The 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly passed two resolutions that called for reconsideration of the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

• Reconsideration #1: A review of specific text references that “would consider the import that marriage legally is now a covenant between individuals;” review specific wording “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples;” and “consider references to diversity of family configurations.”
• Reconsideration #2: A fresh consideration 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 has been appointed to work on these reconsiderations will have recommendations for the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1.  They describe these recommendations as “simply editorial.”  After the 2025 Assembly the task force will begin work on Reconsideration # 2.  This work will include recommendations which have been described as substantive.

The task force has released draft edits related to the first reconsideration, and the public comment period on these draft edits is open until January 31.  The following resources can be found on www.elca.org/Reconsiderations.

• A copy of the entire social statement with draft edits underlined and highlighted
• A document with Explanations of the Draft Edits, which helps connect each draft edit to the authorization from the 2022 Churchwide Assembly
• A conversation guide for groups
• A survey for people to submit their feedback on the draft edits

The task force has also updated the FAQs on the webpage.  Most of the resources are available in Spanish and large-print.

The task force will review the feedback at its next meeting in mid-February.  You can email comments or questions directly to the task force at reconsiderations@elca.org, but they would prefer that people fill out the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8PMDXQM.

I am very grateful for the two opportunities I was given to have conversation via zoom with the two churchwide staff members who are working with the task force.  I found them very easy to talk with and very respectful of my views and concerns.  When I was asked what hopes I had for the process, I told them that I have no hopes for the process.  Rather it is obvious that from the beginning there have been powerful and preferred voices who have been working relentlessly to eliminate the provision for bound conscience and that if they do not succeed this time they will not stop until they eventually succeed.  Also I believe that when the ELCA does finally eliminate the provision for bound conscience, it will be committing a massive breach of trust. 

Please join with me in praying for the friend of Lutheran CORE who is a member of the task force.  Pray that he will be bold in his witness and clear, articulate, effective, and compelling in his contributions to the discussion.

I encourage friends of Lutheran CORE who are still in the ELCA to participate in this feedback process.  There are basically two things that I have to say about changes being recommended as part of Reconsideration # 1.  I have sent this communication to the leaders of the task force as my response.

Comment # 1

The original 2009 social statement was 48 pages in length.  The document containing recommendations related to Reconsideration # 1 is 51 pages in length.  True, the recommended changes are clearly highlighted and the “Explanation of the Draft Edits” is only 11 pages in length.  But why are ELCA social statements always so long, convoluted, and complex?  How many people – what percentage of people – do they really think will thoroughly and carefully read, analyze, and evaluate all those pages?  It is easy to wonder whether the reason for so much verbiage is to include things in all those words and pages that people will not catch.

Comment # 2 

I do not believe that the task force is being accurate when it calls the recommended changes in Reconsideration # 1 “simply editorial.”  Nor was a January 7 communication from the Theological Ethics Staff of the Office of the Presiding Bishop accurate when it described them as “small word changes that update the text without changing its meaning.”        

To support that claim I would point to the resolution’s calling for changes “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  The key phrase is “gender non-conforming couples.”  The 2009 social statement affirmed publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships.  The new wording being recommended goes beyond that as it considers “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples” (page 19 of the “Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits”).  On the same page it speaks of “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.”  A footnote on that page defines “gender diverse” as encompassing “a wide diversity of identities and expressions in relationships between individuals, including gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender persons.”  That kind of change is far more than “simply editorial” and “small word changes” that do not change the meaning.    True, the recommended revised version still says, “The predominant historic Christian tradition has recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, reflecting Mark 10: 6–9” (page 15).  It also states, “The Lutheran Confessions assume and reflect this understanding of marriage” (pages 15-16).  But it is neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions that inform the recommended changes, but “public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  Those with traditional views knew that the ELCA would not stop with what was approved in 2009.  Nor will it stop with what is now being recommended in this revised social statement.         

