“Your Devotional Journey Through Scripture: A Daily Discipleship Resource”

by Pastor Don Brandt

Many thanks to Doug Schoelles, NALC pastor and member of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his video review of Don Brandt’s new book.  A link to Doug’s video can be found HERE.  A link to our You Tube channel, which contains sixty-seven reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE. 

Doug writes –

I applaud Pastor Don Brandt for addressing a fundamental practice of growing in our faith: How do we study the Bible?  As Lutherans with our mantra of Sola Scriptura we believe the Word of God is for all people. We also believe that God’s Word has something to say to every Christian every day.

But we know that building a consistent devotional pattern is difficult. We get distracted by the mundane, our busyness, and shiny electronic things. I commend Pastor Brandt for laying out a pattern to help people to begin to immerse themselves daily in the Word. Your Devotional Journey is a practical book to help a beginner become a pupil of scripture. The pattern that he gives is relatively simple. He gives advice on how to set yourself up for your quiet time in the Word. I do think he should have given a bigger emphasis to praying for the Holy Spirit to teach us. Only by the gift of the Spirit will the Word be revealed to us and our understanding be grounded in God.

• Read the day’s Bible passage.

Pastor Brandt has selected passages of three to twelve verses from throughout the Bible. I would even suggest they read the passage twice. The work he has done to select passages helps the pupil of the scripture to focus initially on important scripture passages. He has twice as many New Testament lessons as Old Testament passages. Again, this is a beginner’s book. A pupil of the scripture should cover all the scripture, Old and New Testament, over their years and decades.

• Copy 1 to 3 verses of the passage.

We are encouraged to hide the Word in our hearts (Ps 119:11). One of the best ways to learn and memorize scripture is to copy it. Pastor Brandt asks the pupil to write down – copy – 1 to 3 verses of that passage to their prayer journal. This is a good practice. Another practice that could be encouraged is writing down key words or repeated words.

• Read Pastor Brandt’s brief reflection on the passage.

The work he has done to give direction to the pupil of the Word by way of his written reflection and questions is very helpful. Reflection questions are helpful to guide meditation, going deeper, making personal. His reflections focus on the bondage of sin, the character and works of God, and applying the New Life in Christ.

• Write your personal reflections on the passage.

We have read the scripture and even copied, so now what? How does the Word of God apply to my life? The act of writing down our meditation on the Word should lead us to listen for what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. How is the LORD applying this scripture passage to me, to my life, to my sin and to my need for salvation? So, again I applaud Pastor Brandt for encouraging this step.

• Write a prayer of gratitude to God based on the scripture passage.

I was pleasantly surprised that his concluding devotional act was to reflect and write down a “thanksgiving to God.”  Not just what you are thankful for, but to thank God for his work and word in your life. When we ponder the character and works of the LORD that bless our lives, then we will find our unshakeable joy in the LORD (Isa 58:14). This emphasis on gratitude can help the pupil of the scriptures to develop a hunger and thirst for God’s Word because they find something delicious to consume each time.

I commend Pastor Don Brandt’s “Your Devotional Journey Through Scripture” as a practicum that can help Christians to begin and establish a daily time in God’s Word.

We have reached a new milestone when it comes to the median age of currently-serving Protestant pastors.  It is now sixty.  (I deliberately spelled out “sixty” in case any of you would have thought the number “60” was a typo.)  This is the current estimate from author Thom Rainer, founder of Church Answers, an organization focusing on congregational revitalization and outreach.  “Sixty.”  Reflect on that for a moment.  I consider this something of a milestone; and not in a good way.

I realize that my repeated articles regarding the clergy shortage are beginning to sound like a “broken record”; at least to those of you who are old enough to remember what “records” are.  But I am becoming convinced that many denominational leaders, seminary staff, pastors nearing retirement, and congregational leaders are simply not paying attention when it comes to the gravity of this situation.  Or perhaps they do understand the severity of this crisis but are hesitant to acknowledge it publicly.  After all, none of us want to be labeled as “alarmists”.  And then there is always the possibility that the world is about to end, so why worry?  Anecdote: Survey results this last March of 3400 Americans indicate that one third of them believe the world will end in their lifetimes. The New York Times labels this a recent “mainstream apocalypse” world view.

Allow me to speculate on possible questions from those of you who might consider my concerns about the clergy supply situation “alarmist.”

1. “As a pastor who is still a few years from retirement, why should I be overly concerned regarding my congregation’s transition after I leave?”  Answer: Because odds are your congregation will not be able to replace you, and might need to consider “raising up” the next pastor from among your active church members.  And training, mentoring and educating (with online seminary courses) that prospective pastor will take years, not months.

2. “But why would it take years to replace me?”  Answer: Because the current median age of serving pastors is sixty; in case you already forgot.  And because twice as many Lutheran pastors retire each year as there are new seminary students graduating.  To put it bluntly, this crisis is something that is beyond what denominational leaders can manage on their own.  Not because they aren’t trying, but because this crisis is unprecedented.  Unprecedented in my lifetime, and even unprecedented going back a century or more.

3. “As congregational lay-leaders why can’t our church manage even a long-term interim on our own? After all, we might be relatively small and have an older membership, but we are a strong fellowship of believers; both in terms of our commitment and our financial support.”  Answer: Perhaps you can manage a two or three-year transitional interim, but what if it stretches to four or five years or more?  Consider this September/2025 quote from Karl Vaters, a pastor and author who focuses on the challenges faced by smaller churches: “Pastoral transitions are dangerous and traumatic times for churches…Other than the church planting phase, more churches close due to pastoral transition than for any other reason.”

One Current Example of a “Pastor-in-Training” Ministry Initiative

Here is one case of a church seeking to plan ahead when it comes to an upcoming pastoral transition.  Not coincidentally, I happen to be a member of this congregation.

The dual-rostered (LCMC/NALC) congregation I attend is Our Savior’s Lutheran in Salem, Oregon.

Our Savior’s (OSLC) is currently served by one full-time, lead pastor: Tom Hux.  Pastor Hux has announced his plan to retire in four years; at the age of 65.  Just this last April (2026) OSLC formally voted (overwhelmingly) to hire an active member—Greg—to join our congregation’s full-time ministry staff as a lay minister.  His job description is to work three-quarters time to assist Pastor Hux in the area of pastoral care, teaching, worship leadership, and occasional preaching.  However, one quarter of Greg’s full-time position will be devoted to his taking online seminary courses; with the goal of eventually earning a Master of Divinity degree.  The congregation’s hope and expectation is that, once he graduates with his Master of Divinity degree, Greg will then be formally called to serve OSLC as an ordained pastor

So what led OSLC to this point?  These seven developments:

a) In June of 2023 OSLC’s full-time Associate Pastor resigned after serving five years.  This was the beginning of OSLC’s pastoral vacancy.

b) In March of 2024 a call committee was organized to launch a search for a new ordained pastor to serve with Pastor Hux.

c) After a two-year unsuccessful search process, the call committee endorsed—unanimously—a proposal to begin a “pastor-in-training” strategy in an effort to identify and enlist an active lay leader to join OSLC’s ministry staff and—simultaneously—begin an online seminary education.

d) At a special congregational meeting in the fall of 2025 the decision was made to support the formation of a “Pastor-in-Training” team to begin working on pursuing this new ministry strategy.  At this point the call committee would still continue to meet, and OSLC continued to list its pastoral vacancy.

f) In March of this year (2026) a second, special congregational meeting was announced and scheduled (for April 12^th) to vote on hiring our recruit Greg, an active member, as our new lay minister and pastor-in-training.  This upcoming congregational meeting would also be when the call committee—at least temporarily—would disband, and when OSLC’s pastoral vacancy would no longer be posted.

g) One month prior to this upcoming special congregational meeting a Sunday forum was held to introduce Greg to the membership; and to explain the agenda for the congregational meeting. Over 150 members attended this forum.

h) The official congregational meeting (and vote) was held on April 12^th of this year.  Greg spoke to those in attendance prior to the motion and vote.  The vote outcome—by written ballot—was just over 98% in favor of hiring Greg as part of our “pastor-in-training” strategy.

This is, of course, just one congregation’s “journey”; a journey that will be playing out over the next few years.  However, I share these details to make a point: Given the current clergy shortage, churches need to be—more than ever—engaged in advanced planning related to their pastoral transitions.  For Lutheran congregations this is in part about taking the New Testament (and Martin Luther) seriously when it comes to the “priesthood” we all—clergy and laity alike—share as Christ followers.  This clergy shortage will not, in my opinion, be “fixed” in the foreseeable future.  As a result, many congregations will need to organize to be effectively lay-led for the years it will take while one of their active members is educated (online), trained, and mentored for ordained ministry.  This is especially true for smaller churches; but will also be the future faced by many mid-sized and larger congregations.

However, on a less-bleak “note”: We want to keep some historical perspective here.  The first and second century church not only survived but thrived in a Roman Empire that was not only pagan, but  was openly persecuting the Body of Christ.  And that persecution began, needless to say, long before there were seminary-trained clergy available for call.  So we must not forget that, for most of today’s churches, their strength and institutional viability has been built on the commitment of their active members even more than their serving pastors.  And let’s never forget that the local church, when well-led, and guided by the Holy Spirit, is still an incredibly effective means of witnessing to the love and mercy of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the details of how a congregation faces the challenge of a major pastoral transition can be incredibly complex.  There’s nothing “easy” about this.  As a result, the best way to address this challenge always needs to be a strategy customized for the unique characteristics, strengths and mission of each individual congregation.  But perhaps you’re not even sure how to begin when it comes to facing this challenge; whether your time of transition is already happening, or it will be sometime within the next few years.  If that describes what your church is facing, Lutheran CORE’s Congregations in Transition and Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative ministries are available to assist you.

