Jeffray Greene’s recent devotional on Mark 12:1 was thoughtful and helpful. It reminded me that everything we have belongs to God and that we are called to be faithful stewards. That is true and important. But it also helped clarify where much modern theology, especially within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has begun to drift away from the heart of the Gospel.

In Mark 12:1–12, Jesus tells the parable of the vineyard. A man plants a vineyard, builds it up, and entrusts it to tenants. When he sends servants to collect fruit, they are beaten and killed. Finally, he sends his son, and they kill him as well. Jesus is not primarily teaching about wealth or fairness. He is teaching about rejection, specifically, the rejection of God’s messengers and ultimately His Son.

The focus of this passage is clear: God is the owner, we are stewards, and humanity has failed. The problem is not that people failed to distribute resources equally. The problem is sin, rebellion against God and rejection of Christ.

This is where we must be careful. Much modern “social justice” theology shifts the focus away from sin and Christ and toward human systems and historical grievances. It often teaches that we must repent not only for our own sins but also for the actions of past generations. It suggests that justice requires correcting the past through social or economic means.

But Scripture does not teach this.

The Bible is clear that each person is responsible for his own sin. In Ezekiel 18:20, we read: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.” This means guilt is not passed down through history in a political or social sense. We all share in original sin (Romans 5:12), but we are not held accountable for specific historical acts committed by others.

At the same time, Scripture also teaches that we are saved by grace alone. As it says in Ephesians 2:8–9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith… not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” This is the heart of Lutheran theology. We are not saved by what we do, whether that is moral effort, social activism, or attempts to correct past wrongs. We are saved by what Christ has done for us.

This is where the distinction between Law and Gospel becomes critical. The Law shows us our sin. It tells us what God requires and reveals that we fall short. As Romans 3:20 says, “Through the law comes knowledge of sin.” But the Law cannot save us. It can never be satisfied by our efforts.

This is what was rightly observed in the response to the devotional: no matter how much we do, it is never enough. We cannot give enough, repent enough, or fix enough to make ourselves right with God.

That is why we need the Gospel.

The Gospel is the good news that Christ has done what we could not do. He lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and rose again. His work is complete. As Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). There is nothing we can add to it.

This is also clearly taught in the Lutheran Confessions. The Augsburg Confession states in Article IV: “Men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith.” This is not just one teaching among many—it is the center of the Christian faith.

Good works do have a place. Lutherans affirm that faith produces good works. As Martin Luther wrote, “Faith is a living, busy, active thing.” But these works flow from faith. They do not create it, and they do not save us.

This brings us back to the issue with modern social justice theology. When the Church begins to emphasize social or historical repentance as necessary for righteousness, it risks turning good works into a new form of law. It places burdens on people that Scripture does not place. It binds consciences where God has left them free.

This does not mean that Christians should ignore injustice or fail to love their neighbors. On the contrary, we are called to serve others in love. But we do so as those who are already forgiven and free in Christ, not as those trying to earn forgiveness or correct history.

History itself is complex. Human beings have moved, settled, and fought over land for thousands of years. No group is without fault. But more importantly, Scripture does not call us to resolve all historical wrongs. It calls us to repent of our own sins and trust in Christ.

God is still at work in the world, even through flawed people and nations. As Romans 8:28 reminds us, “God works all things together for good for those who love Him.” This does not justify sin, but it does remind us that God’s purposes are greater than human history.

In the end, the Church must remain focused on its true mission: proclaiming Christ crucified and risen for the forgiveness of sins. When it shifts that focus to political or social agendas, it loses its center.

The answer is not found in human systems or ideologies. The answer is found in Christ alone. In Him, we have forgiveness, life, and salvation.

In Christ,

Paul Flemming

One thing we can know for sure – no matter how far the ELCA goes, it will not stay there.  It will only get worse. 

HERE is a link to a list of articles that we have written regarding the ELCA covering the period of time between the 2022 and 2025 Churchwide Assemblies along with a summary of the major points from each of these articles. 

We begin with a Review and Evaluation of the 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  This is the gathering that called for the creation of a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and a reconsideration of the 2009 human sexuality social statement, including the whole issue of bound conscience.  We then have two articles regarding the formation of the Commission entitled, “Once You Know the Makeup You Know the Outcome.”

Next we have links to several articles regarding recommendations that came to the 2025 Assembly as a result of actions taken by the 2022 Assembly –

An Analysis of the First Set of Recommendations from the Human Sexuality Social Statement Reconsiderations Task Force

An Analysis of Constitutional Amendments that came from the Church Council to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly

Videos from the Lutheran Congregational Support Network showing the ELCA’s Quest for Greater Control

An Analysis of Recommendations 1 and 7 from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

We then conclude with a Review and Analysis of the 2025 Churchwide Assembly and information showing how the organizers of the triennial ELCA youth gatherings are working relentlessly to groom ELCA youth in LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology.

The ELCA Constitution requires the Church Council to inform synods of recommendations it will be bringing to the Churchwide Assembly six months prior to the Assembly.  So I do not know how much we will know about the 2028 Assembly before early 2028.  During the three years prior to the 2025 Assembly I was struck with how little we were informed regarding the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  They were amazingly non-communicative and non-specific in the written summaries of their meetings.  So I am not hopeful regarding how much we will know about what will be coming to the 2028 Assembly until six months before the Assembly. 

The 2025 Assembly did not go as far as many feared it might go in terms of remaking the ELCA.  The 2028 Assembly might be the time when that happens.  As we become aware of anything specific, we will keep you informed. 

Will the provision for bound conscience be eliminated?  Will the ELCA say that there is no place for traditional views on marriage and human sexuality and those who hold them?

What will be the recommendation of the Secretary of the ELCA regarding the motion for a revised process for the fast-tracking of constitutional amendments that come from the floor?

Will those who are determined to make DEIA mandatory for congregations prevail? 

What will be the shape of and what will come from the “mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives” that are being developed to make dismantling racism central in all parts of the ELCA?

Will the authority of the Bible, the Great Commission, and the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins through faith in the risen Christ have any place in the ELCA?  

We will keep you posted. 

Scripture: Luke 24:44-53

Pastor: Good morning boys and girls! Let’s say good morning to our friend Sammy and see if she is there. Ready? One, two, three…Good morning, Sammy!

Sammy: Good morning everyone! 

Pastor: Today is a special day, Sammy.

Sammy: Yes it is. We have church today!

Pastor: Yes, Sammy. And today at church it is Ascension Sunday.

Sammy: What does that mean?

Pastor: Well today we read a passage from the Gospel of Luke about Jesus ascending into Heaven.

Sammy: Ascending. Ascending. Boys and girls, can you try that word with me? Ascending. Ascending. What does ascending mean? 

Pastor: Ascending means that Jesus went up into Heaven while the disciples were looking at him.

Sammy: Oh I think I get it! Jesus was standing on the ground and then he started floating in the air and then he went into Heaven.

Pastor: That’s right, Sammy.

Sammy: That’s kind of like this one time I was standing on a sidewalk with a balloon.

Pastor: What does a balloon have to do with Jesus?

Sammy: Hang on, Pastor. I am getting to that part. So I was standing on a sidewalk with a red balloon, and then all of a sudden, I let the balloon go.

Pastor: Boys and girls, what do you think happened to Sammy’s red balloon?

[Allow time for responses]

Pastor: These are good answers.

Sammy: My balloon floated up and up and then I couldn’t see it anymore. I don’t know where it went, but it went up really far.

Pastor: Jesus ascended just like your balloon, Sammy, but Jesus went to Heaven. Most balloons that float away from us pop and the pieces come back down. Or they get stuck somewhere.

Sammy: I miss my red balloon. Do you think the disciples missed Jesus?

Pastor: I think they missed him in a way, but you know, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be with the disciples. And Jesus promised to always be with them. He was with the disciples, and he is here with us today.

Sammy: I love that Jesus is always with us.

Pastor: Me too. Let’s pray. Boys and girls, will you please fold your hands and bow your heads with me? Dear Jesus, thank you for coming to earth as a tiny baby. Thank you for choosing to die on the cross for our sins. Thank you for showing us your glory in beating death, rising again, and ascending to Heaven. Amen.

Sammy: Bye, everyone!

Pastor: Bye, Sammy!

Pastor: Good morning boys and girls! Let’s say good morning to our friend Sammy and see if she is there. Ready? One, two, three…Good morning, Sammy!

Sammy: Good morning everyone! Is it still, Easter, Pastor?

Pastor: Yes, it is still the Easter season, Sammy.

Sammy: Oh good! I just love Easter.

Pastor: Me too, Sammy. The Easter message is very special to us as believers in Jesus.

Sammy: Why is that?

Pastor: Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again after three days. These events are important because Jesus paid the price for our sins with his blood.

Sammy: You know, Pastor, I noticed that even though Jesus talks a lot about his death on the cross and how he will rise again after three days, a lot of people were not paying attention.

Pastor: Yes a lot of people either were not paying attention or they heard the message and they didn’t understand. 

Sammy: Just like Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas.

Pastor: Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas?

Sammy: You know? From the Gospel reading today? There was a man walking to a place called Emmaus.

Pastor: Yes that’s Cleopas.

Sammy: Mr. Cleopas. And the other person was his wife. Mrs. Cleopas.

Pastor: That’s a good theory, Sammy. The second person with Cleopas isn’t mentioned by name, so there are a lot of guess about who it could be.

Sammy: Well, I like Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas. But you know, I don’t understand what happened. How come they didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread and blessed the bread?

Pastor: That’s a really good question. Jesus breaks bread with many people all throughout the Gospels. He eats with his disciples, with tax collectors, and with over five thousand people, on two separate occasions. That’s a lot of people.

Sammy: And all of those people saw Jesus bless and break the bread before they ate it with him.

Pastor: That’s right. So Jesus talked to Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas a long time, but they didn’t truly see who he was until he blessed and broke the bread. And then he disappeared.

Sammy: He did?

Pastor: Yes, but he appeared to many others. 

Sammy: I just love Easter. I love that we can find Jesus in unexpected places.

Pastor: Yes we can. Boys and girls, will you please pray with me? Will you please fold your hands and bow your heads? Dear Jesus, Thank you for Easter. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins. Thank you for rising to life so that we may have life in you. Amen.

Sammy: Bye, everyone!

Pastor: Bye, Sammy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ + +

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace Lutheran’s Scenario

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor: Good morning boys and girls! Let’s say good morning to our friend Sammy and see if she is there. Ready? One, two, three…Good morning, Sammy!

Sammy: Good morning everyone! Pastor, I have a question.

Pastor: Okay Sammy. Go ahead. 

Sammy: So the apostles go up the mountain with Jesus right? 

Pastor: Yes they do Sammy.

Sammy: And when they get to where Jesus was, they saw Jesus in all his glory with Moses and Elijah. 

Pastor: You are on track so far. 

Sammy: And then they hear the voice of God. 

Pastor: Sammy, are you just going to recite the passage we just read or are you going to ask me your question?

Sammy: Excuse me pastor, but I said I had a question.

Pastor: I’ll be quiet now Sammy. 

Sammy: If the apostles saw Jesus in all of his glory. Why were they afraid of Jesus? 

Pastor: Well Sammy, Seeing God is quite the scary thing. 

Sammy: It is? 

Pastor: Yes it is, even when Angels come to see people on earth. The first thing they tell them is be not afraid. 

Sammy: Why is that. 

Pastor: Because just seeing an angel is very different than anything else in this world. Seeing God is even scarier. When Israel reached Mt. Siani, God set a whole mountain on fire, and blew trumpets. As said anyone that approached him on the mountain, without being called up like Moses was, would die from the sight of God. Once the apostles heard God’s voice. They thought their life was in danger. 

Sammy: But why would they be afraid of dying just by seeing God? I thought that would be a good thing. 

Pastor: It would be a good thing, but because we sin and do bad things. We can’t look at God. We can’t even approach him. Because sinners cannot approach God. 

Sammy: But how do we approach God then?

Pastor: Because Jesus died and rose again Sammy. Jesus died to forgive our sins so we could be with God again. Just like our first parents were: Adam and Eve. 

Sammy: Oh I see pastor. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection was all about reconciling God and humanity. And because Jesus died and rose from the dead. We don’t have to be afraid. 

Pastor: Exactly Sammy. I hope I answered your question Sammy. 

Sammy: You did Pastor.  

Pastor: Let’s pray everyone. Dear Jesus, thank you for coming down from heaven and living on earth. Thank you for revealing yourself to us so we can approach God without fear. We love you. Amen. 