In my last article I detailed a way you could tell that “Progressive Christianity” was in fact an alternative to Christianity, namely that it held different things sacrosanct and considered other things blasphemous than Christians have since Apostolic times.  This month I will note another way in which we can see this truth demonstrated—to whom and for whom progressive Christians feel responsible.

In a recent Core Christianity podcast, Pr. Adriel Sanchez detailed an encounter he had with a “progressive Christian” pastor.  According to Pr. Sanchez, this pastor (who goes unnamed in the broadcast) was the author of a book arguing that the Bible does not proscribe homosexual behavior and that the Church had used the classic prooftexts in this regard to abuse same-sex attracted people since its inception.  Since the pastor was a neighbor, Pr. Sanchez had acquired and read the book.  His critical evaluation was that the “way in which he was approaching the Scriptures was incorrect; that rather than just letting them speak for themselves and understanding them in their context, he was twisting them and allowing—essentially—the current cultural social ethic to drive his interpretation of the Bible.”

Nothing too radical here.  This kind of critique of another theologian has characterized necessary dialogue within the Church in every era, from Irenaeus to the present day, on issues as diverse as whether Christians can ethically serve in the military to the nature of Christ’s Deity.  Indeed, though Pr. Sanchez has the advantage of time since the incident and not being engaged in a debate while presenting his story, he shows no non-verbal animosity while presenting his critique.

When he happened to have a chance meeting with this author in a local coffee shop, it seems that the conversation he engaged was handled civilly, if coolly, until Pr. Sanchez challenged the author on an issue core to their identity as pastors rather than mere theologians, pastoral rebuke as an expression of spiritual care.  Pr. Sanchez asked him, “As a pastor, when you have someone in your church whom you believe is doing something that you do think is sinful—maybe they’re abusive to their spouse or maybe they’re stealing or whatever it might be—how do you confront them lovingly as a pastor while challenging the sinful behavior?”  At that point his interlocutor after a moment of apparent shock said, “I can’t believe you asked me that question.  That was an offensive question to ask me, and [essentially] you should be ashamed of yourself.”  When Pr. Sanchez then tried to explain that he really did want to understand the other pastor’s position, the supercilious author declaimed, “No; you need to understand that you are offensive, and you need to accept that… and this conversation is over.”  Upon which he stood up and left.

I do an extensive treatment of this episode in my own podcast, but to summarize my observations, the pastor who walked away from the conversation with Pr. Sanchez clearly did not feel accountable to him as a fellow clergyman or Christian, a member of the “One Holy Catholic [Universal] and Apostolic Church.”  The issue of how to deal with these texts is a lively issue throughout the worldwide Church with most Christians (read: non-Western Christians) siding with Pr. Sanchez, but the other pastor still presumed to speak to him as a person possessing authority over him; “you need to understand… you need to accept.”

In what hierarchy did the author of the book possess more authority than Pr. Sanchez?  Clearly not the hierarchy of the Church. To what community standards did this pastor feel accountable? Whose good opinion did he crave or perhaps fear losing? Again, not those of a Church whose existence preceded him and that will endure until Christ “comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.”  Did he by walking away from a conversation with a fellow bearer of the name of Christ show love for him, reason together with him, or even engage him in the sort of loving rebuke Pr. Sanchez queried him about to such great offense?  Did he even from his own point of view show love for the same-sex attracted individuals whom Pr. Sanchez might encounter in the course of his ministry?

No, the community to which and for which this pastor felt accountable was clearly not the “beloved community” of those baptized into Christ, but rather defined in some other way.

Though they were heretics, Arius, Valentinus, and Pelagius knew that their primary accountability was to the Church of Jesus Christ.  Though history has judged them to be in error, they fought for what they seem to have sincerely believed was its good and perhaps even what was necessary for the salvation of its members.  Indeed, they garner the appellation “heretic” only because they so earnestly fought for and remain accountable to the life of the Church Herself—because they are at least erstwhile Christians.

