will not appreciate this idea.  It won’t be easy.  I call it “playing catch with someone who won’t throw back.”  Here’s how it went for me:

Bishop: “Well, Steve, thank very much for meeting with us today.  I appreciate that your time is valuable.  Why don’t we begin with you explaining to me what your concerns are?” [this starting point can be a trap, but that’s another article]

Me: [Explains my concerns.]

Bishop: [silence]

Me: [shrugs eyebrows]

Bishop: I’m not going to engage you on that topic right now.

Different words could be used. Sometimes no words would be used. There would simply be a long stare, followed by a deep breath and a change of subject.  At other times, there may be honeyed expressions of sympathy followed by continued denials: “That is not the problem.”  Or as one bishop put it to me, “I don’t accept what you’re saying, because I never learned that.”  He said so years ago, and it’s not a horrible answer in some instances.  But it is rather like being asked to play catch, and in good faith tossing the first pitch, only to watch the other person catch the ball, drop it in a bucket, and look back at you.

They won’t engage you on theology.  They don’t think it’s a grace problem.

So if you have a confessional point you want to make, you will need both to confess the truth and to create a situation in which they slow down long enough to a) hear it and b) consider their own confession in light of it.  At its best, the process of leaving the ELCA is an opportunity for everyone to walk away knowing more clearly who they are and why.  There are some synodical leaders who understand this, and if you should encounter some, you’ll feel the difference and be thankful for it.  Either way, remember that what you’re doing is for their sake, not yours, since you are a Christian.  The goal isn’t for you to win, nor is it only for the congregation to leave, but also for the bishop and their representatives to grow in the faith.  They will not necessarily look at it that way—to many of them, you are the problem, and you will be fixed constitutionally—and so you must help them see it.

You’ll do so by starting with Communion, not the constitution.

With all that said, there is one particular way that the ELCA constitutions perform a strangely gracious function, though I’ve rarely heard anyone acknowledge it.  By including in its governing documents a method for leaving the ELCA, the ELCA acknowledges that leaving its fellowship is both permissible and potentially good.  Constitutions are works and seek to govern works.  By including among their works the ability to leave the ELCA, the ELCA constitutions confess that it’s a potentially good work to do so.  If you are part of a congregation considering leaving the ELCA, please make that point to your congregation: the ELCA believes it’s okay to do this.

You’d be forgiven for not realizing it.  I do know one bishop who acknowledged that leaving can be a good work, and she didn’t even mean it in a passive aggressive way.  The acknowledgement is rare!  But no matter.  It’s there in print, and no church should pass into law something it thinks is inherently sinful.  If it is—if a church thinks that leaving is inherently wrong—then it needs to take the process right off the page.  But if it stays on the page, and so far it has, then every congregation needs to know that even the ELCA thinks this process is a totally okay thing.  Sure, you’ll sin along the way—watch for it; repent of it—but so it goes for every good work.  Abusus non tollit usum: the abuse of a thing does not nullify its use.

Don’t look at the process as your enemy.  It’s a friend if you make it so.  “To the pure all things are pure” (Titus 1:15).  You agreed to that process by virtue of being in the ELCA, so follow it.  That’s part of love.  At the same time, you can always read the process closely.   To create a circumstance where you may press the confessional point and help everyone clarify who they are in the light of grace, you may find unexpected, entirely permissible ways to fulfill and participate in the process outlined.  These unexpected ways will surprise others, but just so, they may create, for the Gospel, a forum. 

The cool kids are now calling that sort of thing “interruptive,” and they make it part of their mission statements.  I’d suggest that you just call it “all in day’s work” and not think very much about it.  It can be done politely and kindly enough, even joyfully, the way you’d perform a Baptism or eat soup at a soup supper (yes, Baptisms are very different from soup-eating, but you doing the Baptism, and you sitting with your congregation and eating the soup, are not).  Other, cooler kids will have even more important things for you to consider than what I’ve written here, but this is what I’ve got: start (and end) with Communion, be prepared to play one-sided catch, work hard to create a situation where they at least catch it, and know that the ELCA totally thinks this is an okay thing to do.

Otherwise, it wouldn’t be on the page. 

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.

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

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?