Ever since I became a Lutheran pastor I have been fascinated with denominational statistical trends.  I have especially been interested—and concerned—with trends among Lutheran denominations in general and, starting in 1987, the statistical trends for the ELCA in particular.

The ELCA currently stands out as the Lutheran denomination dealing with the most dramatic rate of institutional decline.  Or perhaps “dealing with” is something of a misnomer.  Why?  Because I see no indication that ELCA leaders even acknowledge their precipitous decline, let alone “deal” with it.

However, as an NALC pastor, I don’t want to only speak to what’s happening in the ELCA.  I also want to address what the NALC—and the LCMC—can learn from the astonishing rate at which the ELCA is losing members.  So bear with me as I share some ELCA statistical realities.

Even attempting to discern the actual rate of decline for the ELCA has, admittedly, been a significant challenge for me.  The reason for this is because, by and large, ELCA leaders have chosen not to publicly acknowledge their staggering losses.  And this has especially been the case since 2010.

The most striking example of the failure of ELCA leadership to address this issue was their lack of response to an article published by Faith-Lead Magazine in September of 2019.  This article was written by Luther Seminary (ELCA) professor Dwight Zscheile, and was entitled, “Will the ELCA Be Gone in 30 Years?”  Needless to say, this title captured my attention.  (And keep in mind that Professor Zscheile was and still is a member of the faculty at Luther, the ELCA’s largest seminary.)  The two most salient points of this article were predictions of the loss in baptized members and regular worship attenders if the internal demographic trends for the ELCA in 2019 continued.  And here were those predictions:

1. The ELCA would only have a total of approximately 67,000 members nationally by 2050.  And…

2. The number of ELCA worshipers—nationally—on a typical Sunday in 2041 will be less than 16,000.

Furthermore, this article made clear that, if these projections turned out to be accurate, the ELCA would no longer be viable as a national church body in 2050.

Given that, back in 2010, the ELCA still claimed on their website that they had “almost” five million members, I was initially skeptical that a denomination of that size could essentially implode by the year 2050.  And I was also not sure how ELCA leaders would respond to this article’s conclusions.  So in 2019 I started monitoring the ELCA’s national magazine, Living Lutheran, to see what their response might be.  I found absolutely no response to or acknowledgment of the 2019 article; or for that matter, any article where an ELCA leader addressed the subject of the ELCA’s institutional decline.

Granted, the ELCA’s national denominational website has, over the last fifteen years been periodically adjusting downward their stated national membership total.  They now (as of late 2025) describe that number as “nearly” 2.7 million members.  This represents a loss of approximately 2.3 million members in fifteen years.  And this translates into a 46% drop in membership in those fifteen years!

My on-going investigation, since 2019, to obtain the full story regarding what’s happening in the ELCA finally “paid off” this last November.  That was when I discovered an internal study by the ELCA’s own Research and Evaluation Team, released in February of 2025.  The title of this document is, “The Future Need for Pastoral Leaders in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America”.  Now while the staff’s assignment was to address the future need for more ordained pastors, part of this document is a section focused on “the present state of congregations” in the ELCA.  In that section of the report the authors acknowledged that congregational membership figures were typically out-of-date; and that being the case, they instead looked at average worship attendance as the more meaningful statistic.  What did they report when it came to the “present state” of ELCA congregations?  Between 2015 and 2022, congregations with fewer than 50 in average attendance almost doubled.  In 2015, 3 out of 10 congregations reported less than 50 worshipers on an average Sunday.  By 2022, there were nearly 6 out of 10 churches in that size category.  For medium-sized churches (worshiping between 151 and 250) the trend was similar.  Congregations of that size were 12% of ELCA churches in 2015, but only 4% in 2022.  And finally, large congregations (worshiping over 250 in 2015) were 9% of ELCA churches in 2015, but only 2% in 2022.  Here’s a direct quote regarding these “large” ELCA congregations: “To be exact, in 2022, only 167 congregations (nationally) reported an average worship attendance over 250.”  Keep in mind that this is only 167 “large” congregations out of the 8,500 “worshiping communities” the ELCA currently reports on their website!

One more quote from this study: “In summary, the decline in worship attendance in congregations has profoundly reshaped the makeup of the ELCA.  Only a few years ago, the ELCA was composed mostly of small to medium-sized congregations.  Today, it is mostly very small congregations.”  (Emphasis mine)

Now keep in mind that since these statistics were true as of the year 2022, they no doubt are an undercount of the ELCA’s total losses as of 2026, and consequently minimize the current, full extent of the ELCA’s institutional decline.

But How is the ELCA’s Decline Relevant for Congregations in the NALC and LCMC?

I assume that most readers of this article belong to NALC or LCMC congregations.  So let me be clear: The primary reason why the ELCA decline is so dramatic, while both the LCMC and NALC appear to be relatively stable, is because there continues to be an exodus of ELCA congregations through disaffiliation.  And virtually all of these churches leaving the ELCA end up joining either (or both) the LCMC and NALC.  And it’s also important to recognize that movement from the ELCA to the NALC and LCMC does not constitute evangelistic growth.  To use a tired phrase, this is nothing more than a “reshuffling of the saints”.

Furthermore, it is imperative that we recognize that many of the institutional trends in the ELCA—such as plummeting numbers of baptisms and confirmations—and an aging membership, are also trends among many LCMC and NALC churches.  Just one demographic statistic that pertains to our country’s population as a whole: Between 2010 and 2020 the U.S. population of seniors 65 and over grew nearly five times faster than the overall population.  Not surprisingly, this trend has an impact on the overwhelming majority of our congregations.

However, to put it bluntly, I think we need to consider whether we can learn from the dramatic decline of the ELCA.  In other words, we need to ask whether the LCMC and NALC could be facing similar rates of decline in the not-too-distant future.

Now I’m convinced that part of the ELCA’s rate of decline is due to the increased politicization of the ELCA since 2009.  But I also believe that a second cause for this decline is an apparent complete disregard, by most ELCA leaders, of the importance of congregational evangelism.  So consider this a wake-up call for all Lutheran congregations: It’s time to make evangelistic outreach your top ministry priority.  And not just to stem the tide of future institutional decline.  Ultimately this is about our New Testament mandate to share the Good News; to witness to the increasing number of Americans who self-identify as “nones” when asked about their religious affiliation.  It’s about reaching out and connecting—as individuals and congregations—to those who do not yet know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

Just trying to “keep the ship (your congregation) afloat” will no longer suffice.  The challenges we are facing are too significant for us to settle for a passive and/or reactive response.  Instead, we need proactive, congregation-wide strategies for reaching, evangelizing and discipling those in our community who are not a part of a Christian church.  In pursuit of that goal, I encourage you to consider the ministry strategies below.

Congregational Outreach Strategies

The single, overarching principle I advocate for is simply this: Creating new groups and ministries for new people.  And to pursue this principle in a comprehensive way, consider what this principle could entail in four areas of your congregation’s ministry.  (And if you can’t do all four simultaneously, choose one to start with, and try to excel in that one area of ministry.)

1. Small Groups and Bible Studies.  This could be your primary discipling (i.e., disciple-making) effort. It can be the best way to not only help members grow in their faith; it can also be a tremendous witnessing opportunity that will—incrementally—help motivate members to bring friends and acquaintances to your congregation.  Never forget the unfortunate reality with small groups that are only made up of already-committed members: they often become cliques.  However, small groups with a discipling emphasis can become effective ways to reach the unchurched; one person (or two) at a time. For published discipling small-group resources consider Sola Publishing.

2. Worship and Hospitality.  For your worship service to reach and assimilate new people it needs to be both participatory in its content and be characterized—before and after worship—by intentional hospitality.  Here’s the goal: Make your Sunday morning worship life the kind of experience that will motivate and inspire your members to invite and bring their unchurched friends and acquaintances to your service.

3. Community Outreach.  Do this primarily for the sake of those you serve.  But do it, in addition, so your members can use their gifts in such a ministry, and so your congregation will be seen, by your surrounding community, as the church that does far more than simply “take care of its own”.

4. Organizing and/or strengthening your ministries for children and youth; and for their parents.

This can be a huge challenge.  Some congregations are simply too small; and as a result don’t have any children or youth.  However, if you sense any potential at all to build this kind of ministry, be ready to invest the necessary resources to help make this happen.  Remember that for those congregations who end up without any nesting stage, active families, their future, long-term viability as a faith community is at risk.

If you have any questions regarding the details of these congregational outreach strategies, don’t hesitate to contact me directly by email.