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.

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.

My congregation voted successfully to leave the ELCA in 2023.  Reflecting on the past three years, here are three things I would encourage you to keep in mind if you choose to follow suit.

First of all, remember that, whether you stay in the ELCA or not, the priority is Christ.  He is the center.  The mission of the Church is to preach the Gospel of forgiveness of sins, life and salvation in Jesus Christ.  We voted to leave the ELCA because we came to believe that preaching the Gospel was no longer the priority.  Instead, we believed that another gospel, or other gospels, had taken the place of the true Gospel in the mission and ministry of the ELCA. 

One of the dangers of remaining in the ELCA and “continuing the fight” was that, in doing so, we would be distracted by the ongoing culture wars in our country and in the world.   Don’t assume that the temptation to focus on the culture wars will dissipate if you leave the ELCA.  The same forces that worked against the Gospel from within the ELCA, still do so from the larger culture.  The key is not to try to win the cultural wars, but not to let them distract us from the mission of the Church.

A second thing to remember is that the political right is not automatically an ally of the Gospel.  Several members of my congregation assumed that with a successful vote to leave the ELCA, we would begin to openly embrace the causes of the political right.  There is an old saying among progressives that says, “No enemies to the left.”  Don’t be tempted to turn that around by saying, “No enemies to the right.”  While we are disgusted by the antisemitism, gender and identity politics of the left, we should not forget that there are equally loud voices of antisemitism, misogyny, and identity politics on the right.  There really is a movement calling itself Christian Nationalism that is racist and sexist.  There really are popular voices like Nick Fuentes that encourage your people to embrace antisemitism.  Guard your congregation against these trends. 

There was an earlier split within Lutheranism in the 1970s.  In that case, it was people on the left who departed and formed a new denomination.  Eventually, they helped form the ELCA.  One of the mistakes that they made, in my opinion, is that they tended to assume that if their old denomination was against something, they should embrace it.  Many seemed unable to recognize that it is also possible to go too far to the left. 

My third warning has to do with the reality of spiritual warfare.  The devil loves to sow division.  Even on the human level, it can be observed that once a congregation experiences a division, it becomes easier for new divisions to arise.  The devil certainly knows that.  He will seek any opportunity to make small disagreements into church dividing ones.  He is also alert to any spiritual vacuum.  When a congregation leaves a denomination it is alone until it becomes part of a new denomination.  Mutual support among clergy and congregations, as well as ecclesial oversight take time to grow.  Beware of unexpected spiritual forces that may arise causing chaos and division. 

Whether you stay in the ELCA or seek to leave, remember that a successful vote one way or the other does not solve all of your problems.  You live in a sinful world.  Your mission is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Pray that God will help you to keep steadfast in His Word, amidst the trials and temptations that will inevitably come your way. 

“I don’t want to offend anyone or lose my friends.” That was the reason one of my church council members gave as to why she holds back from talking to her close friends about faith.

Her response came from a discussion we were having about the importance of building intentional relationships with friends and neighbors with whom we can talk about what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. It’s reasonable to understand her hesitancy. Yet, simultaneously, sadly, this is an excuse many believers fall back on because they don’t know how. Admittedly, I have not been exempt from using it myself, that was until one day, I was moved to change.

I had been invited as a guest to attend an NALC Regional Convocation. During one of the breaks, I had an engaging conversation with four individuals from the same church, who were attending as a group. They had asked me about my seminary experience. Up to that point, I had had difficulties with the ELCA candidacy process and I was contemplating leaving to join the NALC.

Throughout our exchange, I noticed how easy it was to talk to them. Even though I was a fish out of water, so to speak, they never made me feel uncomfortable. Their questions were genuine, not attacking or forceful, all while respectful. As we neared the end of the break, they asked if they could pray for me. As I told them that I would appreciate it if they would, they did something quite unexpected; rather than going on their way, they surrounded me, each placing a hand on my shoulder or arm, and began to pray for me, right then and there. It caught me by surprise because I had never had someone not only offer to pray for me but to do it! Over the next few minutes, each of them took a turn praying over something they had picked up on as they listened in, praying for God to give me the insight I needed to make my decision, whatever it was to be, for strength and guidance to go wherever He called me. As they ended, I opened my eyes to find that there were no longer four people surrounding me; passersby had also stopped to pray, placing their hands on those around me.

That day, I witnessed a group of believers demonstrate what following Jesus looks like, and I saw that conversations about life and faith don’t have to be divisive, inspiring me to do the same.

When our Lord encountered someone who was spiritually and/or physically hurting, he didn’t attack them. He didn’t simply offer to pray for them and then continue on his way. Instead, he stopped and prayed over them at that moment.

In the years since, I have stepped out of my comfort zone and offered to pray for strangers—even even someone who struck up a conversation with me on a flight home from Texas.

The feeling I have after praying for someone is that of joy. Doing so reminds me of Luke’s Gospel, where Jesus sends out his disciples ahead of him. As Christ told his disciples (I’m paraphrasing), “If you meet someone receptive to the Word, have a conversation; if they are not, don’t force it and go on your way.” However, I have never encountered anyone who refused my offer of, ‘Can I pray for you?’

Yet, encouraging her and telling her how to do it—based on scripture—only goes so far. While I have had such a positive experience, I find myself asking how I can help empower my councilwoman to set aside her fear and step out in faith.

Her fear is reminiscent of the disciples when Jesus told them to feed the five thousand. They had no clue how, and they certainly didn’t believe they had what it took to get the job done until their shepherd showed them the way. Their reaction was evident; they needed more time to be equipped and empowered.

After they had spent some time watching and learning how Jesus ministered to others, he released his disciples to try it for themselves. That’s when he instructed them how to minister to those receptive to the Word of God and to those who are not. When they came back to him, they reported incredible joy. As her earthly Shepherd, I can see how God has prepared her to spend time with me to learn how to follow Jesus.

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. 

Matthew 3:1-12

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! It’s the second Sunday in Advent, Pastor.

Pastor: Yes it is, Sammy. Today we lit a candle for peace.

Sammy: There’s two candles lit, Pastor.

Pastor: Yes, and we have two more weeks to go in Advent.

Sammy: Christmas is coming soon, Pastor. I still have so much to do. I have to clean up the barn with my maaa-maaa. Then I have to get a gift for each of my friends. I have a lot of friends, so that’s a lot of gifts. After that, I am baking cookies with Farmer Matthew.

Pastor: Hold on a second, Sammy. You bake cookies?

Sammy: Of course! And baaa-nana bread.

Pastor: Sammy, you have a lot of things on your list here.

Sammy: I do. It’s overwhelming. I am a busy lamb.

Pastor: I think you are missing something, Sammy.

Sammy: Oh no! What am I missing?

Pastor: Boys and girls, what do you think Sammy is missing? What should Sammy be focused on as we get ready for Christmas?

[Allow time for responses]

Pastor: Sammy, we need to be focused on Jesus this Christmas. John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus to come to earth and begin his ministry. Each Christmas, we are preparing our hearts for the return of the King, the return of Jesus.

Sammy: Wow! When you put it like that, Pastor, all the other stuff on my list doesn’t seem to matter.

Pastor: We have to stay focused, Sammy. I know that it’s easy in this season to get distracted by celebrations, parties, cleaning, shopping, and baking, but we have to remember the point of Christmas is to worship God.

Sammy: I am going to try to do better, Pastor. I think I will try to read some books about Jesus every day. That way I can remember how he came to earth as a baby.

Pastor: That sounds great, Sammy. Boys and girls, will you pray with me? Dear Jesus, Thank you for helping us prepare our hearts for your return. Thank you for being our King. Help us to focus on you. Amen.

Sammy: Bye, everyone!

Pastor: Bye, Sammy!

December 2025

Dear Friends –

My theological degrees (M. Div. and D. Min.) are from Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California.  After I graduated from Fuller in 1972 I served my internship under Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota at the same church as where I had worked as youth director during my third year in seminary.  Halfway through my internship year I went back to Luther for an interview with the faculty.  I was not prepared.  Attending a non-Lutheran seminary, I had not studied Lutheran theology and church history as I should have so I was required to spend a year at Luther as a graduate student taking Lutheran courses before I would be certified and approved for ordination.  I felt totally put upon by the requirement.  But as it turned out before the end of that additional year the congregation where I would end up serving my entire forty years of ministry, who knew me from my days in youth ministry, and where I met my wife was ready to call an associate pastor.  They would not have been ready before my additional year at Luther.  I have no idea where I would have been called and how my life would have gone if I had not been required to attend seminary one more year.  “All things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose.”  (Romans 8: 28) 

I remember wondering, when I found out that I would be required to attend one more year of seminary, how am I going to be able to pay for that?  But then I received an unexpected blessing.  The congregation where I had worked as youth director and served my internship gathered donations that more than covered the expenses for my unanticipated, final year of study. 

Knowing what it means to receive financial assistance from God’s loving and caring people, I am especially thankful that Lutheran CORE has the resources to be able to provide financial support for seven students attending the North American Lutheran Seminary (NALS).  One of them, Luke Ratke, writes –

“Thank you so much for your generous gift of financial support. . . .I am in my last year of study at the seminary and I plan to graduate at the end of the spring 2026 semester.  After I graduate I plan to begin a year-long internship at a North American Lutheran Church congregation.  I look forward to learning as much as I can during that year about how to do pastoral ministry work well. . . .May God bless your ministry work and all that you do for the sake of the Gospel!”

I am in the process of teaching a Sunday morning adult class on the life of Moses at the ELCA congregation where my wife and I are members.  Exodus 16:13 tells us that as the Israelites were on their way to Mt. Sinai, the evening before God first provided manna, “quails came up and covered the camp.”  I have read that this area of the Sinai Peninsula is along the route of a major bird migratory path.  Often birds would stop to rest after flying north over the Gulf of Suez.  And where they stopped to rest is where the Israelites were camped.  Long before the Israelites passed that way, God provided a way by which they would have food.  God knew where the finances would come from long before I knew that I would be required to attend an additional year of seminary.  And long before these seven students responded to God’s call to ministry, God knew that your generosity would help provide the resources for them to attend seminary.  “My God will fully provide for every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4: 19)

During the upcoming year we will continue to monitor and keep you informed about what the ELCA is doing leading up to its 2028 Churchwide Assembly in terms of eliminating any place for traditional views as it reconsiders the 2009 human sexuality social statement as well as in terms of continuing to make DEIA, dismantling racism, and critical race theory the central value and operating system of the ELCA.  In addition, we will continue to provide resources such as worship aids, prayers, daily devotions, weekly lectionary-based Bible studies and children’s messages, video book reviews, and support and assistance for congregations in transition.

For example, the ELCA news release dated October 9, 2025 concerning the October 2-3 meeting of the ELCA Church Council stated that the Council received an update from its Executive Committee regarding “a timeline of the ‘immediate action on dismantling racism’ acted on during the spring 2025 meeting to develop mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA.”  There are powerful people who want to remake the ELCA and make DEIA and dismantling racism mandatory throughout the ELCA, including for congregations.  They made significant progress at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, but they did not fully succeed.  They will not stop.  They will try again in 2028.  If there are not enough constitutional changes ready to go by the end of 2027 they will call for a reconstituting assembly.  Notice the wording in the news release.  “Immediate action” – for these people nothing else is of such supreme importance.  “Dismantling racism” – not just not being racist, but dismantling systems that privilege some and allow those some to oppress others (Marxism).  “Mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA.”  “All expressions” includes congregations.  All still within the ELCA should wonder how these “mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives” will play out in their synod. 

Thank you for your prayers and your faithful, generous financial support.  Please find below a link to a form which you can use to let us know how we can be praying for you.  You can also use that form to send a year-end gift that will enable us to continue to do our work.  We would also like to hear from you regarding a time when God provided for you maybe even long before you knew that you would have a need.   

Thanking God for His goodness,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE