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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC) finally released their final recommendations to the ELCA Church Council–and to the larger church, particularly in regards to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly and beyond.  In my estimation, it was an intentional kicking of the proverbial can down the road.

Missing from the recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly are any meaningful DEIA amendments to the ELCA Constitution and by-laws.  There is one recommendation seeking to increase the number of under-represented groups at assemblies, but none of the major changes proposed by the DEIA audit.

But that does not mean the CRLC is dropping DEIA. Not by a long shot.  In their report, their very first recommendation is “to immediately begin identifying and acting upon mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA to ensure the proactive centering of dismantling racism within the denomination. These measures and incentives shall be guided by the recommendations outlined in the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Audit and the Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity.”  The CRLC further urged the Church Council to have amendment and by-law changes ready at the 2028 National Assembly. 

There is the can kick.

But there is a bit of an incongruous note in the commission’s rationale.  They say in their explanation, “The commission believes this work can wait no longer.”  They even suggest that a special assembly might be needed to implement changes.  This is a bit of a head scratcher given that they could have asked for changes to be implemented in 2025.  So, why wait?

Perhaps the answer lies in a recommended change in 2025 that has been proposed by the CRLC.  Recommendation number 11 is intended to “streamline” the process of amending the ELCA’s governing documents.  The changes to section 22:11 are worth reading in full:

This constitution may be amended only through either of the following procedures:

            a.  The Church Council may propose an amendment, with an official

            notice to be sent to the synods at least six months prior to the next

            regular meeting of the Churchwide Assembly. The adoption of

            such an amendment shall require a two-thirds vote of the

            members of the next regular meeting of the Churchwide Assembly

            present and voting.

            b.  An amendment may be proposed by 25 or more members of the

            Churchwide Assembly. The proposed amendment shall be

            referred to the Committee of Reference and Counsel for its

            recommendation, following which it shall come before the

            assembly. If such an amendment is approved by a two-thirds vote

            of members present and voting, such an amendment shall become

            effective only if adopted ratified unchanged by a two-thirds vote of

            the members present and voting at the next regular Churchwide

            Assembly or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the

            Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the

            Churchwide Assembly.

If these recommendations pass, in 2028, a small group of people, 25, can propose any amendment.  It can be passed by a 2/3 majority, and then become effective with a Church Council vote 12 months later.  Synods potentially would have no input into the process or any chance to vote or send a delegate to challenge the amendment.  There would be no “bottom-up” structure of the church at all.  Everything would effectively be “top-down”.  Indeed the DEIA audit’s own words speak to the direction this amendment leads to: “ELCA’s leadership needs to be more vocal, consistent and strong on expressing commitment to, and visibly advancing, DEIA, from the top down.”

There is almost no doubt that the cultural winds are blowing a different direction when it comes to how most feel about DEIA.  When you are heading into a strong head wind, you have to find ways to make it easier to get through it.  It seems like the CRLC’s recommendations are intended to do just this; intentionally kick the can down the road so that the imposition of DEIA becomes easier and less resistance will be met.

An Analysis of Recommendations 1 and 7 in the Final Report of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

The past couple years we have written extensively about the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, which was formed in response to action taken by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  We have expressed deep concern over –

• The primary mandate that was given to the Commission to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.” 
• The makeup of the Commission, with 20% being LGBTQ+ persons and 20% being DEIA officers or leaders at their place of employment and/or influence.
• The DEIA audit which the 2022 Churchwide Assembly instructed the Church Council to have done of the ELCA’s governing documents and how the results of that audit might be incorporated into the work of the Commission. 
• The consistent lack of specific information in all communications from the Commission.
• The way in which the ELCA dismissed and ridiculed persons who were concerned through the document which they released, “Myths and Facts about Congregational Governance.”
• The amendments to the ELCA Constitutions which have been recommended by the Commission, approved by the Church Council, and are being presented to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, especially the proposed amendments to chapter 22 of the Churchwide Constitution, which would fast-track the approval process for amendments that come from the floor at the assembly.

But my concerns have only grown greater as I have read and analyzed the final report from the Commission, which was recently released.  A link to that final report can be found HERE. 

