Director’s Note: Many thanks to Bob Benne, esteemed NALC theologian and friend of Lutheran CORE, for his review of the history of the whole issue of “Bound Conscience.”

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

• Reconsideration #1 called for a review of specific text references in light of the 2015
  Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage and “public acceptance of marriage of
  same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”
  
• Reconsideration #2 called for a reconsideration of the “church’s current concept of the
  four positions of bound conscience” found on pages 19-21 of “Human Sexuality: Gift and
  Trust.”

The task force that was appointed to work on these reconsiderations had recommendations for
the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1. They described these
recommendations as “simply editorial,” even though they amounted to no less than a complete
embrace of every form of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The task force is now working on its recommendations for Reconsideration # 2, which will be
voted on at the 2028 Churchwide Assembly. Given everything that is happening and the
direction in which everything is going, it is hard to imagine that providing a place of dignity,
belonging, and respect for traditional views and those who hold them will survive.

Most Lutherans know of Martin Luther’s famous appeal to “bound conscience” at the Diet of Worms in 1521.  He insisted: “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason… my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”  His appeal to “bound conscience” meant that his theological and inner moral compass were not free but held captive by the authority of Scripture and clear reason.  For Luther, this wasn’t about subjective feeling but about obedience to God’s revealed truth, a profound conviction that led him to refuse to recant his writings, seeing it as right and safe only to follow God’s Word.   

There are no doubt many uses of the phrase in the history of Lutheranism since the 16^th century, but the use we want to examine is its use in the midst of a controversy in the ELCA over the nature of marriage and its attendant sexual ethics.  While we will focus on the ELCA since 1989, it is important to note that agitation to change traditional teachings on those subjects was already present in the merging churches—the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches—especially in their youth divisions, as well as in their seminaries.

The Past

In the first Assembly of the ELCA in 1989, I roomed with a Virginia pastor who later became the Bishop of Virginia. He was assigned to attend the newly emerging youth organization. Every evening he would sorrowfully recount to me the ways that the adult leaders were propagandizing the youth into accepting practicing homosexual pastors and homosexual marriage.  We could already see what was to come in the new church.

Soon thereafter there were theological gatherings to resist the revisionism pushed by the new church and its Bishop, especially the Called to Faithfulness Conferences held in Northfield, Minnesota. By the turn of the century the newly organized Word Alone led many congregations out of the ELCA as a protest against its agreement with the Episcopal Church that all ordinations must be in the “apostolic succession,” which generally meant that Lutheran ordinations had to have an Episcopal Bishop among the presiders.  Those churches then became Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.

Word Alone also sponsored the emergence of a protest movement against the moral revisionism of the ELCA.    I was present at its first gathering at St. Olaf College in 2003, which was organized and led by retired ELCA Bishop, Paull Spring.  Soon it took the name of Solid Rock and began organizing resistance to proposed changes in sexual ethics that would come about in the Churchwide Assembly of 2003. Solid Rock morphed into Coalition for Reform (CORE) with Roy Harrisville, Jr., as its executive.  Enough resistance was organized in both 2003 and 2005 that the revisionists did not get their way.  In 2005 a report noted that  “When Christians disagree about an ethical issue of this magnitude, one important category for determining the policy of the church may be the recognition that participants in this debate are disagreeing not out of pride or selfish desires, but because their consciences are bound to particular interpretations of Scripture and tradition. The careful way Luther approached moral dilemmas (e.g., in The Estate of Marriage [Luther’s Works 45: 17-49] or Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved [Luther’s Works 46: 93-137]) showed a genuine concern for the integrity of disputants.”  This report would become the groundwork for the “bound conscience” clause of 2009.

The Assembly of 2007 was supposed to be a truce concerning these issues, but at the end of the Assembly a Bishop proposed a successful amendment that no discipline should be used against those who were already disobeying church rules on sexual ethics.

After much work by a rather loaded task force on those issues, it proposed a social statement entitled Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, The statement turned out to be ambiguous about every crucial issue and passed by a single vote at 666.  The Assembly also passed provisions for allowing partnered gay pastors and gay marriage.

Though the task force that drafted Human Sexuality was loaded with revisionists, there was enough resistance that the “bound conscience” provision was inserted as a concession to the traditionalists and as a defensive move to prevent a wholesale rebellion in the ELCA.  It recognized four “conscience-bound” positions that Lutherans could faithfully hold on the matter of same-sex relationships, ranging from full opposition to full affirmation of same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy.

