The ELCA developed worship resources for the 250^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  As expected, right from the start, the ELCA made this observance into something negative.  It introduced these resources as ones that “both celebrate and lament our nation’s history.”  HERE is a link to the resources. 

Certainly there are many things in our nation’s history that were done wrong.  Racism is wrong.  Slavery followed by decades of racial discrimination were wrong.  The way that indigenous people were treated was wrong.  Any form of oppression of the weak and vulnerable is wrong.  But why can we not just give thanks for this great country that we have been privileged to live in as we re-commit ourselves to continuing to work for “liberty and justice for all”?

What would it be like if my wife and I were celebrating a milestone wedding anniversary and she were to tell me all the things I have done wrong during our years of married life?   Before I retired I served as pastor of the same congregation for forty years.  What would it have been like if on my final Sunday there I had told the congregation all the things that they had done wrong and all the ways I had been treated badly?  And what if the congregation were to invite me to return some Sunday and I were to repeat the same list of grievances?  Would I be invited again?  And yet that is what the ELCA consistently does.  It has even made worship resources for the 250^th birthday of our nation into a time of criticism of our country and “white-dominant Christianity.” 

And then the next thing I want to talk about is the order of confession and forgiveness in the proposed worship service.  The order of confession is as follows –

“God of all mercy, we have sinned against you, our neighbors, and your creation.  Within ourselves and our communities, our desire to do what is good is at war with the evil that dwells in us.  We lament the evil that holds us captive.  We repent of the evil we have done, and the evil done on our behalf.  Rescue us, forgive us, and restore us for lives of compassion and courage through our Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen.”

What word is used four times?  Evil.  Evil that dwells in us, evil that holds us captive, evil that we have done, and evil that has been done on our behalf.  Evil is a very strong word.  Is evil the word that most accurately describes how we have lived and how our country has been for the past 250 years?

In contrast to the wording of the confession, compare the wording of the absolution –

“All-merciful, Almighty God forgive you all your sins through the grace of Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit’s power strengthen you in doing what is good.  Amen.”

If evil is the primary word that describes my and our country’s spiritual condition, then I need far more than just forgiveness and strength to do what is good.  I need someone to deliver me from and break the power of evil. 

In the Second Reading for July 5 from Romans 7 the apostle Paul talks about the struggle taking place within himself.  He does use the word evil twice.  But then what he calls out for is not just forgiveness and strength to do good.  He begs for deliverance.  “Wretched man that I am!  Who will rescue me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7: 24-25)

But I am not convinced that the ELCA really wants us to be rescued from “this body of death.”  Rather it seems to want to continually be able to call on us to grovel and repent of the same things – racism, sexism, patriarchalism, white supremacy, male dominance, and so on.  I am not convinced that the ELCA really wants there to be forgiveness and really wants Someone to break the power of evil because then the ELCA would have no authority and right to continually call on me to grovel over and repent of the same things if they have been forgiven and the power of evil were to be broken.  There is real power in claiming to be in a position to continually call on others to grovel and repent, just as there is real power in claiming to be one who has been victimized and oppressed.  If I were to forgive, then I lose my power over the one whom I claim has offended me.  If the power of evil were to be broken, then I would lose my power over and my vindication for putting my foot on the neck of the one whom I claim has victimized and oppressed me.

The words of the third verse of the hymn, “When Peace, Like a River,” are as follows –

“He lives – oh, the bliss of this glorious thought, my sin, not in part, but the whole

Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more.  Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!”

That is a gift that I am not convinced that the ELCA actually wants people and our nation to have.  Because if our sins truly were nailed to the cross and we bear them no more, then the ELCA would have no right and authority to keep on calling on us to grovel over and repent of the same things.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about the article that comes after the sample worship service.  It is written by an ELCA pastor and is entitled, “Preaching the Lectionary on the Occasion of the US Semiquincentennial.”  Because it is included with these resources, I take it to be an accurate reflection of the position of the ELCA.

The first thing I notice is that it is overwhelmingly negative. Right from the start it talks about all the awful things that were happening in our country during the time leading up to our nation’s Bicentennial.  Then it makes these comments –

“On this day, Lutheran preachers in particular are called to reject outright the temptations and claims of Christian nationalism.  At this moment in the United States, we are faced with a political movement that has married Christianity with an embrace of hardline authoritarianism and glorification of violent masculinity, casting Jesus in the role of a warrior.  We have seen a political Christian movement that has attempted to demonize empathy and love of neighbor, recasting ‘neighbors’ as only those who share the same ethnicity and cultural background.”

“In today’s gospel (from Matthew 11), we hear. . . . the call to repentance for a church that has celebrated America without acknowledging the role its dominant (white Christian) culture has played in enslavement, abuse, and terrorization of non-white, non-Christian Americans, and all are (sic) who are most vulnerable, including women, children, and the poor.”

White supremacy, violent male dominance, and Christian nationalism are all wrong.  The United States is a great place to live, but it is not the Kingdom of God on earth.  And yet are the bad things rejected in this article actually concerns and values held by the typical ELCA member of a typical ELCA congregation?  Rather I believe they are issues raised by a certain group because it makes them feel powerful and better to do so.  At the heart of much extreme left political activism is an intense sense of self-righteousness.

The introduction to these resources says that they are intended to “unite the diverse body of Christ for the life of the world.”  With their negative, inflammatory language they do just the opposite.

by Dennis D. Nelson

AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY GUIDE

FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE HUMAN SEXUALITY SOCIAL STATEMENT

by Dennis D. Nelson

The task force that is reconsidering the 2009 ELCA social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” has released a study guide that focuses on the whole issue of bound conscience.  They are asking for responses by September 30.

HERE is a link to an article I wrote which described the two reconsiderations that are a part of the process as directed by the 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  The first reconsideration was approved by the 2025 Churchwide Assembly by a vote of 742-46 and consisted of changes which the task force described as “simply editorial.”  In the article I argued that the changes are not “simply editorial.”  Rather they amount to no less than a most radical full embrace of every form of sexual orientation and gender identity.  The second reconsideration, which is being worked on now, is being described as “substantive.”  It is a reconsideration of the whole issue of “bound conscience.”  That is the term which the 2009 social statement uses to describe the fact that people in the ELCA hold different views on same sex relationships.

HERE is a link to the study guide.  It is a series of readings and questions which congregations and individuals can use to reflect on the issues.  The process is set up to consist of two sessions of one hour each, though there is also a way to divide it into four sessions.  This schedule can be found on page 8.

2026 — The task force publishes study materials for congregations.

2027 — A draft of revisions to the social statement will be released for public comment. The task force will consider these comments in revising the draft.

2028 — The ELCA Churchwide Assembly will take action on any proposed revisions.

On page 7 there is a statement that for me has no credibility.  “The end of the process is not pre-determined.”  Leading up to 2009 and ever since 2009 there has been continually less and less space for traditional views.  Why would we expect that the vote in 2028 will be anything other than another step in the same direction? 

As part of the discussion of the first reconsideration at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly a motion was made to remove the phrase “to be a covenant between a man and a woman” from the language “The Christian tradition has historically defined marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman, as reflected in the language of Genesis.”  The rationale for the amendment was that the current wording is harmful to LGBTQ people and does not correspond to their lived experience.  The claim was that merely reminding people that marriage between one man and one woman has been the historic teaching of the church was traumatic and upsetting.  The maker of the motion argued that rather than waiting three more years when bound conscience will be considered, something could be done then to make the social statement less harmful.  The amendment to the amendment was adopted by a vote of 552-211, and the revised social statement was approved by a vote of 742-46.  Two things were going on in this vote.  First, a re-writing of history to eliminate what some people find traumatic, upsetting, hurtful, and harmful.  Second, making truth conform to certain people’s liking and lived experience.

ELCA youth gatherings are grooming events for LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology.  Synods post on Facebook the ways in which they celebrate June as Pride Month.  ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council.  Why would we think that this reconsideration process also will not result in great gains for the LGBTQIA+ cause and community?  The only question is how much will they gain.       

And yet the study guide tries hard to do damage control, emphasizing church unity as it seeks to limit potential losses as a result of the vote on this reconsideration.  For example –

Page 10 – Focusing on God as the source of the church’s unity as well as on our shared vocation “can open our hearts to the many things we hold in common and to the behaviors and values that will support trusting and life-centered relationships.”

Page 13 – “What effect do you think it would have on our conversations about sexuality if we made these core beliefs the glue that holds us together even amid disagreement?”

Page 27 – “Even in disagreement, there is still much upon which this church agrees regarding how we relate to one another.”

Page 35 – “The social statement does not try to solve disagreements but to guide the church in living together amid disagreement.”

Page 14 introduces the example of Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, which they described as focusing on what unites us and being honest about what divides us as it fostered dialogue and renewed relationships.

Page 16 – “The joint statement reflects yearning for unity, but neither the Lutheran church nor the Catholic church lets go of its deepest beliefs.  Dialogue across disagreement does not mean that either side must come to a quick or easy compromise. . . . The joint statement recognizes that these deep disagreements still exist and notes that the two churches commit to remaining in relationship, learning from each other.”