I have studied and sought to grasp the entire report – all 75 pages of it.  My overall impression is the same as what I have of all documents that come from the ELCA.  It is too long and excessively verbose.  I always wonder if the reason for the length and all the verbiage is to hope that people will not read it – at least not read all of it or read it carefully.  My second impression is that rather than help facilitate functioning so that the ELCA can better focus on its mission, the Commission has made the process and structure even more convoluted and complex.  It is as though the Commission has created deeper snow and/or thicker mud for the ELCA to now have to try to navigate its way through.

But what I find most alarming are Recommendations 1 and 7 in the final report, which have accomplished nothing less than cementing a DEIA value system and Marxist critical theory into the ELCA governing documents.  This infiltration of a radical leftist agenda into the governing documents is no longer something that we fear might happen this summer at the Churchwide Assembly.  It has already happened.  The horse has already left the barn.    

Recommendation 1 reveals the Commission’s values and priorities.  Recommendation 7 exposes their accomplishments.

Recommendation 1 – “Immediate Action on Dismantling Racism” – can be found on page 34 in the final report.  This recommendation reveals what the Commission values the most and feels most urgent about.  The Commission is recommending that “the ELCA Church Council immediately begin identifying and acting upon mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA to ensure the proactive centering of dismantling racism within the denomination.”  These measures and incentives are to be guided by the recommendations outlined in the DEIA audit and the ELCA’s Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity.

Complaining about the slowness of the progress of the ELCA’s becoming in their eyes a “truly welcoming church” that realizes “authentic diversity,” the Commission’s position is that “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 they are not developed in time, then the ELCA Church Council needs to call for a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to evaluate and enact the necessary constitutional revisions. 

There is nothing else that the Commission sees as so urgent and compelling and feels as hot, bothered, and motivated about as dismantling racism.   

There are two things in the Rationale for Recommendation 1 that I found alarming.  First, the Commission admits that its “mandate was specific to the charge of dismantling racism.”  But it has enlarged its concern to encouraging the Church Council “to expand the work beyond dismantling racism to include dismantling discrimination against all historically underrepresented groups.”  More will be said about these groups in Recommendation 7.  I remember early on in the work of the Commission when Co-Chairperson Carla Christopher used the language of “dismantling oppression” rather than “dismantling racism” in a video regarding the work of the Commission.  I wrote to her and asked how that expansion happened, how victims of oppression will be identified, and whether people with traditional views who do not agree with the work of the Commission will become victims of oppression.  She wrote back, back-pedaling from “dismantling oppression” back to “dismantling racism.”  But here I see that she has reversed her course.

What is even more alarming in the Rationale for Recommendation 1 is the way in which it concludes with a sentence that gives a preview of what is to come in Recommendation 7.  It says, “While much that needs to be done to accomplish this work may be centered in our constitution and bylaws, which can only be amended by the Churchwide Assembly, the commission encourages the Church Council to act on continuing resolutions and policies that can advance this work before the 2028 Churchwide Assembly.”  Much of what we have feared the most is no longer something that might happen at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.  It has already happened.  The horse has already left the barn.    

Recommendation 7 – “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Related Changes to Governing Documents and Recognition of Historically Underrepresented Groups” – can be found on pages 47-49 in the final report.  What is most disturbing here is that this Recommendation contains a number of continuing resolutions which the Commission recommended and which the Church Council has already approved, thereby making them already part of the ELCA’s governing documents.  What these continuing resolutions that are already approved have already done is nothing less than cementing a DEIA value system and Marxist critical theory into the official governing documents of the ELCA.  The horse has already left the barn.     

5.01.H24. gives definitions of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility.  These definitions are now a part of the ELCA’s governing documents.   

5.01.I24. commits the ELCA “to working to intentionally lift up voices from historically underrepresented groups.”  There are many places throughout the final report and in the recommended changes to ELCA constitutions and bylaws where provision is made for “historically underrepresented groups” to have voice, vote, and representation far beyond their actual numbers within the membership of the ELCA.  This continuing resolution identifies “historically underrepresented groups” as including persons of color, persons whose primary language is other than English, persons of diverse gender identities, persons of diverse sexual orientations, persons experiencing poverty, persons of lower income, persons living with disabilities, and persons who are not natural-born United States citizens.

