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
An Analysis of the Work Of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church
As promised, we continue to monitor the work of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC). The Commission was formed in response to action taken by the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly. The assembly directed the Church Council to establish a Commission “comprised of leaders of diverse representation” that shall “reconsider the statements of purpose for each of the expressions of this church, the principles of its organizational structure, and all matters pertaining thereunto.” The Commission was instructed to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and to “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”
There was a very interesting article in “Living Lutheran,” the ELCA’s digital magazine, dated August 2, 2023 and entitled “Inside the commission that could restructure the ELCA.” Here is a link to that article. The article begins by comparing the original Commission for a New Lutheran Church, which met between 1982 and 1987 and whose work led to the formation of the ELCA, and this recently appointed Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church. According to the article, the original Commission (from the 1980’s) was “a mammoth research project that held forums across the country, reviewed over 12,000 letters from Lutheran faithful, and processed responses from the synod, district and national conventions of three Lutheran denominations hoping to merge.” The original Commission was composed of seventy persons who spent five years doing their work. In contrast, the current Commission will have less than two years to complete its work. The article in “Living Lutheran” says, “The new group of 35 rostered ministers and laypeople from across the church will conduct a more condensed version of the original group’s investigation, examining ‘statements of purpose’ and ‘principles of organization’ for all three expressions and conducting nationwide research and listening forums.”
A Timeline for the work of the Commission can be found on their website. Here are some key dates.
The Churchwide Assembly that directed the Church Council to form the Commission was held August 8-12, 2022.
It was not until January-March 2023 that there was a nominating process for members for the Commission.
On April 20, 2023 the ELCA Church Council appointed members to the Commission.
On June 20, 2023 the Executive Committee appointed Leon Schwartz and Carla Christopher as co-chairs of the Commission.
It was not until July 13-15, 2023 that the Commission held its first meeting – almost a full year after the assembly which directed the Church Council to form the Commission and just a little more than two years before the July 28-August 2, 2025 Churchwide Assembly, which will vote on the recommendations from the Commission. But the Commission needs to complete its work well before then. Here are a couple more very significant dates coming up very soon which are on the Commission’s Timeline –
Spring 2025 – A draft of the Commission’s report and recommendations is to be shared with the Conference of Bishops for comment.
April 3-6, 2025 – The Commission’s final report and recommendations are to be shared with the Church Council, who will forward the report and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly for the assembly’s consideration.
The “Living Lutheran” article is filled with hope and anticipation. It quotes from the memorial submitted by the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod, which says, “The governing documents, constitutions, bylaws, and continuing resolutions of the ELCA do not allow (congregations, synods and the churchwide organization) to reorganize quickly to meet the changing realities for effective mission in today’s world.” According to the article the other nine synods which submitted memorials used similar language.
The article shares comments made by Carla Christopher and Leon Schwartz, the two co-chairs of the Commission, in a sit-down interview after the first meeting of the Commission.
Carla Christopher said, “Church itself has changed. The people coming to church have changed, and the systems necessary to support the work the church is doing have changed. . . . We want to make sure that churchwide is resourcing the best places where mission is happening and innovation is happening, that synods have the ability to support and address and equip rostered (ministers) for the future, that seminaries have relevant curriculum, and that parishioners have the ability to be active and involved even if they’re not traditional parishioners.”
Both Christopher and Schwartz told stories of a “church struggling to react quickly in a century when crisis is becoming the norm.” Leon Schwartz added, “When the churchwide assembly meets every three years, and that’s the only chance you have to change the constitution, it’s very cumbersome. Even bylaws or continuing resolutions, they take a lot of time to change anything.”
Christopher cited numerous examples of the “church’s command structure breaking down” during the COVID lockdowns of 2020-21. According to the article, neither co-chair would say that the decades-old model of three expressions is fundamentally flawed, but they did state that many areas of ministry do not fit under any of the three expressions. These ministries include camps,colleges and universities, interfaith engagement, and environmental agencies. Schwartz commented, “There’s a lot of things that have just grown up over the past 40 years.”
Leon Schwartz pointed out that the original Commission (from the 1980’s) “took six years to collect its data whereas the new commission is down to about a year and a half before its report comes due.” Therefore he “lamented that so much time had elapsed already.” “It’s a different environment,” he said. “You can’t take six years to make changes anymore in this world.”
This same attitude of hope and anticipation continues as the article says, “When the next churchwide assembly convenes, in summer 2025, the CRLC will present its findings and recommend whether the church should then mount a special reconstituting convention without delay.” I do not remember the words “without delay” being in the original motion.