When hearings were held about the provision during the Assembly of 2009, I attended one and posed the question about whether it was simply a sop to traditionalist pastors and congregations at the local level to prevent wholesale losses, but that it would not protect traditionalists in any other facet of the church.  That has turned out to be true.  The upper levels of the church have been purged of recalcitrants.

The provision has been crucial for maintaining a painful compromise within the ELCA amid diverse views on human sexuality at the local level. Though hundreds of congregations left after 2009, those traditionalist pastors and congregations that stayed sheltered under the bound conscience provision. I have taught a number of such pastors at the Lutheran Institute of Theology, but they are worried about the future.  One has already transferred to the NALC.

The Present

What is going on to make such pastors and their congregations apprehensive?  The ELCA has already edited the statement and its rules to allow for same sex marriage language and is contemplating a more systematic application of the diversity, equity, and inclusivity ideology, which would definitely not include those traditionalists who cannot agree with the LGBT gender agenda. They are the oppressors and should be silenced or expelled.  Further, the elite of the ELCA have committed themselves to new fervid anti-racist policies that signal panic about the loss of black members even after decades of affirmative action, including the election of a black man as Presiding Bishop.

Those moves certainly signal that the bound conscience provisions are in grave danger.  Further, the task force that has been organized to examine and propose future policy has a majority of “progressives” that are likely to favor a withdrawal of the bound conscience provision.  But it seems that such a proposal is some distance in the future.  Meanwhile, traditionalist pastors and congregations are in uneasy limbo.

The Future

My hunch is that the bound conscience clause will go. There are certainly many level-headed members of the ELCA who prudentially see what will happen:  lots of losses of pastors and congregation with no gains.  More perceptive folks will see the further accommodation of the ELCA to secular progressive culture, much like sister liberal mainline denominations have done. Such accommodation means continued decline.

However, I think the “commanding heights” of the ELCA will push forward with their agenda, including the abolishment of the bound conscience clause.  The ELCA will continue down the slippery slope of accommodation.  When we in CORE were defeated decisively in 2009, we wagered that the ELCA would be unable to say “no” to anything in the sexual revolution. To confirm that wager, it has even made the grave error of propagandizing for transgenderism for children.

There is a long shot chance that the elite themselves will not push their agenda so quickly, or that synod representatives at the ELCA Assembly of 2028 will rebel and resist. But it is more likely that the Assembly will be managed well by the dominant elite, as it has been in most of them. They will make sure that their agenda will prevail.  And there will be one more step away from the Lutheranism whose teachings on marriage and sexuality are clearly grounded in Scripture and Tradition, to which our bound consciences yet cling.

DISRESPECTING THE INTEGRITY OF A CONGREGATION AND MISREPRESENTING THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH

First Lutheran Church of Sioux Falls, South Dakota held their first vote to disaffiliate from the ELCA on September 28, 2025.  They will hold their second vote on January 25, 2026.  The results of the first vote exceeded the two-thirds that is constitutionally required for disaffiliation.

Prior to the first vote – on September 21, 2025 – Bishop Hagmaier of the South Dakota Synod came for the required consultation.  But she did not come alone.  She brought along a high-powered “Resource Team” of about twenty persons, some of whom are current or former members of First Lutheran.  The team included a representative from Luther Seminary, the president and senior campus pastor of Augustana University (an ELCA university in Sioux Falls), a Luther scholar, three previous bishops of the South Dakota Synod,  three previous pastors of First Lutheran, the bishop of another synod (who is also a member of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church), the vice president of the synod council, the synodical director for evangelical mission, the synodical director for candidacy and mobility, the dean of the local conference, the leader of the ELCA women’s organization for the local conference, and leaders and representatives from Lutheran Social Services, ELCA World Hunger, and Lutheran Planned Generosity.  That is a lot of people, some of whom traveled from considerable distance, especially Bishop Riegel from the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod. 

The format was that four of these resource people would speak, then there would be a time when people could ask questions of the bishop.  Then the various resource people were available for groups and/or individuals.  The reason given was so that people who did not have the courage to ask a question publicly could still have their question(s) answered.

Bishop Hagmaier obviously does not want to lose this congregation.  She put a lot into gathering this resource team.  I have not heard of any other synodical bishop who took the approach of so trying to overwhelm a congregation in a Bishop’s Consultation.