There is certainly no doubt that God loves all people.  In the First Reading for Easter Sunday Peter says at the house of Cornelius, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality” (Acts 10: 34).  The Second Reading for the Fourth Sunday of Easter describes “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the lamb” (Revelation 7: 9).  Consistently throughout the Bible God shows His love for the poor and commands that His people be concerned for the poor.  And among the things that the prophet Micah says that God requires of us is “to do justice and to love kindness” (Micah 6: 8).  What troubles me is the way in which through continuing resolution 5.01.J24. the Church Council has not only fully embraced every form of sexual orientation and gender identity.  It has also made the following a special privileged and protected class that one dare not discriminate against.

5.01.J24. Persons of diverse gender identities and persons of diverse sexual orientations means individuals who identify beyond the sex and gender binary, individuals whose gender identity may be fluid, and individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, or other sex, gender, and sexual identities that are more complex than sex, gender, and (sic).  (I believe something has been cut off in the final report.)

And then, to make it completely clear, the final report states the following – “Continuing resolutions 5.01.G24, 5.01.H24, 5.01.I24, and 5.01.J24 (as amended) were adopted by the Church Council and are now part of the ELCA’s governing documents.”

Why would anyone still believe that bound conscience has a chance to survive in the ELCA?  Bound conscience is the concept from 2009 in which the ELCA promised to provide a place of dignity and respect for those who hold traditional views regarding human sexuality.  Why would any congregation still believe that they would have the option of not calling a pastor with a “diverse gender identity” or a “diverse sexual orientation”?  What we knew all along would happen has happened.  The ELCA has officially turned its back on its promises from 2009.  The horse has already left the barn.     

And not only that but Marxist critical theory has been incorporated into the ELCA’s governing documents through the actions of the Church Council.  The whole language of dismantling racism – which is the primary mandate given to the Commission and as we saw in Recommendation 1 the primary concern of the Commission – reflects critical theory.  In this ideology racism is not just something that people say and do that they must stop saying and doing.  Rather it is seen as so embedded into the very structures of society that those structures must be torn down.  Built into the very systems of our culture are structures that privilege some people and lead to the oppression of others.  Those who are in positions of power and privilege are not going to voluntarily relinquish that power and privilege, so those systems must be dismantled and destroyed.  This perspective has now been incorporated into the official governing documents through action that has already been taken by the Church Council.  The horse has already left the barn.  Continuing Resolution 5.01.I24. contains this sentence.  “This church recognizes that humans have multiple aspects of their identities that are tied to systemic privilege and oppression that shape the lives of individuals and communities in distinct ways.”

HERE and HERE are links to the official ELCA news releases which tell about actions taken by the Church Council at their November 14-17, 2024 and April 3-6, 2025 meetings.  Do they give any indication of the full depth, seriousness, and significance of what happened at those meetings?  Absolutely not!  Instead the news release for November 14-17 uses this innocuous, non-specific language to describe the actions of the Church Council –

• Approved amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that were drafted in response to the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility Audit.
• Recommended to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly certain amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that were brought to the council by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.
• Approved amendment of certain continuing resolutions in “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA.”
• Acknowledged amendment to the governing documents of this church related to nonbinary inclusion and to gendered language in the constitution.     

And the news release for April 3-6 uses this equally innocuous and non-specific language.  The Church Council –

• Authorized its Executive Committee to consult with the Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity advisory team to review its purpose and to create an ELCA handbook that includes recommendations for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) standards for congregations.
• Adopted continuing resolution amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that relate to the churchwide organization. 

* * * * * *

I would now like to conclude by saying a few words to those who might be persuaded to believe the ELCA’s claim that DEIA is supremely compatible with the gospel and truly reflects and is consistent with Biblical values.  First, the ELCA’s DEIA is not the gospel of the Bible.  The gospel of the Bible is the gospel of the forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life through Jesus and His death and resurrection.  The ELCA’s DEIA gospel is a gospel of God’s welcoming, including, and loving all people equally.  There is a major difference.  Jesus is not really necessary in the ELCA’s DEIA gospel.  Second, DEIA and critical theory are not gospel.  They are legalism at its absolute worst.