I believe that Progressive Christianity functionally (if not formally) quickly ceases to be Christian in any historically recognizable way precisely because of what this pastor’s behavior demonstrated, that it considers itself—and more importantly, the Church’s proclamation—accountable to standards that originate outside the Church and people whose lives are lived beyond its bounds.

This January marks the end of my term as President of Lutheran CORE.  I have been on the board of CORE since 2019.  In that time, my own congregation held a successful vote to leave the ELCA.  As a result, the fate of the ELCA will not have a direct impact on me and my congregation.  Nevertheless, with the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly approaching, I wanted to share some final thoughts about the denomination of which I was a part for 35 years. 

When I think about the direction of the ELCA in 2024, the words “no way to slow down” come to mind.  In case you don’t recognize those words, they come from the song Locomotive Breath by the rock band Jethro Tull.  It tells the story of a runaway train.  The refrain says, “Old Charlie stole the handle / and the train it won’t stop going / no way to slow down.” 

I have begun to wonder whether the bishops of the ELCA are less like the engineer of the train, and more like the unwilling passenger.  In my interactions with bishops and various other church leaders over the years, they always seemed to have a standard response to any question about the future of the ELCA.  Whenever I would share a concern, the answer I would get was, “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.” 

Are you concerned that “bound conscience” will be ignored, or worse yet, rescinded?  “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.”  Are you afraid that ELCA pastors will be required to preach and teach in accord with ELCA social statements?  “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.”  Are you afraid that the ELCA will close congregations and seize their assets to fund the church’s bureaucracy?  “Don’t worry. That will never happen.”

That is what we are told.  However, I also remember being told that the group “Naked and Unashamed” was a fringe group that would have no influence on the ELCA.  I remember being assured that seminary faculties would not be purged of those holding to orthodox teaching on marriage, the Trinity, Christology, or salvation.  I remember being assured that ELCA Advocacy would defend the right of religious organizations to adhere to traditional teachings on marriage.  All of those assurances proved to be empty. 

In 2019, one of the primary demands of “Naked and Unashamed” was met.  The ELCA removed the requirement that unmarried rostered leaders remain chaste and abstinent from Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.  At least three seminaries have seen purges of faculty or staff take place.  ELCA Advocacy declined to publicly support the freedom of religious institutions to follow their bound consciences in regard to marriage. 

Why do bishops resort to such empty promises?  You could argue that they are simply dishonest.  That may be true in some cases.  However, I think that explanation is too easy.  I think it might be the case that the bishops are afraid.  They are afraid to tell people the truth.  First of all, they are afraid of what will happen to the ELCA if too many people decide to leave at the same time.  Secondly, they are afraid of what will happen to them if they tell the truth.  There is an unnamed group of people who will make life very difficult for any bishop that steps out of line. 

Who are these unnamed people?  I can’t say for sure.  All I can say is that there is a sense in which the ELCA is a runaway locomotive that is outside of the control of its bishops.  Someone else is at the throttle and the brake handle has been stolen.  Even if a wreck is imminent, some think it is better to keep the passengers calm.  That’s why groups like Lutheran CORE have to sound the alarm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks to LCMC pastor Daniel Ostercamp for his video review of the book, “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure,” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.  A link to Daniel’s review can be found here.  A link to our YouTube channel, which contains over four dozen reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found here.    

Regarding the book, Daniel writes –

Successful societies find ways to teach their youth the timeless wisdom needed to build good lives.  In this thoughtful and accessible book, a free speech lawyer (Lukianoff) and a social psychologist (Haidt) demonstrate how a generation of Americans is being set up to fail.

Three “Great Untruths” have become part and parcel of our educational process.  Safetyism has replaced our innate need for challenge and stressors, the false advice to “always trust your feelings” has curved us ever more inward upon ourselves, and our political decisions have morphed from being based in our common humanity into a call to identify and eliminate our common enemies. 