What I found most alarming about the Consultation were two things –

1. The way in which Bishop Hagmaier did not respect the integrity of the congregation.
2. The way in which Bishop Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod, who was also a member of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, misrepresented the work of the Commission.

Here is a link to a YouTube recording of the Consultation – Bishop Consultation // September 21, 2025.  This link can be found on the congregation’s website under “About FLC-Church Governance Task Force.”  Therefore, it is publicly available.  Anyone who wishes to can watch the seventy-minute consultation and find out for themselves whether what I am saying is true.  Here also is a link to the power point presentation from the Governance Task Force –   Presentation TO CONGREGATION – Master Version.  The Task Force has done excellent work summarizing the issues and expressing their concerns.  Their presentation reflects actions taken by the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

FEAR OR RUMORS VS. CLARITY AND TRUTH

Bishop Hagmaier began her part of the presentation by saying that the gathering would not be about fear or rumors but about clarity and truth.  And yet the president of Augustana University in her remarks told about generous scholarships that would no longer be available to young people from First Lutheran if the congregation were to leave the ELCA.  Also the leader of the conference women’s organization shared how the Women of the ELCA (WELCA) is constituted separately from any congregation.  Funds in a congregation’s WELCA treasury belong to WELCA, not to that congregation.  Therefore, if a congregation were to leave the ELCA, the funds would remain with WELCA, not with the women of that congregation.  One person – during the question-and-answer period – challenged the opening statement that the presentations would not be about fear or rumors given that those kinds of statements were made.  Also, when we come to the section where we tell about how the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church was misrepresented, it should be obvious that that part of the presentation was certainly not about clarity and truth.

DISRESPECTING THE INTEGRITY OF A CONGREGATION

I found it shocking that Bishop Hagmaier invited three former pastors of the congregation to be part of the Resource Team (though admittedly none of them were among the initial four presenters).  The ELCA has made it very clear that pastors who no longer serve a congregation are not to be involved in the life of that congregation and doing so would be reason for discipline. 

During the question-and-answer period one of the members asked if it is appropriate for a previous pastor to contact members of the congregation regarding the disaffiliation issue.  The person asking the question then said that these kinds of contacts were being made.  This member asked since ELCA guidelines for discipline prohibit it, will a pastor who does it be disciplined?  Bishop Hagmaier affirmed ELCA policy and said that any pastor who violated the policy would be disciplined by the bishop in whose synod that pastor is rostered.  She said that there was a process for this discipline and that any complaints should be brought to her in writing.  I thought it was astounding that Bishop Hagmaier reaffirmed as a reason for discipline behavior and action that she had invited three previous pastors to be involved in.

Bishop Hagmaier also clearly stated that the South Dakota Synod applies synodical administration (S13.24 in the model constitution for synods) only after a congregation has disbanded.  Only after a congregation has held its final worship service does the synod receive the keys to the property so the synod can make sure that the property is properly cared for.  I wonder how many synods apply synodical administration (S13.24) only under those kinds of circumstances rather than under circumstances such as we have described in other synods (including in the former synod of the current presiding bishop of the ELCA). 

MISREPRESENTING THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH

I also found it shocking how Bishop Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod, who was also a member of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, misrepresented the work of that Commission.  Bishop Riegel was among the four initial presenters.  During his opening remarks he made the following comments regarding the Commission.

The “primary drive” behind the memorials from ten synods to the Churchwide Assembly that led to the formation of the Commission was “a sense that this church structurally is too big for itself.”

The focus for the original memorials was for “increasing flexibility for congregations and synods,” “loosening things up so that congregations and synods would have more ability to dictate to themselves how polity would be structured, how they would do things, so they could respond more nimbly to their context.”  The goal was “untangling some of the uniformity of the church” and “having greater flexibility.”

He also referred to the commitment to dismantle racism as merely a “proviso on the side.” 

Neither the final report of the Commission to the Church Council, nor the recommendations from the Church Council to the Churchwide Assembly, nor the actions of the Churchwide Assembly support his statements.

Contrary to what Bishop Riegel said, the commitment to dismantle racism was not a “proviso on the side.”  Instead it was a top priority of the process.  The resolution that was passed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly that called for the creation of the Commission instructed the Commission to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.”  Anything that any group is to be “particularly attentive to” is not a “proviso on the side.”    

Recommendation 1 from the Commission to the Church Council was entitled “Immediate Action on Dismantling Racism.”  It included these statements. 