With DEIA and critical theory there is no satisfaction.  You can never do enough.  No matter how much you apologize for, repent of, and grovel over your racism, abuse of power, and misuse of privilege, it is never enough.  If you are white, and especially if you are a white male, you will never be able to apologize enough for, repent enough of, and grovel enough over the racism, abuse of power, and misuse of privilege of all white people around the world and in all times past.

With DEIA and critical theory there is no forgiveness.  There cannot be forgiveness, because if oppressed and marginalized people forgive oppressive, privileged people who have apologized, repented, and groveled enough, then oppressed and marginalized people will lose their power over privileged people, and power is what it is all about.

With DEIA and critical theory there is no deliverance.  If you are white – and worst of all, if you are a white male – then you cannot not be racist.  You will do everything you can to perpetuate the systems that have privileged and empowered you.  The only thing that can be done is for “woke people” – on behalf of the oppressed and marginalized – to tear down, dismantle, and destroy the systems that have empowered the privileged people.  (The only problem is that the “woke people” who lead the process of dismantling will then come into positions of power and privilege and themselves begin oppressing and marginalizing oppressed and marginalized people.  For that is what you get when the greatest value is power.)

The apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Galatians 1: 6-7).  Paul then had some very strong words to say about those who were proclaiming a gospel contrary to what the Galatians had originally received.  I believe that his words are very relevant to what is happening in the ELCA today. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Response to

The Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church: Myths and Facts

Nov 23, 2024

By Bishop Michael Rinehart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a link to the website of the Network. 

lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instagram: lcsn.social 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November – Conflict Management

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

February – Vision Casting

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

March – Grief and Change

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

April – Organizational Structure and Succession Planning

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

Stay tuned.

 

“MY GRACE IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU”

The first time I began to really understand and value Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians was during my second year of seminary. It was a particularly difficult year for me – one of my most difficult – and I found Paul’s letter speaking to my heart and giving me hope, strength, and encouragement.

I knew that Paul had a particularly difficult relationship with the Corinthians, especially after his first letter to them. But in 2 Corinthians he also addresses what he had been experiencing in Ephesus. You read Luke’s account in Acts 19 and it sounds like everything is wonderful and going great. The value of the books that were burned by those who had practiced magic but then turned to Christ was fifty thousand denarii (verse 19). “The word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed” (verse 20). So many people were becoming followers of Jesus that the silversmiths who made images of Artemis were in danger of going out of business (verse 24-27). And even some of the officials of the province were friendly to Paul and wanted to protect him from the screaming crowd in the theater (verse 31). But then you read a couple statements that Paul made in his letters and you find out how tough that time had actually been for him. He writes in his first letter, “I fought with wild animals at Ephesus” (1 Corinthians 15: 32). And then he adds in his second letter, “We do not want you to be unaware of the affliction we experienced in Asia; we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself” (2 Corinthians 1: 8).

One of the keynote speakers at the recent LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) gathering, Dr. Stephen Witmer, led us in a study of 2 Corinthians. Dr. Witmer is a pastor in Massachusetts and adjunct professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He spoke of how the apostle was very open and honest in revealing his struggles and weaknesses. In chapter 1 Paul tells of how he is now able to console others in their afflictions with the consolation which he himself received from God in his afflictions. Dr. Witmer pointed out that this is far more than Paul’s merely saying that he is now more empathetic towards others in their suffering because of his own suffering. Rather Paul is saying that he is able to pass on to others nothing less than the divine consolation that he himself received from God (2 Corinthians 1: 4). And his afflictions have led him to rely not on himself but on “God who raises the dead” (2 Corinthians 1: 9). Any God who can raise the dead can also take care of all my other problems as well.