One last thought for you to reflect on: Whenever congregations are about to face a major leadership transition, it is essential that church lay leaders and pastors plan in advance to address this challenge.  Let me be of assistance.  Details for both the CiT and CLI ministries are available on the Lutheran CORE website. 

If you have any questions you can always email me at pastordonbrandt@gmail.com.

In his article in the February issue of First Things, “The Rise and Fall of Gay Activism,” Scott Yenor details the various waves of the gay liberation movement that, beginning around the time I was born, as an outgrowth of the sexual revolution both created and defined what has been the defining pastoral and theological issue for my generation of pastors.  Yenor’s article is a deep-dive on the subject, detailing the thinking and strategies that took same-sex relationships from forbidden, to fringe, to fraught, to front-and-center.  Same-sex attraction has in both the popular and scholarly imagination, gone from disordered to desirable in the space of living memory.  Indeed, among many young people it is seen as in many ways more desirable than heterosexual attraction, as it does not carry with it two great risks; the risk of navigating the natural divide between male and female ways of encountering and engaging reality and the risk of the life-changing effects of pregnancy and parenthood, which necessarily involves the curtailing of one’s own desires for the sake of the children.

“The love that dare not speak its name” is not only shouting it from every height and corner of the culture, but all who do not add their enthusiastic endorsement are publicly regarded with the scorn and opprobrium once reserved for Nazis and the KKK.  When I reposted a link to former New Atheist Aayan Hirsi-Ali’s now-viral essay “Why I Am Now a Christian,” all a high school friend, once a devout Roman Catholic, could reply in response was, “But Christianity still has no place for gay people.”

It was not worth responding to her that Christianity has all the room in the world for people who think of themselves as gay, it just has no ability nor authority to condone or bless same-sex sexual behavior… just as it has no room to do so for much (most?) of the behavior engaged in by heterosexual couples since the sexual revolution.  It was not worth saying that the church is full of sinners who struggle to live out, live up to, and live into the fullness of God’s revealed intentions for not just sex, but the whole panoply of human behaviors.

There was no point in responding because social media is not a place to do pastoral counseling or theology, but rather to engage in rhetorical pugilism and gather an observing crowd whose primary purpose is not to thoughtfully listen and reconsider their own position, but to cheer for the point of view they already espouse. 

In such contexts, truth is not the point.  A generation ago, in a book that still stands without peer or persuasive reply, Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice demonstrated using historical-critical exegesis that orthodox, Biblically-based Christianity not only cannot endorse same-sex behavior, but that there were few moral perspectives in the Scripture more consistently attested to in both Testaments.

Christianity also cannot endorse the central claim of the sexual revolution, the claim that sexual orientation and expression is central to human identity and flourishing.  Biblical Christianity insists that true human flourishing can only be found when one identifies themselves as “in Christ,” and that the human soul is only finally and properly ordered when it regards “everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus [as] Lord’ and gladly suffers “the loss of all things and counts them as rubbish, in order that [it] may gain Christ.” (Phil 3:8) 

As a colleague once helpfully summarized, “The problem is not just what the Bible says about sex, it’s what ignoring that does to Biblical authority.”  Put plainly, what it does is gut Biblical authority.  This may be why on a recent podcast, an ELCA pastor who is a top-notch systematic theologian with a high regard for Biblical authority confessed their dismay at the confession of several ELCA seminarians that most of what they learned at seminary “bashed” the Bible, clearly seeking to undermine its witness in every way.

+ + +

My purpose in this article is not to re-adjudicate the theological disputes that have divided not just the Lutheran communion in this regard, but every Christian communion functioning in the West.  It is also not to outline tactics or strategies to win the erstwhile “culture war”—Yenor does that in his article, and besides, in my estimation, Christianity has been decisively on the back foot culturally since it accepted what social historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead termed “expressive divorce’ thirty years after the legalization of no-fault divorce.

My purpose is rather to point out that the Church needs to be not only teaching faithfully what Christian life entails, it must be preparing her members for the distrust, resistance, revulsion, and sometimes betrayal of those they love because of it, particularly in the area of sexual behavior.  I have had more than one person to whom I ministered and who at one time both embraced and professed the Christian faith reject that faith so that they could embrace a “sexual identity” or demonstrate public support for behaviors that are clearly at variance with the requirements of Biblical Christianity in the realms of sexual identity, sexual behavior, and the related area of the sanctity of human life.  Occasionally, such people have gone so far as to excoriate me publicly or cut off contact with me.

This hurts, and we do nobody any favors by pretending that it doesn’t.  In fact, we must prepare people as we teach them not only the negative demands of God’s Word regarding sexual issues, but also the exhortations of God to ongoing faithfulness and trust in that Word and the promises of God that He will both help us in that steadfastness and reward us for it in the fulness of time.