“To ensure timely action, all constitution and bylaw amendments needed for the development and implementation of these accountability measures and compliance incentives must be developed and advanced in time for consideration by the 2028 Churchwide Assembly.  If by that time such measures and incentives have not been adequately identified or enacted, we recommend the ELCA Church Council call for a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to evaluate and enact necessary constitutional revisions that will enable and advance the ELCA’s commitment to anti-racism work.”

B-14 was a summary of memorials from several synods and was approved by the Churchwide Assembly 646-144.  The thrust of this motion was –  

• To acknowledge the importance of accountability in addressing racism within all structures of the ELCA
• To affirm the work of the Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity Advisory Team and request that the Church Council continue to work with the team to clarify the nature of mutual accountability as referenced in Recommendation 1 of the CRLC Report
• To direct the Church Council to add a timeline to its actions taken in response to CRLC Recommendation 1 and to provide progress updates to this church with a final report by Fall 2027, including possible constitutional changes, and
• To recommend that if this work is not accomplished by Fall 2027, the Church Council consider calling a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to enact necessary revisions to the governing documents of this church.

When you combine these actions with the development of a DEIA handbook and several pages of DEIA Recommendations for Congregations found in the DEIA audit which the Church Council had done of the ELCA’s governing documents, what you have is greater and enforced compliance and uniformity, not “greater flexibility” and “loosening things up.”

What has happened since then?  An October 9, 2025 news release from the ELCA reports that during the October 2-3 meeting of the Church Council the Council “received updates from its Executive Committee regarding a timeline of the ‘immediate action on dismantling racism’ . . . to develop mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA.”  Anything that calls for “immediate action” is not a “proviso on the side.”  “Mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA” do not speak of “greater flexibility” and “loosening things up.”  Instead they speak of greater, enforced uniformity. 

And then another way in which Bishop Riegel misrepresented the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church was in his incomplete reporting regarding a proposed amendment to the ELCA Churchwide Constitution – 22.11.b.  As I reported in my analysis of the Churchwide Assembly (LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR – AUGUST 2025 – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)) that amendment would have provided a way to fast track the approval of amendments that come from the floor.  According to the proposed amendment, they would no longer need to be ratified by a Churchwide Assembly three years later (hopefully after discussion in synods and congregations).  Rather they could be ratified by action of the Church Council within the next twelve months.  Bishop Riegel reported that he opposed that amendment, and he was correct when he said that it did not pass (though just barely).  But he did not say what happened next.  Later during the assembly a voting member proposed new language, which would provide for a provisional ratification of an amendment from the floor by a vote of the church council within twelve months and then a later ratification of the amendment by the next Churchwide Assembly.  After much discussion about whether the new language was appropriate and how it would be executed, the assembly voted 517-247 to refer the motion to the Office of the Secretary for further study.  This action raises the question of how newly elected Secretary Lucille “CeCee” Mills will interpret the constitution. 

I thought it was very interesting that Bishop Riegel did not tell the rest of the story.  Rather he presented the actions of the Churchwide Assembly in a way that would “calm the nerves” of the members of First Lutheran.  I also do not understand if the final report of the Commission was no more than what Bishop Riegel said it was, why he would have dissented to it in full.

I have only limited information from other congregations regarding the consultation that they had with their synodical bishop before they held their first vote on whether to disaffiliate from the ELCA.  But none of them were like this one.  This Consultation certainly says two things –

• ELCA synodical bishops need to respect the integrity of congregations.
• ELCA church leaders need to tell the truth. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is the can kick.

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

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

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

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

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

            regular meeting of the Churchwide Assembly. The adoption of

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

            members of the next regular meeting of the Churchwide Assembly

            present and voting.

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

            Churchwide Assembly. The proposed amendment shall be

            referred to the Committee of Reference and Counsel for its

            recommendation, following which it shall come before the

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

            of members present and voting, such an amendment shall become

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

            the members present and voting at the next regular Churchwide

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

            Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the

            Churchwide Assembly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complaining about the slowness of the progress of the ELCA’s becoming in their eyes a “truly welcoming church” that realizes “authentic diversity,” the Commission’s position is that “all constitution and bylaw amendments needed for the development and implementation of these accountability measures and compliance incentives must be developed and advanced in time for consideration by the 2028 Churchwide Assembly.”  If they are not developed in time, then the ELCA Church Council needs to call for a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to evaluate and enact the necessary constitutional revisions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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