AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY GUIDE

FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE HUMAN SEXUALITY SOCIAL STATEMENT

by Dennis D. Nelson

The task force that is reconsidering the 2009 ELCA social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” has released a study guide that focuses on the whole issue of bound conscience.  They are asking for responses by September 30.

HERE is a link to an article I wrote which described the two reconsiderations that are a part of the process as directed by the 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  The first reconsideration was approved by the 2025 Churchwide Assembly by a vote of 742-46 and consisted of changes which the task force described as “simply editorial.”  In the article I argued that the changes are not “simply editorial.”  Rather they amount to no less than a most radical full embrace of every form of sexual orientation and gender identity.  The second reconsideration, which is being worked on now, is being described as “substantive.”  It is a reconsideration of the whole issue of “bound conscience.”  That is the term which the 2009 social statement uses to describe the fact that people in the ELCA hold different views on same sex relationships.

HERE is a link to the study guide.  It is a series of readings and questions which congregations and individuals can use to reflect on the issues.  The process is set up to consist of two sessions of one hour each, though there is also a way to divide it into four sessions.  This schedule can be found on page 8.

2026 — The task force publishes study materials for congregations.

2027 — A draft of revisions to the social statement will be released for public comment. The task force will consider these comments in revising the draft.

2028 — The ELCA Churchwide Assembly will take action on any proposed revisions.

On page 7 there is a statement that for me has no credibility.  “The end of the process is not pre-determined.”  Leading up to 2009 and ever since 2009 there has been continually less and less space for traditional views.  Why would we expect that the vote in 2028 will be anything other than another step in the same direction? 

As part of the discussion of the first reconsideration at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly a motion was made to remove the phrase “to be a covenant between a man and a woman” from the language “The Christian tradition has historically defined marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman, as reflected in the language of Genesis.”  The rationale for the amendment was that the current wording is harmful to LGBTQ people and does not correspond to their lived experience.  The claim was that merely reminding people that marriage between one man and one woman has been the historic teaching of the church was traumatic and upsetting.  The maker of the motion argued that rather than waiting three more years when bound conscience will be considered, something could be done then to make the social statement less harmful.  The amendment to the amendment was adopted by a vote of 552-211, and the revised social statement was approved by a vote of 742-46.  Two things were going on in this vote.  First, a re-writing of history to eliminate what some people find traumatic, upsetting, hurtful, and harmful.  Second, making truth conform to certain people’s liking and lived experience.

ELCA youth gatherings are grooming events for LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology.  Synods post on Facebook the ways in which they celebrate June as Pride Month.  ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council.  Why would we think that this reconsideration process also will not result in great gains for the LGBTQIA+ cause and community?  The only question is how much will they gain.       

And yet the study guide tries hard to do damage control, emphasizing church unity as it seeks to limit potential losses as a result of the vote on this reconsideration.  For example –

Page 10 – Focusing on God as the source of the church’s unity as well as on our shared vocation “can open our hearts to the many things we hold in common and to the behaviors and values that will support trusting and life-centered relationships.”

Page 13 – “What effect do you think it would have on our conversations about sexuality if we made these core beliefs the glue that holds us together even amid disagreement?”

Page 27 – “Even in disagreement, there is still much upon which this church agrees regarding how we relate to one another.”

Page 35 – “The social statement does not try to solve disagreements but to guide the church in living together amid disagreement.”

Page 14 introduces the example of Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, which they described as focusing on what unites us and being honest about what divides us as it fostered dialogue and renewed relationships.

Page 16 – “The joint statement reflects yearning for unity, but neither the Lutheran church nor the Catholic church lets go of its deepest beliefs.  Dialogue across disagreement does not mean that either side must come to a quick or easy compromise. . . . The joint statement recognizes that these deep disagreements still exist and notes that the two churches commit to remaining in relationship, learning from each other.”

However, there is a huge difference between Lutheran-Catholic dialogue and the ELCA’s reconsideration of bound conscience and same sex relationships.  Because of this huge difference I do not see any relevance in the comparison.  In Lutheran-Catholic dialogue both parties come to the table from a position of strength.  It is a conversation between two fairly equal parties – where neither party is at risk.  That is not the case with ELCA discussions regarding human sexuality.  There is great discrepancy between the strength and resources of the two sides.  One side – those with traditional views – has been continually losing ground.  The other side – those who are working relentlessly to advance LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology – is continually gaining ground.  For one side – those with traditional views – the question is how much will they lose and will there be any kind of place remaining for them.  For the other side the question is how much will they gain.  And even if they do not gain everything they want this time, they will certainly gain some and there will always be a next time.

Finally, there are many references in the study guide to the importance of mutual respect.  For example –

Page 32 – “The social statement calls upon us to live out the moral principle of ‘mutual respect’ amid our disagreements.”

On page 33 we find a section from the social statement which includes these statements –

“In our Christian freedom, we therefore seek responsible actions that serve others and do so with humility and deep respect for the conscience-bound belief of others.”

“This church . . . encourages all people to live out their faith . . . with profound respect for the conscience-bound belief of the neighbor.”

“Regarding our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this church will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral care, and mutual respect.”

I have already mentioned how ELCA youth gatherings have become grooming events for LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology.  At the 2018 youth gathering Nadia Bolz-Weber, ELCA pastor and the ELCA’s first “public theologian,” led 30,000 young people in a chant rejecting traditional views on human sexuality as a lie from Satan.  With the masterful way in which she structured and gave her presentation, she got the response that she wanted.

For me, until and unless the ELCA officially apologizes for and distances itself from this highly manipulative action by and these highly inflammatory comments from Pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber, there is no credibility to the ELCA’s talking about mutual respect.

Page 38 provides a link where people can respond to a survey.  The link will close September 30, 2026.  Additional comments and questions can be sent to the task force at Reconsiderations@ELCA.org.  You can follow the process by visiting ELCA.org/Reconsiderations. 

The ELCA developed worship resources for the 250^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  As expected, right from the start, the ELCA made this observance into something negative.  It introduced these resources as ones that “both celebrate and lament our nation’s history.”  HERE is a link to the resources. 

Certainly there are many things in our nation’s history that were done wrong.  Racism is wrong.  Slavery followed by decades of racial discrimination were wrong.  The way that indigenous people were treated was wrong.  Any form of oppression of the weak and vulnerable is wrong.  But why can we not just give thanks for this great country that we have been privileged to live in as we re-commit ourselves to continuing to work for “liberty and justice for all”?

What would it be like if my wife and I were celebrating a milestone wedding anniversary and she were to tell me all the things I have done wrong during our years of married life?   Before I retired I served as pastor of the same congregation for forty years.  What would it have been like if on my final Sunday there I had told the congregation all the things that they had done wrong and all the ways I had been treated badly?  And what if the congregation were to invite me to return some Sunday and I were to repeat the same list of grievances?  Would I be invited again?  And yet that is what the ELCA consistently does.  It has even made worship resources for the 250^th birthday of our nation into a time of criticism of our country and “white-dominant Christianity.” 

And then the next thing I want to talk about is the order of confession and forgiveness in the proposed worship service.  The order of confession is as follows –

“God of all mercy, we have sinned against you, our neighbors, and your creation.  Within ourselves and our communities, our desire to do what is good is at war with the evil that dwells in us.  We lament the evil that holds us captive.  We repent of the evil we have done, and the evil done on our behalf.  Rescue us, forgive us, and restore us for lives of compassion and courage through our Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen.”

What word is used four times?  Evil.  Evil that dwells in us, evil that holds us captive, evil that we have done, and evil that has been done on our behalf.  Evil is a very strong word.  Is evil the word that most accurately describes how we have lived and how our country has been for the past 250 years?

In contrast to the wording of the confession, compare the wording of the absolution –

“All-merciful, Almighty God forgive you all your sins through the grace of Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit’s power strengthen you in doing what is good.  Amen.”

If evil is the primary word that describes my and our country’s spiritual condition, then I need far more than just forgiveness and strength to do what is good.  I need someone to deliver me from and break the power of evil. 

In the Second Reading for July 5 from Romans 7 the apostle Paul talks about the struggle taking place within himself.  He does use the word evil twice.  But then what he calls out for is not just forgiveness and strength to do good.  He begs for deliverance.  “Wretched man that I am!  Who will rescue me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7: 24-25)

But I am not convinced that the ELCA really wants us to be rescued from “this body of death.”  Rather it seems to want to continually be able to call on us to grovel and repent of the same things – racism, sexism, patriarchalism, white supremacy, male dominance, and so on.  I am not convinced that the ELCA really wants there to be forgiveness and really wants Someone to break the power of evil because then the ELCA would have no authority and right to continually call on me to grovel over and repent of the same things if they have been forgiven and the power of evil were to be broken.  There is real power in claiming to be in a position to continually call on others to grovel and repent, just as there is real power in claiming to be one who has been victimized and oppressed.  If I were to forgive, then I lose my power over the one whom I claim has offended me.  If the power of evil were to be broken, then I would lose my power over and my vindication for putting my foot on the neck of the one whom I claim has victimized and oppressed me.

The words of the third verse of the hymn, “When Peace, Like a River,” are as follows –

“He lives – oh, the bliss of this glorious thought, my sin, not in part, but the whole

Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more.  Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!”

That is a gift that I am not convinced that the ELCA actually wants people and our nation to have.  Because if our sins truly were nailed to the cross and we bear them no more, then the ELCA would have no right and authority to keep on calling on us to grovel over and repent of the same things.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about the article that comes after the sample worship service.  It is written by an ELCA pastor and is entitled, “Preaching the Lectionary on the Occasion of the US Semiquincentennial.”  Because it is included with these resources, I take it to be an accurate reflection of the position of the ELCA.

The first thing I notice is that it is overwhelmingly negative. Right from the start it talks about all the awful things that were happening in our country during the time leading up to our nation’s Bicentennial.  Then it makes these comments –

“On this day, Lutheran preachers in particular are called to reject outright the temptations and claims of Christian nationalism.  At this moment in the United States, we are faced with a political movement that has married Christianity with an embrace of hardline authoritarianism and glorification of violent masculinity, casting Jesus in the role of a warrior.  We have seen a political Christian movement that has attempted to demonize empathy and love of neighbor, recasting ‘neighbors’ as only those who share the same ethnicity and cultural background.”

“In today’s gospel (from Matthew 11), we hear. . . . the call to repentance for a church that has celebrated America without acknowledging the role its dominant (white Christian) culture has played in enslavement, abuse, and terrorization of non-white, non-Christian Americans, and all are (sic) who are most vulnerable, including women, children, and the poor.”

White supremacy, violent male dominance, and Christian nationalism are all wrong.  The United States is a great place to live, but it is not the Kingdom of God on earth.  And yet are the bad things rejected in this article actually concerns and values held by the typical ELCA member of a typical ELCA congregation?  Rather I believe they are issues raised by a certain group because it makes them feel powerful and better to do so.  At the heart of much extreme left political activism is an intense sense of self-righteousness.

The introduction to these resources says that they are intended to “unite the diverse body of Christ for the life of the world.”  With their negative, inflammatory language they do just the opposite.

by Dennis D. Nelson

Matthew 28:16-20

Sammy: Good morning everyone! 

Pastor: How are you doing, Sammy?

Sammy: I am doing well, but I am a little confused.

Pastor: What are you confused about, Sammy?

Sammy: What does authority mean? 

Pastor: That’s a great question, Sammy. Boys and girls, let’s try to help Sammy understand this word.

Sammy: Wait–I have a guess. 

Pastor: Go ahead, Sammy. What do you think authority means?

Sammy: Well, you heat up water on the stove, and then you get a mug, and you put dried leaves in the mug. Author-it-tea.

Pastor: That’s not right, Sammy.

Sammy: Well, it was worth a try.

Pastor: It’s always a good idea to try. Even if you are wrong. Still try. Anyway, boys and girls, what do you think authority means?

[Allow time for responses]

Pastor: I love all of these answers. Authority means that person is in charge. He or she is given something to rule or command. And everyone needs to look to that person for where to go or for what to do.

Sammy: So what is Jesus given authority of?

Pastor: Jesus says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” All authority. Everything in Heaven and on Earth belongs to Jesus.

Sammy: Woah. Everything?

Pastor: Everything.

Sammy: Everything? Are you sure?

Pastor: Sammy, Jesus is God. Everything belongs to him. Everything in Heaven and everything on Earth.

Sammy: Pastor, that means all of us belong to Jesus too.

Pastor: That’s right, Sammy. Jesus has authority over our good days, our bad days, our happy moments, and our sad moments. He is with us at school, on the playground, at church. There is nothing too big or too small for Jesus. He has authority over everything.

Sammy: I have so much peace knowing that Jesus has authority over everything. That means, no matter what, he is King.

Pastor: That’s right, Sammy. Boys and girls, will you pray with me? Dear Jesus, we thank you for your authority. We praise you for your love and for holding our lives in your hands. Amen.

Sammy: Bye, everyone!

Pastor: Bye, Sammy!

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