What this means is that the Church needs to be catechizing her congregants on how to be resilient, long-suffering, and loving toward those who reject them or their faith.  We must be teaching our people to have the trust and steadfastness of purpose that Monica, the mother of Augustine, showed for the twenty seven years that she prayed for her son’s conversion from sensualism and Manichaeanism.  Augustine ultimately became one of the greatest theologians in Church history, but he did not get there without the Lord working through his mother’s prayers.  We must teach our people to be a Monica for every Augustine in their lives… especially when they despair of that person ever changing.

What we can be sure of is this; learning to face persecution, pray unswervingly, and love those who scorn us is the very essence of becoming more Christ-like in our character.  As an Orthodox friend once said to me (Orthodoxy has a rather more fraught regard for Augustine’s theology than Lutheranism), “We are pretty sure Augustine was a saint… we are POSITIVE that his mother was!”

The church’s pastoral ministry has always been long-suffering when it comes to helping people live into the Christian standards of chastity outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage, and most pastors I knew prior to Obergefell and the concomitant liberalization of ecclesiastical disciplines that began to be officially enacted around that time were caring and deeply sensitive in their pastoral work with their LGB (T’s and Q’s were beyond the horizon as of then) members.  The Church can be infinitely patient with sinners, but it cannot redefine sin, for if we do, we end up proclaiming nothing but our faith in our own contemporary judgments—and such affirmations are deficient in their ability to console or  instruct when sin, death, and the devil inevitably come knocking, for they lack the substance of revealed truth, which is the heart of the Word of God.

For the sake of the wellbeing and comfort of both Her members and those who do not yet call Christ Lord, the Church needs to be preparing its members for misunderstanding, resentment, and even persecution from those who reject “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” especially the people closest to them and especially in regards to sexual issues.  To do less is spiritual malpractice… and it will mean the eventual caving of orthodoxy to the spirit of the age.

…was the last time in the Pulpit,
The last time serving Holy Communion,
The last time preaching the love of Christ,

Then I am humbled to have been
Called to serve Your People, Lord.
I count it all joy!

Thank you, Lord, for Your Holy Word.
I know you were there, Lord of Mercy,
In that Country Church.

You were there in the faith of the people.
In the music.  In the liturgy.  In Holy Communion.
All is good. I have been so blessed.

+

If now is the time to step back
to enjoy Your Stillness, O Lord,
To embrace Prayer as a Call to
Ministry in my Sunset years…

…To Pray for a Revival in Your Church
With tears of Gratitude in My Heart,
Thank You for the Years.

+

I pray for Wisdom, Lord.
I ask not to be that Old Pastor
Tripping and Falling 
On the Church Steps. Again. 

I ask for Clearness of Mind, 
Not to be irrelevant.
Mis-speaking the words, 
Repeating myself; Staying too long. 

If it is Your Will, let your servant gently
fade away as Your Light Shines On
Brighter and Brighter into the future. 

Lord, please bless the time remaining:
Bless My Family.  If now is the time
to step back, it was all worth it.  

With Gratitude in My Heart, 
All Glory be to the Triune God:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  
Amen and Amen.

In Ten Years? 

Who is going to be sitting in the pews in ten years’ time?  Ryan Burge, a Baptist pastor and professor, does statistical analysis about religion in America.¹ The research he does shows that 40% of Generation Z, ages 18 to 30, have no professed religious faith. “In 1972, about 2/3 of folks who were raised in a non-religious household switched to a religious affiliation in adulthood.”² Today nearly 80% of young adults who grew up in non-religious households remain without religious affiliation. This means that when the GenZ have kids they will be raising atheists. So a growing number of unbelievers will be raising more unbelievers which will decrease the number of Christians in our society.

On the other hand, as the older generations go onto the Church Triumphant this will also decrease the number of Christians in our society. The Church in the United States has been in a lull for about a decade where congregations are declining but still able to conduct their ministry. But this won’t be the case in another 10 years because very quickly many, many congregations will so diminish in size they will not have the numbers of people necessary to conduct evangelistic ministry. The language Ryan Burges uses to describe the inevitable decline of most Protestant denominations is “free fall”.³ Now, St. John’s has been blessed so we have a better distribution of ages than many congregations. But still . . . .

Who Sets the Agenda?

The question for your church and many other congregations is, “Do we feel compelled enough for our continued existence and for the sake of the Gospel to get out of our comfort zone to reach the unchurched?” 

Admittedly, the selfish motivation of reaching new people for the purpose of a congregation’s continued existence is not particularly inspired and actually comes across as manipulative. But maybe, the fear of our decline might cause us to look Jesus’ way.

Jesus would tell us that a more compelling motivation for reaching new people and raising up disciples is that Jesus is for sinners. In other words, the whole purpose of Jesus’ ministry is to reach and save sinners.⁴ The supply of those never runs out.

The first challenge for every congregation is who owns the church and gets to set the direction of the church. Congregations fight about this all the time. The strange truth, however, is that this question has been settled. Jesus asserts over and over again that he is Lord and sets the agenda.

He tells Peter that He Jesus will build the church and that the church will be able to take down demonic barriers.⁵ Paul repeatedly reminds us that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.⁶  Until one of us dies on the cross and is raised from the dead, the church is bought and paid for by Christ. Even more, Christ and His Spirit sustain the Church. So we can claim no ownership.

Rather we are servants of the most high Lord. Jesus doesn’t ask nicely if we want to do his work. He commands. “Follow me.” “I will make you fish for people.” “Go and make disciples.”  Jesus doesn’t ask “please?”  He is Lord of the Church and he commands us. “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.”⁷

“I Am Going to Send You”

We do not have to worry though because Jesus our Lord doesn’t send us empty handed or even to rely upon ourselves. Consider this passage from Luke 24.

⁴⁴ He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” ⁴⁵ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.⁴⁶ He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,⁴⁷ and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.⁴⁸ You are witnesses of these things. ⁴⁹ I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” ⁵⁰ When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. ⁵¹ While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. ⁵² Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.⁵³ And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.⁸

We learn:

• That Jesus is the fulfillment of all of God’s promises and that God continues to fulfill the promises in Christ in and through His Church.
• That the LORD opens up our minds so we may understand the Scriptures and faith be born in us. This should encourage us to pray the LORD will open the minds of new people to see Christ is their Savior through the Word.
• That God works in people through the proclamation of the Word to produce repentance and gives the forgiveness of sins that implants new life.
• That Jesus commands his disciples to spread this gospel to all people, not just where they are comfortable, like in Jerusalem.
• That He has clothed his Church with power from on High as the Father promised. We have received the Holy Spirit to carry out this mission.
• That the Ascended Lord blesses his Church as he reigns in heaven over all of creation.
• That we his earthly Church are to worship and praise God with great joy.

The challenge for us is to take Christ Jesus at his word. To follow and obey him. To rely on His Word and His Spirit to do this mission. To see the Ascended Lord as our savior and master. To devote our lives to joyfully worship and praise God with our every breath.

Jesus has promised if we will live according to his Word, he will grow his church. If we will live joyfully worshipping and relying on the LORD we will have something to share with this sin-soaked society.

May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you all a spirit of unity with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom. 15:5-6)

Your servant in the Gospel, Pastor Douglas

Citations:
¹ https://substack.com/@ryanburge
²  Burge, Ryan, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1F6QCKT6CD/
³  Burge, Ryan, “When Are Half Your Members Going to be Dead?: The tipping point for many denominations is not that far away.” https://substack.com/home/post/p-180956489
⁴ Mark 2:17, John 3:17, 1 Tim 1:15
⁵ Matt 16:18
⁶ Eph 5:23-26, Eph 4:15, Col 1:18, Eph 1:22, Col 2:16-23
⁷ John 20:21
⁸ Luke 24:44–53

While I have written about the clergy shortage in the past, my concern continues to grow for churches who are, or soon will be, dealing with a pastoral vacancy.  Keep in mind that this concern of mine isn’t just about the current shortage of pastors available for call.  In fact, if I could be convinced that this “shortage” has plateaued and will be corrected within the next few years, I would relax and stop obsessing.

However, this clergy supply crisis has not plateaued and in fact continues to grow more severe. For example, consider the two largest Lutheran denominations in North America and what they are facing when it comes to the shortage of pastors.  I am referring to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS).  An ELCA internal study released in early 2025 stated that each year twice as many ELCA pastors retire as there are seminarians graduating.  (And keep in mind that the ELCA still has seven seminaries!)  Moreover, Portico Benefit Services, the ELCA’s retirement fund, estimated in 2025 that forty percent of ELCA pastors would be retiring within five years.  The LCMS, the second largest Lutheran denomination in North America, reported that, as of 2019, they had approximately 6,000 serving pastors.  Their forecast, based on trends in 2019, was that by 2034 they would only have about 3,000 serving pastors.  That’s right: a 50 percent decrease.

No doubt most of you reading this belong to either an NALC or LCMC congregation.  If that is the case perhaps you are thinking, “Wait a minute; since the above statistics and forecasts are for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, they certainly do not apply to NALC and LCMC congregations.”  Well if that’s indeed what you’re thinking, don’t fool yourself.  The current clergy-supply crisis is not only national; it’s cross-denominational.

This means that every year that passes we are dealing with an increasing number of call committees seeking a pastor from among a rapidly shrinking number of available clergy. 

As if this isn’t enough to contribute to my “obsession” over this “existential” congregational crisis, allow me to point out additional causes for my alarm: Even though national church bodies and seminaries are aware of this growing clergy-supply crisis, I’m not convinced they are able to do enough to effectively address it.  And if I’m right about this, it means that—in many if not most cases—congregations will need to “step up” and take the initiative to secure their long-term pastoral leadership.  And that will require “thinking outside the box”; especially when considering the manner in which U.S. Lutheran congregations, over the last 100 years, have traditionally filled their pastoral vacancies.

What’s needed in 2026 and beyond will be many congregations taking full ownership of the pastoral supply process by enlisting and “calling” their future pastoral leaders from among their own church members.  To explain this ministry strategy more fully, consider one possible scenario as it was implemented at the hypothetical Grace Lutheran Church located in the American Midwest.

Grace Lutheran’s Scenario

Grace Lutheran is located in an economically stable, small city in the upper Midwest.  The congregation was and is financially sound and has just over one hundred worshipers attending on a typical Sunday.  A few years ago, Grace Lutheran’s pastor, Pastor Olson (of course), announced publicly that he would be retiring within one to two years. This came as something of a surprise to many members since Pastor Olson is active, in good health, and had already served the congregation for twenty-two years.  In his announcement Pastor Olson explained that he was willing, if needed, to stay the entire two additional years, but was also ready to leave sooner if the congregation was able to find and call the “right” pastor—whether an interim pastor or their next long-term pastor.

The Council at Grace immediately “got to work” and became a kind of “transition team” to address their upcoming pastoral vacancy.  Then, within six months, the Council recruited a Call Committee and secured congregational approval for these new Committee members.

Due to the extreme shortage of available ordained Lutheran pastors, the Call Committee began to think, after nine months, that the “right” pastor might not be “out there”.  This was not only the case in regards to a candidate for their long-term “permanent” call; it was also true when it came to finding a short-term interim pastor.  As this search process dragged out to a full year, Call Committee and Council members begin to become disheartened and demoralized.  It wasn’t that they didn’t have any applicants for their position.  However, the few pastors that did apply were either unqualified for Grace Lutheran’s call, or they were interviewing with multiple call committees and ended up eventually withdrawing their names from consideration. The two-year deadline until Pastor Olson’s retirement began to “loom on the horizon.”

However, as an LCMC congregation, Grace Lutheran started to think “outside the box” when it came to the challenge of securing their future long-term pastoral leadership.  They became aware of two complimentary ministry strategies which helped bring clarity as to how to address this challenge. One ministry strategy was Lutheran CORE’s Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative (CLI), and the other was the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) “Contract Call” option.  The church Council, the Call Committee, and even Pastor Olson began to consider new and exciting possibilities for identifying, enlisting and “calling” their next pastor.

The LCMC “Contract Call” model was (and is) described on their national website.  It was part of the LCMC website’s “Call Packet” and was described in detail in the “Glossary/Definitions in the Call Process” section on pages 19 and 20.

Portions of this “definition” included the following: “Congregations may call an individual to serve in their congregation with a contract call.  LCMC respects the freedom of each congregation to call pastors they discern are most appropriate for their ministry.  A congregation may enter into a contract call arrangement with any person who will subscribe to LCMC’s Statement of Faith and Pastoral Admonition, including the characteristic practices of the sacraments in the Lutheran tradition…Contract call pastors are strongly encouraged to be in an ongoing mentoring relationship with a certified LCMC pastor and to receive basic training for pastoral ministry and Lutheran theology…LCMC encourages all pastors to continue their education and specifically encourages contract call pastors to continue education with consideration of certification.” (And possibly pursuing a Master of Divinity degree.)

The second “ministry model” the Grace leaders discovered was the Lutheran CORE’s Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative (CLI).   CLI provided a step-by-step process to identify, enlist, train, educate and “call” one or more of their own lay leaders to begin a process of taking online seminary courses; and possibly working toward becoming an ordained Lutheran pastor. The “working toward” process would include serving in a part-time pastoral ministry role at Grace Lutheran while also beginning to take online seminary courses that could lead to a Master of Divinity degree.  The “steps” for this ministry model were (and are) found on the CLI slider on the Lutheran CORE website.  And the primary written resource on that slider was (and is) entitled, “How Your Congregation Can Identify, Enlist and Train Part-time Lay Ministers”.

As the Grace Lutheran Council and Call Committee members began to explore this new vision for securing their pastoral leadership, they also began studying New Testament passages that emphasized the (Lutheran) understanding of the “priesthood of (all) believers” as referenced in 1^st Peter chapter 2; and the ministry gifts of the Holy Spirit as described in 1^st Corinthians chapters 12 through 14, Ephesians chapter 4, and Romans chapter 12.

And all of this discussion and study was of course accompanied by prayer.  This was especially true when the discussion topic was, “who among our active members might God be calling to the pastoral ministry?”  In the context of these prayers and discussion two Grace Lutheran lay leaders came to mind; both with a long history as active Grace members.  In addition, these two members exhibited a deep personal faith, and had the requisite pastoral ministry gifts.  Finally, both candidates knew the majority of Grace Lutheran members on a first-name basis.  The decision was to extend this ministry “call” to both members; knowing that the congregation would be fortunate if even one accepted, and twice-blessed if both said yes.

Grace Lutheran was indeed fortunate because both Natalie (an empty-nest mother) and John (an active, recently-retired teacher) accepted the “call” to become “contract pastors” at Grace Lutheran.  All that remained was to work out—with each of them—the details of their employment “contracts”; including the number of pastoral-ministry hours they would work in a typical week, the stipends they would be paid, and their specific responsibilities.  Also negotiated in these contracts was the expectation the congregation would have as to which online seminary courses they might take.  (Tuition for these courses would be paid by the congregation.)  Finally, Pastor Olson, still a few months from his retirement, agreed to be the mentoring pastor for both John and Natalie; at least until his official retirement.  After his retirement the Council would seek an LCMC pastor to mentor John and Natalie online.

————————————————————————————————————————-

     The hypothetical example of Grace Lutheran probably does not answer all of your questions.  Consequently, there are three things I want to point out:

1. Since this is a ministry model that assumes a congregation’s total ownership of the process, your church has the freedom to customize this strategy to address both your congregation’s specific expectations, and the needs and gifts of your future “contract pastor(s)”.  Needless to say, I can’t anticipate what those might be in the case of your congregation.

2. The above scenario pertains to an LCMC congregation.  If your church belongs to the North American Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, or the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, you would then need (obviously) to work within your denomination’s guidelines and expectations.

3. Finally, I am available—by email, phone or online—to answer any questions you might have which I do not address in this article.

Pastor Don Brandt
Lutheran CORE’s Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative (CLI)
pastordonbrandt@gmail.com
503-559-2034

In our January and February 2022 publications I wrote a two-part article which explored the question of how the LGBTQ+ agenda and community were able to be so successful in completely taking over the ELCA and in such a short time.  Here are links to that two-part article, which I entitled, “How Did It Happen?” – LINK and LINK.  

I described the strategies and principles of Community Organizing as outlined in a resource from ReconcilingWorks, “Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit” (BIC).  Here is a link to that Toolkit – Building an Inclusive Church – ReconcilingWorks.

On its website ReconcilingWorks describes its mission in this way.  “Since 1974, ReconcilingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation has advocated for the full welcome, inclusion, and equity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual/aromantic (LGBTQIA+) Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church, congregations, and community.”  

The Toolkit outlines steps to take to gain the support of Early Adopters, the Early Majority, and enough of the Late Majority in order to achieve the 75% approval vote that is required by ReconcilingWorks for an organization to become Reconciling in Christ (RIC).

I am a retired ELCA pastor, rostered in the Grand Canyon Synod.  I attended one of the recent Spring Conference Assemblies.  At the gathering it was mentioned that a motion will be coming to the 2027 Synod Assembly that the Synod become Reconciling in Christ and (typical of the ELCA) that there be a full year of study and discussion leading up to the vote.  It was also said that ReconcilingWorks is no longer a one-issue organization.  It is no longer focused solely on the welcome and inclusion of all forms of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.  It is also concerned for the full welcome and inclusion of people of all races as well as differently abled people.   

With their approach of building relationships and capitalizing on shared values, I immediately recognized Community Organizing.

I wrote to the Bishop of my Synod, stating that I found the presentation to be manipulative, questionable, unfair, and unjust.    

What is manipulative is adding the inclusion and welcome of people of all races and differently abled people to the meaning of being Reconciling in Christ.  I assume that is being done in order to “grease the skids” and gain support for a more wide-spread acceptance of the inclusion and welcome of people of all sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions. 

What is questionable is the statement that the focus of being Reconciling in Christ has been expanded from being merely LGBTQ+ welcoming and inclusive to also being welcoming and inclusive of people of all races and as well as differently abled people. 

The website of ReconcilingWorks does not speak so clearly of such an expansion of concern.  Here is a link to their website – Home – ReconcilingWorks. 

True, the description of “Our Vision” and “Our Values” in the purple rectangles on their Home Page does not restrict their attention solely to LGBTQ+ persons as the purple rectangle “Our Mission” does, but still it appears that the local, Grand Canyon Synod task force – I assume following the principles of Community Organizing as outlined in the Toolkit and in order to gain wider support – is misrepresenting what it means to be Reconciling in Christ by giving their own, expanded definition and version of Reconciling in Christ.   If the local task force has a definition and meaning of being Reconciling in Christ that is not the same as the definition and meaning of ReconcilingWorks as a whole, then the local task force should not use the term Reconciling in Christ.   

I clearly remember a few years ago the tensions between the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) LGBTQ+ community and the non-BIPOC LGBTQ+ community within Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries after the dust up in the ELCA’s Sierra Pacific Synod regarding former bishop Megan Rohrer (the ELCA’s first transgender bishop).  I would be surprised if there is now such peace and harmony between these two groups that the LGBTQ+ community is willing to share equally the spotlight with the BIPOC community.  

That is what is manipulative and questionable.  What is unfair and unjust is the way in which people who are welcoming of all races, are concerned for differently abled people, and hold traditional views on marriage and sexuality who therefore vote No on the resolution that the Grand Canyon Synod become Reconciling in Christ will then be made to appear as racist and uncaring.  People who hold traditional views on marriage and sexuality will be further isolated and stigmatized.  For example, the “Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit” calls those with traditional views Laggards. (Which does not sound inclusive to me.)  Once again, the truly marginalized in the ELCA will not be the LGBTQ+ community (who constantly claim that they are marginalized) but those who hold traditional views.

Either way – whether ReconcilingWorks as a whole is now expanding its focus to include people of all races and differently enabled people or the Grand Canyon Synod Task Force is coming up with its own version of what it means to be Reconciling in Christ – either way this is an example of the strategy of Community Organizing.  ReconcilingWorks – either as an entire organization or at the Grand Canyon Synod level – is setting people up so that if they are open and welcoming to all races and differently abled people, then they certainly will be just as open and welcoming to all forms of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

One of the joyful and fruitful youth ministry efforts the NALC has developed in recent years is our Online Confirmation Program. What began as a practical response to a real need has become a meaningful way to help congregations form young people in the Christian faith.

Across the NALC, we have many small congregations, congregations without pastors, and congregations with only one or two confirmation-age students. In many of these settings, offering a full confirmation program can be difficult. Yet the need remains the same: young people must be grounded in God’s Word, taught the faith faithfully, and prepared to live as baptized children of God within the life of the Church.

That is where the Online Confirmation Program has proven to be such a gift.

Four years ago, we launched this ministry with just seven students. Last year, that number grew to thirty-five. This growth reflects both the need for the program and the value it has already shown in the lives of students and congregations.

The NALC Online Confirmation Program is a two–yearcourse of study that meets weekly during the school year. Together, students work carefully through the Bible and Luther’s Small Catechism, building a solid foundation in Christian faith and discipleship. Classes are held on Zoom, allowing students from many different places and time zones to learn together regularly.

But this program is about much more than convenience.

From a Lutheran perspective we know, confirmation is not simply a graduation from Sunday School or a cultural rite of passage. It is part of the Church’s work of catechesis, teaching the faith into which young people have already been baptized. In Holy Baptism, God places His name on us, forgives our sins, unites us to Christ, and gives us the Holy Spirit. Confirmation instruction helps students grow in the knowledge of those gifts so that they may trust God’s promises, confess the faith, and live as disciples of Jesus.

One of the strengths of the NALC’s online program is that it connects teaching, mentoring, and congregational life. In addition to weekly class sessions, students are expected to meet regularly with a mentor in their congregation and to serve actively in congregational life at least twice a month. This is deeply important. The Christian faith is not learned only in a classroom; it is lived in the Church. Students need not only instruction, but also relationships, encouragement, and opportunities to practice serving others in Jesus’ name.

This is one of the greatest benefits of the program: it supports the work of the local congregation rather than replacing it. Even though the teaching happens online, students remain connected to their own congregation through worship, service, and mentoring. In this way, online confirmation becomes a tool to strengthen congregational life while also providing consistent and faithful instruction.

Another strength is the team-teaching approach. Each class has a minimum of four instructors, allowing students to hear from different NALC pastors and lay leaders. This gives students the benefit of different teaching styles and voices while still receiving instruction that is rooted in the same Lutheran confession of faith. It also reminds students that they are part of something larger than their own congregation. They belong to the wider Body of Christ.

Students themselves have spoken about how valuable this experience has been. One student shared:

“Online Confirmation has been an incredible experience. Even though our confirmation class at my church is small, having the opportunity to meet online with other students my age from different places has made it feel much bigger and more connected.”

That same student also appreciated hearing from different teachers:

“Hearing from different leaders gives us a variety of perspectives and helps me understand my faith more deeply.”

Another student, who is the only young person in their congregation, reflected on the relationships formed through the program:

“Through participating in Online Confirmation, I have been able to connect with other people from different areas… I have learned a lot about God’s Word through online confirmation and I really have enjoyed the past year and a half of learning and building connections.”

These comments capture an important part of the program’s value. For students who may feel isolated in their own congregation, online confirmation provides not only teaching, but also fellowship. They are reminded that they are not alone. They are part of a larger church body, learning and growing alongside other young Christians.

In a time when many youth are surrounded by confusion, competing ideas, and shallow understandings of faith, clear catechesis matters. Students need more than vague spirituality. They need the Scriptures. They need the Catechism. They need to know what God has done for them in Christ and how that shapes their lives.

As Lutherans, we confess that the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God to create and sustain faith. That remains true whether students are gathered in one classroom or connected across many places. What matters most is that they are being drawn more deeply into the life of Christ through His Word, His promises, and His Church.

And that is exactly what this program seeks to do.

We will resume classes for returning students in September. At this time, we are planning to offer the second-year class on Monday evenings and the first-year class on Thursday evenings. We encourage congregations to begin considering whether this program would be helpful for their students. We would also like new students to register by the end of August.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact:

Pastor Teresa Peters
Director of Youth and Family Ministry
tpeters@thenalc.org

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.