“The Coddling of the American Mind” provides a warning of the end station of good intentions and a pathway to renew our commitment to knowledge and truth.

At the church in southern California where I served as pastor for forty years we had a large Christian day school that went from preschool to eighth grade.  The Christmas programs put on by the students (preschool, K-3^rd grade, 4^th-8^th grade) were always excellent and we knew that for many parents attending their child’s program would be the only time when they would hear the Christmas message. 

The reality was that rehearsals and preparations for the programs basically took over the sanctuary from late November through the middle of December.  All the chancel furniture was removed and one hundred forty chairs were set up in the chancel.  The chancel was set up for the rehearsals early Monday morning and it stayed that way throughout the week until Friday afternoon when the chairs were removed and the chancel furniture was put back for Sunday morning.  Normally it all worked out just fine.

But one year the ninety-nine-year-old mother of a prominent member died in early December.  My first thought was, “I am toast.  No matter what happens, I will not survive this one unscathed.”  If I tell the prominent member that the sanctuary is not available for her mother’s funeral, I am toast.  If I tell the day school teachers that they are going to have to remove all the chairs and put the chancel furniture back an extra time, I am toast.  I saw no way that this one was going to resolve easily and well.

But then the prominent member told me that she wanted to have a memorial service for her mother the following September on what would have been her mother’s 100^th birthday.  I told her, “That is a wonderful idea!”  My heart said, “Thanks be to God!” 

But I have to admit that most of the conflict situations that I had to deal with during my forty years of pastoral ministry did not work out so well or so easily.  So I am very grateful to Lutheran CORE vice president and retired NALC pastor Brian Hughes for offering a free webinar entitled “Managing Church Conflicts without losing your passion, soul, or job” on Wednesday, November 20 from 11 AM – 12 noon Eastern Standard Time.  Here is a link where you can sign up for the free webinar. I have signed up, and I encourage you to do the same.  Brian writes regarding the webinar, “Pastors and other leaders are usually put in the crosshairs of church conflicts as ideas, needs, and personal desires jockey for position.  Join us as we examine stages of conflicts, types of conflicts, and how to bring down the temperature or, when required, press through to a new consensus.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November – Conflict Management

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

February – Vision Casting

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

March – Grief and Change

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

April – Organizational Structure and Succession Planning

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

Stay tuned.

Many thanks to Ken Coughlan for giving us a video review of his recent book, “Understanding Evil from a Christian Perspective.”  Ken is a Christian apologist and religion teacher at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Glen Burnie, Maryland.  He earned his JD from the College of William & Mary and after practicing law for over two decades, graduated with honors from Luther Rice College and Seminary with an MA in apologetics.  He is a frequent speaker, preacher, and teacher on a wide variety of apologetic topics.

A link to Ken’s video book review can be found here. A link to our YouTube channel, which contains over fifty reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found here.

Ken Coughlan introduces this book as a comprehensive explanation of how Christians understand evil.  What does it mean?  Can it exist alongside a loving God?  How did it enter the world?  Is God doing anything about it?  The book is written so that it will be accessible to the layperson without skimping on content.

As a friendly commenter noted, my last article needed some serious editing. It is never good for me to find myself writing too close to a deadline; the result is always technically correct but dense, jargon-heavy prose that obscures what it seeks to clarify.  My apologies to all.

To restate succinctly what I was driving at in my last installment, in contrast to what any group might claim, we can tell what that group truly holds sacred on the one hand by what things, actions, and speech they extol and prescribe, and on the other, those at which they take offense.  Sacredness is defined for a group by what they revere and what they revile.  That which is prescribed constitutes the group’s dogmas or orthodoxy.  That which is proscribed or treated as blasphemous is like a photographic negative of the same thing, defining the sacred by contrasting it to its inverse, the profane.  This is a sociological and functional, not theological, definition of the sacred.

I ended my last article by saying, “Progressive Christianity quickly ceases to be formally Christian precisely because it holds different things to be sacred than does the Biblical, Apostolic faith … it represents a different religion, not a different way to be Christian.”

Though I differ with his work on many points, one thing that the enormously popular psychologist Jordan Peterson has helped me understand is that human thought is intrinsically and inescapably hierarchical.  Believing that we can actually think in a truly egalitarian manner is not merely logically, but neurologically incorrect; our brains could literally not handle the amount of incoming sensory data presented to it by the rest of our nervous system if it did not prioritize some information over others.  Thinking hierarchically is identical to thinking at all.

In a hierarchy, whatever occupies a higher position determines the relative value of everything beneath it.  Why in CPR training do they use the acronym “ABC”—airway, breathing, circulation—to anchor the care provider in the moment of crisis?  Because while the heart is needed to pump oxygen to the rest of the body, the lungs must be filled with oxygen before it can get to the heart, and the lungs can only be filled by artificial respiration if the airway is in turn clear.  The operation of that which is lower in the hierarchy is contingent upon the proper function of that which is higher.

What is true in an operational hierarchy is equally true in a conceptual hierarchy.  In fact, you can determine an idea’s place in a conceptual hierarchy precisely by identifying whether another idea is dependent upon or foundational to it.  Within a religious schema, this translates to what is holy, holier, or holiest.

While in seminary, one of my professors quoted one of his own graduate school mentors, lauding to us the sage wisdom that “your theology can never be any better than your anthropology.”  I made a phone call that afternoon to a mentor of my own, a double Ph.D. whose own generous but well-defined orthodoxy had catapulted him to a position of great responsibility in his own Christian tradition as an ecumenical theologian, to check whether my response was too reactionary.  “That,” he said, confirming my intuition in the carefully measured tone of voice I had come to associate with him at his scholarly best, “seems to me to be precisely backward.”

The sentiment commended by my professor placed humanity (or humanity’s assertions about God) above God’s revelatory self-disclosure.  In fact, its effect was to negate any possibility of the latter by placing humanity above God epistemologically.  This professor’s spouse, when presiding at the Eucharist during the final worship service I attended at that school, began the Lord’s Prayer with the unbiblical and self-congratulatory phrase, “Our father and mother in heaven.”  I refused to receive Communion that day not because her ego was out of control (the sins of the presider do not invalidate the grace of God) but because I was no longer sure it actually was the Eucharist, and that was because I was no longer sure the Christian God, the God that commanded His people to “have no other gods before Him,” was in fact being worshiped in that space.

If Christ is not “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), if it is not true that “if we have seen [Jesus], we have seen the Father” (John 14:9), and the Bible is not in fact a revelatory portrait of that Christ to us, something—in this case humanity—must replace the Triune God in the highest position within the religious hierarchy, whether historically Christian vocabulary is used to describe it or not.

By definition, that is some other religion than Christianity.

Pastor Don Brandt

The Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), on its website, lists the average worship attendance of each of their 818 U.S. congregations.  This data represents a veritable “treasure trove” of information when it comes to how many of these congregations might be facing a crisis in the coming years concerning the viability of their ministries.  (This kind of information, by the way, is not available on the NALC or ELCA websites.)  Regarding the accuracy of these numbers, we need to keep in mind that the diligence of congregations in regularly updating their reported average attendance is probably a “mixed bag”.  To my knowledge the LCMC does not contact their churches each year to insure that the reported attendance figure is up to date.  And there’s another reality to consider: the cross-denominational impact of the pandemic on worship attendance.  We know that many churches saw their attendance drop between 10 and 40 percent between 2020 and 2023.  And some churches never fully recovered their losses in terms of in-person average attendance.  However, to avoid argument, I will assume that the LCMC attendance data is reasonably accurate and up to date.

Before summarizing this data I want to pose this question: At what point—when it comes to average attendance—are most churches facing nothing less than an existential crisis?  And for those churches facing such a crisis is there anything that can and/or should be done to maintain and preserve the viability of their congregational ministries?  Also, at what point do these smaller churches need to be asking whether they will always be able to assume the availability of an ordained pastor to lead them?

The following information represents the results of my online “survey.”  Of the 818 LCMC churches in the U.S. 484 churches report an average weekly worship attendance of 75 or less.  And of these churches, 276 report a weekly attendance of 40 or less.  Now given what I know regarding the current costs involved in calling a full-time pastor, I believe many of these 484 churches will be unable, in the coming years, to afford a full-time pastor’s salary with benefits and housing.  And because of the current clergy shortage, qualified pastors who are looking for a call usually have more than one opportunity to consider.  This gives a distinct advantage to those congregations that are able to offer the better salary and benefits package.  (In other words, usually larger churches.)

So what of the possibility of calling a part-time ordained pastor; especially when it comes to the 276 churches that have 40 or fewer people in worship each week?  This is definitely a possibility for churches that can no longer afford a full-time pastor.  However, as with full-time candidates, there is also a shortage of part-time pastors.  And with part-time pastors, call committees typically need to find a candidate that is close enough to commute to their community.  This factor, above all, limits the options when it comes to finding a qualified part-time pastor, especially in rural settings.  Then the usual fallback option is to find one or more “supply preachers” who live within driving distance of the congregation.  One more possibility to consider for these churches: enlist (and “train?”) one or two (or more) active members to share preaching responsibilities.

Here is the “bottom line”; too many smaller churches are making the erroneous assumption that they can stake their congregation’s future on always being able to find, call and afford an ordained pastor.  This is simply not the case for most of these smaller congregations.  When considering the LCMC, 60% of their congregations serve 75 or fewer worshipers in a typical week.  And over one-third of their churches serve 40 or less worshipers.

It is time for smaller congregations to consider long-term ministry strategies that do not assume the ongoing availability of ordained pastors.  Here—on a more constructive note—are some options that congregational leaders from these churches need to consider.  And sooner rather than later.

1. Consider whether one, two or three active members might be enlisted and trained to become part-time lay ministers for your congregation.  Their “training” could be online; either from Lutheran seminaries (like St. Paul Seminary), or through lay minister training programs like Beyond the River Academy or the LCMC Texas Mission District’s Harvest Workers ministry.  Online courses might focus on biblical studies, Lutheran theology, and preaching.
2. Check out Lutheran CORE’s Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative (CLI), which would mean having an “outside” coach to help your congregation address this ministry challenge.  (Full disclosure: I am the person for you to contact to find out more about CLI.)
3. Contact your regional mission district leader and ask for one or two names of competent retired Lutheran pastors who might be willing to enter into an online coaching relationship with your church council.  The primary focus of such a relationship is to prepare your congregation for a future that might not necessarily include an ordained pastor.
4. And the best long-term strategy might be do “raise up” someone among your active members who would consider eventually becoming your future ordained pastor.  This person might be active retired, or someone younger who would become a bi-vocational pastor, or a stay-at-home parent who has reached the empty-nest stage of life.  Obviously not all congregations have such a potential “candidate.” However, my guess is that too few congregations are even asking the question as to whether such a person is already a part of their congregational life.

What about your congregation?  Are you currently without a pastor?  Or is your current pastor close to retirement?  Does your church have an average weekly attendance of (approximately) 75 or less?  Or 40 or less?  Has your attendance been declining over the last five years?  Or longer?  If you have been in decline, and that decline continues, what do you anticipate your attendance will be in 2030?  What do you guess is the average age of your active members?  Is it old enough where your decline might actually accelerate?

These are difficult questions to even reflect upon, let alone discuss with your lay leaders.  However, this is a discussion smaller congregations definitely need to have.  We are entering an era when most congregations will not be able to depend on available ordained pastoral leadership.  We cannot afford to put off confronting this ministry challenge.  It’s time to act.

If you have any questions for me, including whether I can be of some assistance, email me at…

pastordonbrandt@gmail.com