However, there is a huge difference between Lutheran-Catholic dialogue and the ELCA’s reconsideration of bound conscience and same sex relationships.  Because of this huge difference I do not see any relevance in the comparison.  In Lutheran-Catholic dialogue both parties come to the table from a position of strength.  It is a conversation between two fairly equal parties – where neither party is at risk.  That is not the case with ELCA discussions regarding human sexuality.  There is great discrepancy between the strength and resources of the two sides.  One side – those with traditional views – has been continually losing ground.  The other side – those who are working relentlessly to advance LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology – is continually gaining ground.  For one side – those with traditional views – the question is how much will they lose and will there be any kind of place remaining for them.  For the other side the question is how much will they gain.  And even if they do not gain everything they want this time, they will certainly gain some and there will always be a next time.

Finally, there are many references in the study guide to the importance of mutual respect.  For example –

Page 32 – “The social statement calls upon us to live out the moral principle of ‘mutual respect’ amid our disagreements.”

On page 33 we find a section from the social statement which includes these statements –

“In our Christian freedom, we therefore seek responsible actions that serve others and do so with humility and deep respect for the conscience-bound belief of others.”

“This church . . . encourages all people to live out their faith . . . with profound respect for the conscience-bound belief of the neighbor.”

“Regarding our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this church will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral care, and mutual respect.”

I have already mentioned how ELCA youth gatherings have become grooming events for LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology.  At the 2018 youth gathering Nadia Bolz-Weber, ELCA pastor and the ELCA’s first “public theologian,” led 30,000 young people in a chant rejecting traditional views on human sexuality as a lie from Satan.  With the masterful way in which she structured and gave her presentation, she got the response that she wanted.

For me, until and unless the ELCA officially apologizes for and distances itself from this highly manipulative action by and these highly inflammatory comments from Pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber, there is no credibility to the ELCA’s talking about mutual respect.

Page 38 provides a link where people can respond to a survey.  The link will close September 30, 2026.  Additional comments and questions can be sent to the task force at Reconsiderations@ELCA.org.  You can follow the process by visiting ELCA.org/Reconsiderations. 

One thing we can know for sure – no matter how far the ELCA goes, it will not stay there.  It will only get worse. 

HERE is a link to a list of articles that we have written regarding the ELCA covering the period of time between the 2022 and 2025 Churchwide Assemblies along with a summary of the major points from each of these articles. 

We begin with a Review and Evaluation of the 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  This is the gathering that called for the creation of a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and a reconsideration of the 2009 human sexuality social statement, including the whole issue of bound conscience.  We then have two articles regarding the formation of the Commission entitled, “Once You Know the Makeup You Know the Outcome.”

Next we have links to several articles regarding recommendations that came to the 2025 Assembly as a result of actions taken by the 2022 Assembly –

An Analysis of the First Set of Recommendations from the Human Sexuality Social Statement Reconsiderations Task Force

An Analysis of Constitutional Amendments that came from the Church Council to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly

Videos from the Lutheran Congregational Support Network showing the ELCA’s Quest for Greater Control

An Analysis of Recommendations 1 and 7 from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

We then conclude with a Review and Analysis of the 2025 Churchwide Assembly and information showing how the organizers of the triennial ELCA youth gatherings are working relentlessly to groom ELCA youth in LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology.

The ELCA Constitution requires the Church Council to inform synods of recommendations it will be bringing to the Churchwide Assembly six months prior to the Assembly.  So I do not know how much we will know about the 2028 Assembly before early 2028.  During the three years prior to the 2025 Assembly I was struck with how little we were informed regarding the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  They were amazingly non-communicative and non-specific in the written summaries of their meetings.  So I am not hopeful regarding how much we will know about what will be coming to the 2028 Assembly until six months before the Assembly. 

The 2025 Assembly did not go as far as many feared it might go in terms of remaking the ELCA.  The 2028 Assembly might be the time when that happens.  As we become aware of anything specific, we will keep you informed. 

Will the provision for bound conscience be eliminated?  Will the ELCA say that there is no place for traditional views on marriage and human sexuality and those who hold them?

What will be the recommendation of the Secretary of the ELCA regarding the motion for a revised process for the fast-tracking of constitutional amendments that come from the floor?

Will those who are determined to make DEIA mandatory for congregations prevail? 

What will be the shape of and what will come from the “mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives” that are being developed to make dismantling racism central in all parts of the ELCA?

Will the authority of the Bible, the Great Commission, and the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins through faith in the risen Christ have any place in the ELCA?  

We will keep you posted. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congregational Outreach Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Our Disaffiliation Process Looked Like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.