I was amazed but not surprised over how little information was coming from the ELCA regarding the momentous decisions that will be made by and the potentially momentous changes that will be coming from the ELCA Churchwide Assembly, which will be held July 28-August 2.  My impression is that the ELCA is saying as little as possible so that there will be as little conversation as possible before the assembly, so that when the decisions are made and the actions are taken at the assembly it will be a fait accompli and nothing can be done.  And the ELCA is counting on what will most likely be the case – that the people who will be voting members of the assembly will be people who will overwhelmingly vote in favor of the proposed actions and changes.  The only question is whether the voting members will feel that what they will be presented with to vote on will go far enough.

The ELCA has resumed offering “Living Lutheran” magazine in print form.  I recently received the Summer 2025 issue in the mail, which contains three articles regarding the Churchwide Assembly.  Admittedly that is something, but I wonder how many across the ELCA will receive it and read it.  In talking with people I find that the general consensus is that most people in the ELCA have absolutely no idea what is coming.

The first of these articles is entitled “A preview of actions” and can be found on page 11.  There are a total of ten words concerning proposed amendments to the ELCA constitutions – fewer words than are used for the required opening land acknowledgement.  Only ten words – in spite of the fact that the proposed amendments do many things including increase the mandated or desired level of participation of persons from “historically underrepresented groups” and fast track the approval process for amendments that come from the floor.  I have identified and evaluated many of the proposed constitutional changes in my April 2025 letter from the director.  A link to that letter can be found HERE. 

The second of these articles is entitled “Revisiting ‘Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust’” and can be found on pages 16-17.  The article continues what the ELCA has consistently been doing in downplaying the significance of the changes in this first phase of the reconsideration process.  It calls them “text updates without changing the meaning of the social statement.”  It quotes Ryan Cumming, ELCA program director for theological ethics, education, and community development, as saying, “The hope is that folks can be clear these are edits and not substantive changes right now and focus on the way in which the wording brings the 2009 social statement up to date.”  Please see my article regarding the Human Sexuality Reconsiderations Task Force in the January 2025 issue of our newsletter.  A link to that article can be found HERE.  As I pointed out in my article, I do not see how moving from merely approving publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships (PALMS) to a full embrace of every form of gender identity and sexual orientation can be called mere edits and not substantive changes.  The article in “Living Lutheran” does have the honesty and integrity to conclude with a warning of what is to come.  It discloses the fact that the next step is a process that could lead to “substantive changes” in the section of the social statement that “names the ELCA’s recognition of four conviction sets that Lutherans can faithfully hold about same-gender relationships, typically referred to as ‘bound conscience.’”  That process is expected to begin this fall and conclude with action taken by the 2028 Churchwide Assembly. 

The third of these articles is entitled “Called to renew” and is about the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  It can be found on pages 18-19.  A link to my article in the May 2025 issue of our newsletter on the Final Report of the Commission can be found HERE.  The 2022 Churchwide Assembly, which called for the formation of the Commission, had grand and glorious ideas regarding the work of the Commission, even that it might lead to a special, separate assembly that would reconstitute the ELCA.  But it seems that reality prevailed (as it has a habit of doing).  The Final Report of the Commission calls for many amendments and changes, but not for a totally new, reconstituted church formed at a separate reconstituting convention.  In the article Carla Christopher Wilson, Commission co-chair, is quoted as saying, “The only way to rewrite and restructure the entire constitution in one go would essentially be to dissolve the churchwide organization.”  Therefore the Commission has proposed a “phased approach, recommending amendments rather than dissolution” and the Church Council has responded by “forming tasks forces and committees to continue the work.”   Personally I find the language in the article toned down compared with the language in Recommendation 1 in the Final Report.  In that Recommendation the Commission shows that it is still thinking big time when it states that if all the constitution and bylaw amendments needed for the ELCA to become a “truly welcoming church” that realizes “authentic diversity” are not developed in time for consideration by the 2028 Churchwide Assembly, then the ELCA Church Council needs to call for a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to evaluate and enact the necessary constitutional revisions. 

The other part of this article that caught my attention is in the next paragraph, which tells how the ELCA Church Council responded to the Commission’s recommendation which “urged immediate accountability structures and compliance incentives to center equity across the ELCA.”  The Council responded by “strengthening the Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity Advisory Team and mandating DEIA standards development for congregations and synods.”  Whenever the ELCA uses any form of the word “mandated,” all confessional Lutherans still in the ELCA need to get really nervous.  In this sentence what is mandated?  Is the development of standards mandated or are the standards that will be developed mandated?  And if it is the standards that will be developed that will be mandated, what will happen to congregations that are not in full compliance? 

I am glad that the ELCA at least communicated something about the upcoming Churchwide Assembly in the Summer 2025 issue of “Living Lutheran.”  But I wonder how many will take the time and put forth the effort to read and understand it, and how many will remain blissfully unaware.  I will be attending the Churchwide Assembly as a Visitor and look forward to telling you about it in my August letter from the director.  

 

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 [email protected], 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.