As Dr. Witmer continued to speak, I was reminded of how – during my second year of seminary when I for the first time began to really understand and value this letter – God also spoke to me through the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the letter. In chapter eleven Paul lists several of the severe trials that he has gone through. I especially remember reading in verse 25 “three times I was shipwrecked.” And the shipwreck on the way to Rome, recorded in Acts 27, has not happened yet. I know that for me, if I have already been involved in three shipwrecks, I would have a hard time getting back into a boat.

And then in chapter twelve Paul talks about his thorn in the flesh and how he had pleaded with God three times to remove it (verses 7-8). I remember how at that time in my life there were some things in my life that I really would have liked to have changed. But God’s response to Paul was, “No, I am going to let you keep it – that thorn, weakness, limitation, or struggle – because of what you will learn through it and because of how you will grow and be changed because of it.” God said to Paul what I also needed to hear. “My grace is sufficient for you” (verse 9). Paul learned that God’s power is made perfect in our weakness (verse 9) and that as we have to deal with our own weaknesses, we more and more realize that we are totally dependent upon God’s strength (verse 10).

Dr. Stephen Witmer addressed powerfully the whole issue of weakness, as did the other keynote speaker, Dr. Kyle Fever. Kyle Fever is pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Adair, Iowa (LCMC) and director of academic formation at the Master’s Institute. While Stephen’s presentation was more of a Bible study, Kyle gave a personal testimony where he shared about the pain, struggles, and severe testing of faith that he and his wife endured after their oldest child suffered a severe brain injury from a bad automobile accident. Kyle shared openly and honestly as he spoke to our hearts and lives. Their suffering was great, their pain was overwhelming, but God’s grace saw them through. When Kyle showed a picture of his family on the day that his daughter enrolled in college, everyone erupted into applause. We were all encouraged, blessed, and strengthened.

What an inspiration it was to attend a gathering where the keynote presenters spoke to the real issues of life and strengthened us and helped us prepare for the next chapter of life and ministry. What a contrast to the ELCA’s Rostered Leaders Gathering in July 2023, where I feel that only one speaker expressed care and concern for how we as rostered leaders are doing personally. Everyone else focused on recruiting us for and getting us on board with the ELCA’s agenda.

After flying back to Phoenix and picking up my car at the airport, I started my vehicle. The first song that played on Sirius XM was “Faithfully” by TobyMac. In that song the contemporary Christian artist tells of his struggles after the death of his twenty-one-year-old son Truett from an accidental overdose of fentanyl and amphetamines. He writes –

“But when my world broke into pieces, You were there faithfully.
When I cried out to You, Jesus, You made a way for me.
I may never be the same man,
But I’m a man who still believes.
When I cried out to You, Jesus, You were there faithfully.”

Stephen Witmer, Kyle Fever, TobyMac, and the apostle Paul all encouraged us and helped us by telling us of how they have cried out to Jesus and how they still believe even when their world broke into pieces.

* * * * * * *

BEWARE OF THE LATEST
FROM THE ELCA’S COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH

As promised, we continue to monitor the work of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC). That Commission was formed in response to action taken by the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly, which directed the Church Council to establish a Commission that shall “reconsider the statements of purpose for each of the expressions of this church, the principles of its organizational structure, and all matters pertaining thereunto.” The Commission was instructed to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and to “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”

A written summary of the Commission’s seventh meeting – held from August 8-10 – can now be found on their website. A link to that website can be found HERE – Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (elca.org). There are several items in that written summary that I believe should cause great concern.

Fourth bullet point under August 8 –
The CRLC received updates from the Church Council and a subcommittee on the progress of the DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) audit.

The ELCA continues full speed ahead with the DEIA audit. Please see my article, “A Warning of What Is Coming,” in the March 2024 issue of our newsletter, where I list several of the expectations of congregations from that audit. A link to that article can be found HERE – A Warning of What is Coming – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE) (lutherancore.website).  In that article I raised the question of whether and how congregations will be penalized if they are not DEIA compliant. I also asked pastors and church leaders to consider how the ministry and mission priorities of their congregation will be derailed and the energy of their congregation will be consumed by efforts to become DEIA compliant. If you do not believe what I said in the article, just look at the Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations and the changes in the Model Constitution for Congregations as recommended by the law firm that did the audit. A link to that report can be found HERE – DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf (elca.org).