If all that is the hope, dream, plan, goal, anticipated outcome, and reason for which the Commission was formed, what is the reality? As of the time of the writing of this article, the Commission has met six times – three times in 2023 and three times in 2024. Three of the meetings were in person; three were online. The plan is that the Commission will meet twice a year in person and online every other month during the other months. Summaries of the first six meetings can be found on the Commission’s website – Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (elca.org)
I have read, studied, and reflected on the written summaries of the first six meetings of the Commission. I noticed that earlier summaries were more specific in their content. For example, the Commission revealed their priorities through whom they invited to address them. They also mentioned their receiving a copy of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of their governing documents. They have not stated what impact that audit will have on their final report and recommendations. But the two members who held a listening session for the synod in which I am rostered celebrated the fact that the ELCA is the first of its kind of organization to have such an audit done.
For me, the summaries of the more recent meetings are very general and non-informative. They speak of such things as reviewing highlights from listening sessions and online surveys, holding listening sessions at the recent youth gathering and adjacent events, identifying essential functions of the three expressions of the church, hearing from synods about their functions, ensuring that their work is viewed through a lens of antiracism, and discussing the current seal and name of the ELCA. Nothing specific is said. Reading the summaries tells you nothing about what actually is being done and is going on.
I can think of two possible explanations. First, they are not getting a whole lot done. They have grand ideas but do not know how to make those ideas a reality. After more than half of the time has passed between their first meeting and when they need to give their report and recommendations to the Church Council, they are spinning their wheels.
There is also a second possibility. They are intentionally not telling us what actually is going on and specifically in what direction they are heading. For example, they are not disclosing how the ELCA’s DEIA audit will impact their recommendations. This possibility reminds me of how quickly the recordings of the evening sessions from the recent youth gathering were removed from the internet.
Either way, I see and have a problem and will continue to keep you informed.
LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR – JUNE 2024
written by Dennis Nelson | November 14, 2024
THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH:
HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE
The ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC) was formed in response to action taken by the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly. The assembly directed the Church Council “to establish a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” which would be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”
As I wrote in my February 2024 Letter from the Director (LINK), the phrase “dismantle racism” is very significant. It reflects the position that racism is not just something that some people think and do. Rather imbedded into the very nature of our society are structures that privilege and empower certain races (white people) and disempower, victimize, and marginalize all other races (BIPOC people). The ELCA is therefore saying that it is not enough to just be non-racist – to not use racist language. We must be anti-racist. We must break down the structures that empower some and dis-empower everyone else. As I also wrote in the February 2024 letter, the report of the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee during the Commission’s November 30-December 2 meeting took the concept even further. According to that committee, it is important that all of the work of the Commission “is completed through an intersectional lens of dismantling racism.” Those also are very significant words. According to the concept of intersectionality, the various systems that privilege and empower some and victimize and disempower everyone else are so intertwined and interconnected that all of these systems need to be dismantled, whether they be white supremacy, male dominance, agism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, heteronormativity, or whatever.
Because of all that is involved with the concepts of dismantling racism and intersectionality, I was alarmed when I listened to a video on the Commission’s Facebook page from the two co-chairpersons, Carla Christopher and Leon Schwartz. A link to that Facebook page can be found HERE. In that video Pastor Christopher said, “The language of the memorial and the commitment from each of the members of the CRLC also named dismantling oppression and ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church.”
Concerned enough about the full and actual meaning of “dismantling racism,” and then being even more concerned by her changing the language from “dismantling racism” to “dismantling oppression,” I wrote to her. Among my questions were the following –
· What is the difference between dismantling racism and dismantling oppression?
· Is the focus of the Commission going to be on “dismantling racism” (which I would interpret as more narrowly defined) or “dismantling oppression” (which I would interpret as more broadly defined)?
· If the focus is on “dismantling oppression,” how did that change come about and what will it mean?
· How will it be determined who is experiencing oppression?
· Will the working assumption be that if anyone feels oppressed, claims to be oppressed, and/or identifies as someone who is oppressed, that person is oppressed?
I then concluded by asking – since all the members of the ELCA with traditional views who speak up will probably be among the oppressed (even though they represent the majority of the people in the pews) – what will the Commission be doing to address that anticipated oppression?
I also responded to her saying that each of the members of the Commission is committed to “ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church.” As glaring examples of inequity within the ELCA I mentioned the complete lack of speakers with traditional views at youth gatherings and Reconciling Works’ having a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while no organization with traditional views is in the same favored, privileged position.
Within less than two hours I received a response which I considered to be very dismissive and sloppy. In her email she backpedaled from dismantling oppression to dismantling racism. She also mentioned the “limited time and finite resources” of the Commission, insisted that the focus of the Commission “is specifically about structure and governance and constitutional language that may be more helpfully updated or clarified,” mentioned the “diversity of views” among the members of the Commission “regarding institutional structures and the relationships between the current three expressions of church,” and stated the desire of the Commission not to “duplicate or interrupt the work of other task forces,” such as the task force that is working on the statement on human sexuality.
In my response to her response, I did not bring up her mentioning the “limited time and finite resources” of the Commission. But I would say that twenty-two months have passed since the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, which directed the ELCA Church Council to form the Commission, while only fourteen months remain until the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, to whom the Commission is to “present its findings and recommendations . . . in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.” Unless the Commission does far more in the next fourteen months than it has done in the past twenty-two months, I do not see it as having a report that will satisfy those who were instrumental in the passing of the resolution to form the Commission.
However, I did respond – in order – to several other things she said in her email.
First, in regard to her backpedaling from “dismantling oppression” to “dismantling racism,” I reminded her of the significance of the “intersectionality” language from the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee (which I discussed in the second paragraph of this letter). I told her that I interpreted her mentioning “dismantling oppression” in light of that statement from that committee.
Second, the major part of my email was in response to her stating that the focus of the Commission “is specifically about structure and governance and constitutional language that may be more helpfully updated or clarified.” I shared with her how that statement reminded me of the comments made by the two members of the Commission who held a Listening Session for members of the Grand Canyon Synod, the Synod in which I am rostered. They said that the work of the Commission is focused on structure and governance and that there is no pre-determined outcome to the work of the Commission.
I wrote to Pastor Christopher, “Personally I find that very hard to believe. Everything from the makeup of the Commission – whom the ELCA Church Council chose to serve on the Commission – to the reports of the work of the Commission points to a pre-determined outcome.”
In regards to the makeup of the Commission, I pointed out that 20% – 7 out of 35 – are DEIA officers and/or leaders at their place of employment and/or influence and that the three members of the Commission who serve as assistants to a synodical bishop all work in the area of social justice activism.
I continued by saying, “I do not see any way in which someone could claim that the Commission is merely concerned with governance and structure and its work does not have a pre-determined outcome. Rather the Commission was formed and is working hard to create a whole new church whose values and priorities will be based not upon Scripture, but upon critical race theory and DEIA ideology.”
Third, I responded to her saying that the Commission was formed so that it would have “a diversity of views regarding institutional structures and the relationships between the current three expressions of church.” I wrote, “The members of the Commission may have a diversity of views on those issues. There is certainly nothing in the reports from the meetings of the Commission that would tell me one way or the other. But the reports of your meetings certainly suggest no diversity of views in regard to the values and priorities that should shape the new Lutheran church.”
Fourth, in response to her saying that the Commission will “stay within our scope and not duplicate or interrupt the work of other task forces,” such as the task force that is working on the statement on human sexuality, I said, “I certainly understand and would agree with that approach.” I explained that I mentioned the complete lack of speakers with traditional views at youth gatherings and ReconcilingWorks’ having a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council but no organization with traditional views being in the same favored, privileged position not because I believe that these are matters that the Commission should concern itself with. Instead they are examples of how – even though each of the members of the Commission has made a commitment to “ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church” – it is abundantly clear that in regard to the various positions on human sexuality, equity does not exist in the ELCA.
I concluded by saying, “Thank you again for hearing and considering my concerns. Blessings in Christ.” I signed the letter –
Dennis D. Nelson
Retired ELCA Pastor
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE
So far I have not received a response.
* * * * * * *
VIDEO MINISTRIES
“A SHORT COURSE ON PRAYER”
by CATHY AMMLUNG AND TIM HUBERT
Many thanks to NALC pastors Cathy Ammlung and Tim Hubert for giving us a review of Tim’s book, “A Short Course on Prayer.” A link to their video review and be found HERE. A link to our You Tube channel, which contains reviews of around three dozen books as well as a dozen CORE Convictions videos on various topics related to the Christian faith and life, can be found HERE.
This review is unusual in that it is more of an interview. Tim and Cathy have been friends for over forty years, and he was her ordination sponsor almost thirty-five years ago. Cathy has used various iterations of his manual on prayer throughout her ministry.
In this video review/interview, Cathy briefly describes the layout of the book. But mostly, she and Tim talk about his inspiration for writing it. They discuss the stumbling blocks to prayer experienced by many people. They examine some of the sixteen “prayer forms” in the first half of the book. And they reflect on some of the weightier issues about prayer: the joys and warnings, the hostility of the devil, and the spiritual warfare we are thrust into. Front and center is the insistence that prayer is a conversation, not a monologue. God himself provides words, topics, and insights for that conversation, and his Word grounds and centers every prayer form, directly or indirectly.
The interview is informal and casual, reflecting their long friendship and years of conversation on prayer as well as many other topics.
Folks interested in Tim’s book, for themselves or as a manual for an adult study group, may contact Cathy at cammlung@gmail.com. She will put you in touch with Tim!