Some people have said that they see DEIA as very compatible with the Gospel. My response is that it is the exact opposite of the Gospel. DEIA is legalism at its worst and pure Marxism. Its demands are insatiable, it can never offer forgiveness, and it cannot provide deliverance. No matter how much you repent of and grovel because of your own oppressive behavior as well as the oppressive behavior of your ancestors and others of your race, it is never enough. You cannot do enough. You will always fall short. You cannot be forgiven, because if you are forgiven, then those who claim that you are oppressing them lose their power over you. And it cannot provide deliverance. If you are white, male, straight, and/or a member of any of the other privileged, oppressive people groups, then you cannot not be an oppressor. Rather the systems that privilege and empower you must be dismantled.

Third bullet point under August 9 –
The Who We Are Committee led the CRLC in a discussion about constitutional language updates.

Nothing specific – which raises the question, Why is there nothing specific? The natural concern is that the new constitutional language will make the ELCA more hierarchical and reduce congregational autonomy. If that is not the case, why are the Commission and ELCA leadership doing nothing to recognize and alleviate those concerns?

Fourth bullet point under August 9 –
The How Are We Governed Committee . . . began discussion . . . of matters relating to accountability, autonomy versus uniformity, and the need for structural flexibility.

Again, nothing specific. And again, congregations have every reason to fear that they will lose autonomy and be forced into greater uniformity. And congregations with traditional views are certainly not going to be the ones who will be blessed with structural flexibility.

Second bullet point under August 10 –
The How Are We Governed Committee presented draft proposals of possible changes to governance structures.

Again, nothing specific. And again, congregations have every reason to fear that the changes to governance structures will increase and further empower hierarchy and decrease and further disempower congregational autonomy.

The written summary does say under the fourth bullet point under August 10 –
The Communications Committee . . . presented an update on how the final CRLC report can be shared with the wider ELCA community.

Again, nothing specific. It does not say when or at what point in the process the final report will be revealed, but pastors, lay leaders, and congregations with traditional views have every reason to fear that by then it will be too late. And if the net result of the work of the commission, the DEIA audit, and the reconsideration of bound conscience in the human sexuality social statement is not to tighten the squeeze on those with traditional views, then why is the ELCA not acknowledging and not showing any concern whatsoever for the fears and concerns of those with traditional views?

We will keep you posted.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

“JOINING JESUS ON HIS MISSION” BY GREG FINKE

Many thanks to Aaron Heilman for his review of “Joining Jesus on His Mission” by Greg Finke. Aaron is currently serving as worship leader at Pointe of Hope Lutheran Church (LCMS) while pursuing a BA in Christian Ministry at Spurgeon College. A link to Aaron’s video book review can be found HERE. A link to our YouTube channel, which contains over fifty reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.

Mission. Outreach. Evangelism. As a Lutheran, do you feel a twinge of anxiety when you hear these words? These are big and scary concepts to the average churchgoer. The past few decades, we have struggled with these concepts and the fruit, or lack thereof, is painfully evident. Thankfully, God has provided a resource to help us get comfortable with the thought of engaging in mission, outreach, and evangelism.

Greg Finke has blessed us with a great book, “Joining Jesus on His Mission: How to Be an Everyday Missionary.” There are many books written on these topics but many of them are overly process based and seemingly complicated, to the point where they become overwhelming. Greg Finke has recognized this and provided an approach that works for anyone at any comfort level with mission, outreach, and evangelism.

With a down-to-earth, common sense attitude, Finke will make you feel like you can, in fact, join Jesus on His mission in this world. The book reads well with a conversational tone. Each chapter has questions for reflection and discussion which makes this great for small groups. This book is highly recommended and commended.

* * * * * * *

As we once again give thanks to God for His working powerfully through the lives and efforts of His people to bring about the Reformation, let us recommit ourselves to preserving and sharing a faith that is based on the authority of Scripture and the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith. And let us recommit ourselves to fulfilling the Great Commission and living according to the Great Commandment.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE