Back in the fall of 2009, shortly after the ELCA national assembly actions created so much controversy, my congregational members were already leaning toward disaffiliation.  In fact, my co-pastor and I took a quick Sunday-morning written survey in the fall of that year to confirm our sense that the majority of members disagreed with the new ELCA policies.  Sure enough, two-thirds disagreed with the national assembly’s actions.

However, the leaders of our church knew that two-thirds disagreeing was a “far cry” from eventually convincing more than two-thirds to vote—twice—to leave the ELCA.  Furthermore, we were part of the Oregon Synod, and in our synod only four out of its 110 congregations ended up even pursuing disaffiliation.  And our congregation—Our Savior’s—ended up being one of only two churches to eventually succeed in disaffiliating. 

So as we began a one-year education process on the relevant issues surrounding disaffiliation, the goal was to do everything possible to minimize our losses at our first official vote; which ultimately took place in February of 2011.  Below are the major strategies we pursued on the way to our congregational votes; both of which ended up being over 90% supporting disaffiliation.

The first strategy was to learn from the experience of other congregations that either succeeded, or failed, in their disaffiliation process during the year 2010.  For those who failed we learned the principle of not voting until you know, with a high degree of certainty, that you will have at least 80% of members supporting your exit from the ELCA.  Why 80%?  Because many of those who show up to vote against disaffiliation will in all probability eventually leave your congregation.  And we wanted to minimize the number of people we would lose due to this ELCA-instigated controversy.  Also, we wanted to acknowledge that a pre-vote guesstimate of the vote results on our part might prove to be overly optimistic.

So how did we insure—prior to the vote—that we would have at least 80% of members voting in favor?  By conducting an anonymous, mail-in survey where both members in support and in opposition would be motivated to participate in our survey.  This mail-in survey, conducted in January of 2011, resulted in 84% stating that they would, at a special congregational meeting, vote for Our Savior’s Lutheran to leave the ELCA.

And what did we learn from congregations that failed in their disaffiliation vote?  We learned that the traditional and quaint principle, “don’t count your chickens before they hatch” was applicable to this situation.  A case in point: One of the two Oregon Synod churches which had already failed in their effort in early 2010 had miscalculated in their assumption that an overwhelming percentage of their members were so upset with the ELCA that they were ready to vote for disaffiliation in January of 2010.  But this large congregation ended up—with about 400 members attending their special congregational meeting—just seven votes short of two-thirds!  In other words, the clear majority of the over 400 members voting ended up on the “losing” side!  So for us the lesson learned was the necessity for 1) an extended pre-vote education process, and 2) having a high level of confidence as to the vote outcome based on a thorough, advance mail-in survey.  (Note: for smaller churches, informal face-to-face surveys will usually suffice when it comes to an accurate prediction of your formal-vote outcome.)

A second major strategy related to our one-year education process.  We decided to focus on the centrality of Scripture in the life and teaching of the church, and not as much on LGBTQIA+ issues.  Our primary emphasis was on this fact: there was and is no scriptural support for the actions of the national assembly in the summer of 2009. 

     Our third strategy was emphasizing to our members that the ELCA national assembly actions were taken unilaterally, and without the support of a majority of ELCA congregations.  In fact, the only national survey of ELCA congregations, before the assembly vote, showed that a clear majority of the congregations were in opposition to the recommended policy changes.  And yet ELCA national church leaders went ahead and supported these changes anyway.

Our fourth strategy was—during the one-year pre-vote education process—to give those in opposition to disaffiliation opportunities to publicly share their views.  And we did this both at two annual congregational meetings, and in numerous adult forums.

     And our fifth strategy was to follow the “letter of the law” laid out in the ELCA constitution for those congregations pursuing disaffiliation.  This is especially important in those cases where congregations are putting their property ownership at risk by not carefully following those constitutional requirements.

Our disaffiliation process from 2009 to 2011 was an incredible challenge involving significant prayer—and stress—on members, congregational leaders, staff and pastors.  However, I have never, in the last fifteen years, regretted helping lead Our Savior’s out of the ELCA.

But what about ELCA churches considering disaffiliation in 2025/2026?  My sense is that the challenges of the disaffiliation process today are not quite as daunting as in 2010.  And this is true despite the fact that the current ELCA constitutional requirements for disaffiliation are even stricter than they were fifteen years ago.  Then how can I say that today this process is not as “daunting”?  I say that because of the increasing politicization of the ELCA since the assembly actions of 2009.  This politicization of the ELCA continues to alienate many of their congregations.  And this was, in my opinion, inevitable given that many if not most of the more moderate pastors and members who were part of the ELCA in 2010 have since left.  And where are they today?  Not surprisingly, most of them now belong to either the LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) or the NALC (North American Lutheran Church).  Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s I was part of an ELCA synod’s staff, and then eventually the national staff of the ELCA’s Division for Congregational Ministries.  In that capacity my assignment was to travel and eventually work with the synodical evangelism committees of 25 of the ELCA’s 65 synods.  In fact I ultimately worked with pastors and lay leaders from over 500 ELCA congregations.  Back then the ELCA was a national church body comprised primarily of biblical and theological moderates; the great majority of whom understood that Scripture was and should continue to be the very foundation of our national church’s life and mission.  In my humble opinion that understanding of the centrality of God’s Word is no longer an emphasis among those who currently lead the ELCA.

There were three linchpins that were integral to my departure from the ELCA. The first linchpin, the so-called “Bound Conscience” statements, kept me from leaving the ELCA for over 15 years with the belief in the lie that the ELCA was some kind of “big tent,” with room purposely made for biblical conservatives along with progressives. It was, of course, a lie intended to stop the mass exodus of conservatives and others, but it was convenient for me to believe and promote. I told myself that as long as I could preach and teach from a biblically conservative and confessional theological position without interference, I would remain in the ELCA. Why risk damaging a church when there was no interference or pressure? As the years went on, this self-deception wore thin and I felt less and less welcome and safe in the ELCA.

This Bound Conscience (BC) linchpin was exposed and readied for pulling at the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, when it was decided that BC needed to be “reconsidered.” Conservatives who already had diminished trust levels in the ELCA interpreted this as meaning that BC would be neutered or eliminated. When asked about what this meant, we were typically told that the language would be “updated,” “aligned with current understanding of issues,” or even “aligned with Federal DEIA guidelines” (except when it was pointed out that DEI was being eliminated throughout the federal government).

It took me a long time to understand that the phrasing of BC as “Conscience Bound Belief” was itself actually a trap. Scripturally conservative pastors and believers would never say that we were “conscience-bound” to a belief. We would rather say that, like Martin Luther, our conscience is bound to the plain language of Scripture. Our consciences are not simply bound to an easily dismissed social construct. Even with this problem, BC provided at least some legal and denominational cover for conservatives, while being incredibly offensive to progressives.

The concept of Bound Conscience as an important factor for conservative pastors and churches was difficult to explain to the lay people in my congregation. None had heard of it. Explaining it and what the loss of it would mean to conservative pastors and churches was critical in preparing my congregation for disaffiliation.

The second linchpin in my disaffiliation journey was the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC). This is where the “quiet part was said out loud.” I was providing sound and video support for a pastors’ conference in 2023 where I got to hear first-hand what they were planning to do to the denomination. I have never felt so unwelcome and unsafe in my entire ministry. It was as though I had fallen into a DEIA-based cult, where Jesus wasn’t really needed and scripture was only quoted to make what was being done sound vaguely religious, or to confuse anyone who dared object to anything being proposed, all presented with this kind of sanctimonious smirk intended to intimidate or shame any who disagreed. After three days of listening to their plans, I knew I had to get out of the ELCA prior to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. There absolutely was no place for a conservative pastor – or church – in the ELCA.

If there was any doubt about my concerns, they were put to rest when the final report of the CRLC was released by the ELCA Church Council. It was so much worse than I had understood. DEIA, along with anti-racism and Critical Race theory, were now to be the central “operating system” of the ELCA, and it was now in writing. I was surprised to see that much of what the CRLC was proposing was already approved through Continuing Resolutions (requiring no vote) or was being passed on for approval. The fix was already in and the traps to catch conservative pastors and churches were now set.

Walking my congregation through this very well constructed maze of traps was interesting. It all assumed that, of course, DEIA was in place and would be implemented on every level: Churchwide, Synodical AND in congregations. The problem was that congregations still had some level of autonomy. Much of the CRLC’s plan involved implementing DEIA policies fully in congregations and congregation councils. Plans were put in place to do that, but congregation constitutions needed to be brought into line with the Churchwide and Synodical constitutions, and to do that, a constitution convention would need to be held. That wasn’t approved at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, but all of the groundwork had been done to implement DEIA, CRT, anti-racism and all the rest of it fully into every aspect of the ELCA. For a more complete discussion on this, click here to see my Lutheran CORE article from July of 2024.

The last linchpin in my journey was the results of the ELCA’s DEIA audit that has been on the ELCA’s website for some time (found here and here ). It’s in two parts and has largely been adopted for implementation along with the CRLC’s final proposals. The DEIA audit is another fascinating “saying the quiet part out loud” document that is so disrespectful of conservative pastors and churches, literally mandating DEIA policies and training for all pastors and church councils. It’s breathtaking in its scope, and it describes the tenuous autonomy that congregations have as an obstacle to the full implementation of DEIA policies.

With all three of these linchpins about to be pulled, the wheels are about to fall off of the ELCA, at least with regard to all conservative pastors and churches. How? It’s a really clever trap. There is, as ELCA representatives insist, no directly stated threat to congregational autonomy. There is no “Do this or else” language. However, if a congregation or pastor refuses to adopt and implement these policies, they will be branded as sexist, racist and misogynist, and put under discipline or removed for failing to fall in line. When there is a pastoral transition, congregations will only be given candidates chosen to bring them back in line with current ELCA DEIA polity, or worse, given interim pastors whose job it is to weed out the “problems” with the church. And conservative pastors? Good luck with mobility or support. Any refusal to go along with the progressive agenda will be viewed as hate speech. See this video of a SWCA synod council member doing just that to motivate the 2023 synod assembly into voting to put a congregation under synodical preservation.

What Our Disaffiliation Process Looked Like

With the very helpful advice of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network YouTube videos (here) we focused ONLY on the issue of congregational autonomy. I was heading in this direction on my own, but this really helped clarify the issue. The “big tent” lie, while still being promoted by the ELCA, is easily dismissed as a manipulative tactic to keep churches from leaving. The question for me is simply, “Are conservative pastors and churches Welcome and Safe in the ELCA?” That phrase, “Welcome and Safe,” became my main emphasis as I worked to educate my congregation. If you focus on DEIA or LGBTQIA issues, you end up in endless, circular and manipulative arguments that the ELCA is very well prepared to win, or at least, to distort the issues and gaslight people into confusion. Focusing on the congregation autonomy question is the only route to take, and it is easily understood and grasped by congregation leaders and members.

Once I understood fully what was coming and what the issues were, I began the education process in my congregation – first with the council leadership, then with broader leadership, and then with the congregation as a whole. Education and information are key. Members have to fully understand the issues.

The first vote we took was with the church council, moving to ask the congregation to vote on whether we should begin the disaffiliation process at the congregation’s annual meeting. That passed unanimously.

The next vote was at that annual meeting, to decide to move forward with the disaffiliation process. There we set the official disaffiliation vote dates according to the ELCA’s model constitution for congregations. This also passed at over 95%.

Even though our formerly ALC congregation was operating under a church constitution from 1977 (!), I decided to follow the ELCA’s current process guidelines for former ALC congregations to the letter. This made little difference to us, and it removed an ELCA objection point.

It’s important to note that we engaged a conservative Christian legal firm (Tyler Law, LLP, out of Murietta, CA) to walk us through the process. Even though I was confident that I understood the process, I wanted legal backing to make sure I wasn’t missing something. I wasn’t. A representative from the firm was present at each of the two mandated disaffiliation votes to verify that the process was conducted properly, and all correspondence went through our legal firm. We had used this firm before for issues with the City of Los Angeles and some HR issues. The total legal cost to us for this process was just over $11k. I would not recommend going into this process without a legal team.

I can’t stress enough the importance of fully preparing the congregation for disaffiliation, making sure they understand completely what the issue really is. Because my congregation was well-prepared, both votes were above 95% in favor of disaffiliation. The Bishop’s Consultation meeting actually solidified the results.

Because I had a good working relationship with the current and previous synodical bishops (I provided a lot of sound and video support for them, as well as serving as a Conference Dean for many years – and having served in this synod for 32 years), the process was not contentious or adversarial. I understand that this is probably the exception rather than the rule as these things go. I do feel utterly cut off from former friends and colleagues in the synod, however. That seems par for the course.

In this disaffiliation process, I prepared extensive documentation and educational materials for my congregation. I am happy to share these with pastors or congregations considering this process. Just email me with your questions and concerns. I am also open to phone conversations on this.

Our congregation is now a part of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). We are now a part of an organization that truly honors Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. It feels like we came home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor’s note: The Social Statement as amended was approved by the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly 762 to 16.

Rather than repeat Pastor Nelson’s comprehensive review of the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, I focus on the social statement “Faith and Civic Life: Seeking the Well-being of All” and its resolutions. This document represents a significant attempt to reshape Lutheran public witness within contemporary American civic engagement. As someone committed to the Augsburg Confession and the Book of Concord, I see this statement as indicative of the ELCA’s growing theological accommodation to secular ideologies, often undermining historic Lutheran doctrine, Christian liberty, and the two-kingdoms approach. Below, I offer a Lutheran theological rebuttal, addressing the document’s most serious theological issues and providing a confessionally-rooted correction.

Confusing the Two Kingdoms

At the heart of the ELCA’s statement is a blurring—often, a collapse—of the Lutheran distinction between the “right-hand” spiritual kingdom (regnum gratiae) and the “left-hand” civil kingdom (regnum politicum). The document’s language routinely invokes public service, advocacy, and “civic life” as vehicles for the realization of “shalom,” the biblical vision of justice, well-being, and wholeness. While Lutherans affirm that God works through both “kingdoms,” the Confessions strictly delimit their means and goals: the Church is constituted by the ministry of Word and Sacrament, calling sinners to repentance and faith; the State orders external affairs and restrains evil by the sword (Augsburg Confession XVI, XXVIII; Romans 13). By asserting that “God’s people are called to both engage in bringing about a better world and be vigilant in regard to any earthly arrangement,” the document opens the door to a confusing activism where the proclamation of the gospel is practically subordinated to the Church’s civil agenda. This is not God’s unique gift to the Church (Word and Sacrament), but a giving over of the Church’s authority to temporal ideologies and causes, however well-meaning.

Erosion of the Doctrine of Sin and Justification

Lutheran theology begins all social analysis with the acknowledgment that even the noblest human efforts—political, economic, or philanthropic—remain shot through with original sin (homo incurvatus in se). The ELCA document affirms a general brokenness but shifts quickly to systemic theories of oppression, power, and identity, echoing contemporary sociological frameworks more than biblical anthropology. Furthermore, its soteriology is social, not christological: the Church’s role is cast as “seeking justice and reconciliation,” with little mention of Law and Gospel or the unique necessity of Christ’s atoning work. The Augsburg Confession teaches that the Church alone possesses the means of grace for forgiveness and new life (Augsburg Confession V; Apology IV). In contrast, the ELCA’s focus risks distilling Lutheran teaching into general moral uplift and activism, undermining both the necessity of Christ for sinners and the Church’s saving mission.

Instrumentalization of Doctrine and Liturgy

Repeatedly, the proposed statement invokes baptismal vocation as a calling to “public advocacy” or “prophetic presence” for contemporary social causes (especially DEIA, as noted throughout the Assembly). While all Christians are called to serve their neighbor, confessional Lutherans insist this flows from justification by faith—never as a requirement or condition to secure justice in this age (Formula of Concord, SD VI). Instrumentalizing baptism and liturgy as tools for social transformation shifts their meaning from divine gift to human project. The document thus confuses the orders of creation and redemption, attempting to effect spiritual change through law-oriented means.

Undermining Christian Liberty and Congregational Autonomy

The social statement’s call to centrally program civic engagement, advocacy, and even curricular recommendations for all congregations and ministries reflects a form of ecclesial coercion foreign to Lutheran doctrine of Christian liberty (Galatians 5:1; Augsburg Confession XXVIII). The binding of conscience—especially by making DEIA or any other social framework mandatory within the Church—contradicts the very heart of the Lutheran confessional principle: “It is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be the same everywhere” (Augsburg Confession VII). The uniform imposition of such agendas threatens both the diversity and the spiritual freedom of congregations.

Conclusion

The proposed ELCA social statement on civic life is marked by theological accommodation, confusion of Law and Gospel, and a radical collapse of the Church’s spiritual calling into political activism. Lutheran theology calls for faithful two-kingdoms engagement, proclamation of Christ’s atoning work, and the preservation of Christian liberty—rejecting all attempts to transform the Church into an agent of political or social revolution. The world, not the Church, is the field for partisan experiment; the Church must remain free to preach Christ crucified for sinners, for “to him alone belongs the glory” (SD II, Luther’s Small Catechism).

IT WAS BAD, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE:

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE 2025 ELCA CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY

by Dennis D. Nelson

That is how I would sum up the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  It was bad, but it could have been worse.  (2028 will probably be worse.)  For the most part, the voting members did not force the issues beyond what was being recommended, as had been feared, and on one important matter even showed some restraint.  I live in the Phoenix area, so I was able to attend most of the assembly in person as a visitor.  Being there in person you can get the “feel of the room” and also observe the makeup of the group.

1. INITIAL OBSERVATION

The first thing I noticed was how many young people and people of color there were.  I do not have the actual statistics, but a couple people at the microphone said that there were 137 people – or 17% of the voting members – who were under the age of thirty at the time of election.  The ELCA has certainly succeeded in creating the assembly makeup that they have wanted, even if some of the votes did not go as far as they would have desired.

2. ABUSE OF POWER

There is over-the-top euphoria over the election of the new presiding bishop.  Lutheran CORE experienced the worst kind of bullying and abuse of power behavior from him, as we described in our Summer 2023 and October 2023 Letters from the Director.  For several years Lutheran CORE had held a Spanish language and bi-lingual ministry Encuentro at an ELCA church in northwest Chicago.  The event was organized and led by an ELCA pastor who was also doing supply preaching at the congregation with the full knowledge of the previous synodical bishop.  After Yehiel Curry was elected bishop of the Metro Chicago Synod he threatened that pastor with removal from the ELCA clergy roster (even though he was rostered in another synod) if he did not immediately cease providing pulpit supply.  Bishop Curry then brought in an entourage to take over and close the congregation (citing S.13.24 in the model constitution for synods).  In shutting down the congregation he showed no respect, regard, consideration, or appreciation for the current congregational leaders and the decades of faithful ministry that had taken place at that location (including the decades of faithful ministry by the father of the current congregational leaders).  He evicted the sons of the former pastor from the parsonage with thirty days’ notice, even though these brothers were maintaining the property and providing leadership for the congregation.  After evicting the current leaders and forcing out the confessional supply preacher, he brought in two pastors from Peru, who introduced shaman-blessed, ayahuasca-induced seances.  I read an article written by one of these Peruvian pastors.  Her argument was that since the Conquistadores were so culturally insensitive when they conquered the Indigenous people, it is appropriate to honor and include Indigenous culture with shamans and ayahuasca (a hallucinogenic plant from the Amazon basin).  I cannot imagine the Old Testaments prophets saying that since Joshua and company were so culturally insensitive about the way they came in and conquered the land of Canaan, it would be appropriate to have an altar to Baal in the Temple in Jerusalem.

I sent the article that I had written about Bishop Curry’s style and behavior to Bishop Eaton, Imran Siddiqui (vice president of the ELCA), and the person who was chairperson of the conference of bishops at the time.  I never heard from any of them.  ELCA leaders do not want to hear anything other than the official and preferred narrative.  They will completely ignore a very valid and serious complaint about bullying and abuse of power on the part of a synodical bishop.   

 The ELCA values speaking truth to power.  I was speaking truth about the abuse of power by the person who will soon hold the most powerful position in the ELCA.  At the assembly we also heard about the ELCA’s Truth and Healing Movement as well as the truth-seeking and truth-telling initiatives revolving around Indian boarding schools.  But here we see top ELCA leaders ignoring the truth about the behavior of a fellow leader. 

3. OBSESSED WITH DEIA

We have shared how the Lutheran Congregational Support Network has responded to ELCA synodical bishops who say, “Don’t worry; what you fear will never happen; the ELCA will always respect the integrity of congregations; the Lutheran Congregational Support Network is spreading lies and misinformation.”  The words and behavior of one of the co-chairs of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church totally invalidated that argument.   

On a positive note, the “Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations” that are listed in the DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) audit which the ELCA Church Council had done of its governing documents (DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf  ) are not yet mandatory, but it was obvious that certain powerful people and forces will not stop until they are.  The wording of Memorial B14 – “Consideration of Recommendation 1 of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” – was not as strong as the wording of Recommendation 1 as it came from the Commission.  You can find the Commission’s original wording in my article regarding Recommendations 1 and 7 in the May 2025 issue of our newsletter.   But still the Memorial, which was approved 646-144, called for the church “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 to direct the Church Council to add a timeline to its actions taken and to provide progress updates to this church with a final report by fall 2027, including possible constitutional changes.”

Carla Christopher, co-chair of the Commission, first celebrated the fact that within the two synods where she works LGBTQ sensitivity and cultural competency training are mandatory.  Then she said that most recommendations of the DEIA audit are not possible with the ELCA’s current polity, so we need to preserve the possibility of a re-constituting convention.  Vice president Imran Siddiqui in his response to the report of the Commission said that “DEIA work has to be a part of everything we do.”  Later in the assembly one of the nominees for presiding bishop said that DEI means “of God” so DEIA must be of God.  When the top three nominees for presiding bishop were asked to respond to certain questions, one of the questions they were given was how they would implement DEIA.  And the Church Council has already cemented DEIA language and values into the governing documents of the ELCA through Continuing Resolutions which they have passed and which do not require approval by the Churchwide Assembly.  But I was most alarmed later on during the gathering when Carla Christopher, co-chair of the Commission, exploded at the microphone because of the resistance to the constitutional amendment recommended by the Commission which would fast-track the approval process for amendments that come from the floor.  Here is a recording of her stating emphatically, “We are giving the Council less than three years to make substantive changes to dismantle racism or we are going to need to rewrite the entire constitution at a special meeting.”   Here is a recording.   The process is already well underway to eventually make DEIA mandatory for congregations.  Powerful people in powerful positions will not stop until it has happened.

During her report Bishop Eaton spoke of the need to keep the ministry of Word and Sacrament central within the life of the church.  My heart was warmed as I heard her say that the proclamation of the Gospel through the Word and the administration of the sacraments are “the only thing given only to the church,” adding that she was concerned that “the church is not always clear on that.”  After stating that “our communities are filled with justice-loving and compassionate atheists,” she asked, “What makes us different?”  All of which sounds very good, and I have read her saying these things before, but they do not reflect ELCA reality.  For the ELCA DEIA is the new gospel – even though DEIA is not Gospel.  Instead DEIA is a law that always demands more and will never be satisfied.  It took a motion from the floor – which was approved 678-120 – to add a question for the final two nominees for presiding bishop regarding their faith in Jesus and to share a Scripture passage or story which shapes and sustains them.  

4. A GLIMMER OF HOPE

I experienced a glimmer of hope when an amendment was presented, discussed, and even by a very narrow margin approved that removed language from the proposed amendment to Churchwide Constitution 22.11.b.  As we discussed in our April 2025 Letter from the Director this amendment, if approved, would have provided a fast-track approval process for constitutional amendments that come from the floor.  The amendment to the amendment was to remove language that added the phrase “or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the Churchwide Assembly.”  I was encouraged to hear even some synodical bishops speak in favor of the amendment to the amendment because of the amount of suspicion and distrust already present within their synods regarding the ELCA.  This was the discussion when, as I previously mentioned, one of the co-chairs of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church exploded at the microphone, claiming that those who were in favor of the amendment to the amendment were silencing and disregarding marginalized people.  (Her comments made me wonder what kind of amendments she wanted and planned to have come from the floor.) 

But my glimmer of hope faded when 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.  The ELCA’s summary of Day Five quotes Secretary-elect Mills as describing the church’s constitution as “something that magnifies all of the things that we understand ourselves to be as Lutherans in the ELCA. . . . Making something a document that is living beyond the people who are writing it in the moment is really important.”  Over the next few years we will find out what a “living” interpretation of the constitution means.   

5. MORE THAN MERELY “EDITORIAL CHANGES”

There were many who feared that the 2025 assembly would not be satisfied with the two-step approach that was given to the Human Sexuality Social Statement Reconsiderations Task Force.  The concern was that the 2025 assembly might force a vote on the whole issue of bound conscience.  That kind of premature action did not happen.  The vote on bound conscience, which is the provision which gives a place of dignity and respect also to traditional views and those who hold them, is scheduled to take place in 2028.  As we described in an article in the January 2025 issue of our newsletter, the task force was claiming that they were merely recommending “editorial changes.”  “Substantive changes” – such as what to do about bound conscience – will not be considered until 2028.   But I would not call the 2025 changes, which amount to no less than a full embrace of every form of gender identity and every sexual orientation – merely “editorial changes.”

The assembly stayed within the boundaries of the first step in the process except for one motion that came from the floor.  That motion was to remove the phrase “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 now to make the social statement less harmful.  The amendment to the amendment was adopted 552-211, and the revised social statement was approved 742-46.  We saw three things happening here.  First, the re-writing of history to eliminate what some people find hurtful or harmful.  Second, the defining of truth as something that conforms to some people’s liking and lived experience.  And third, a preview of what is to come in the 2028 reconsideration of bound conscience. 

A member of the task force who was one of those who made the presentation spoke of the desire that there be “a place for each of us in this church.”  He also said, “We understand that we may not have your trust, but we hope moving forward we can earn it.”  Depending upon what happens to bound conscience in 2028, we will know whether the ELCA can be trusted.       

The assembly approved (748-15) “The Common Statement on the Filioque,” an agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The term “filioque” has to do with the phrase in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”  This agreement does not call for the removal of the “filioque.”  Instead it created a common understanding between Lutheran and Orthodox church bodies, allowing both versions to be recited. 

Much has been written and said about this decision’s showing that the ELCA cares more about church unity than doctrine.  But what I would like to focus on is Bishop Eaton’s comment that if Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox Christians can overcome a thousand-year division over this much greater issue, then we certainly should be able to overcome division over much lesser issues today.  Either Bishop Eaton is trying to minimize it or she does not understand what the full impact will be if the ELCA makes DEIA mandatory for congregations and/or eliminates the provision for bound conscience.

6. UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS

There was a very interesting amendment to bylaw 5.01.E19 that was approved by a vote of 530-236 to increase the percentage goal of youth and young adult voting membership of the Churchwide Assembly, Church Council, and churchwide boards and committees from 10% to 20%.  I have already mentioned the large number of youth and young adults who were voting members of the 2025 assembly.  This representation was to be on top of constitutional amendment 12.41.11.e, which states that in addition to their regular number of voting members for the Churchwide Assembly, synods may elect one additional voting member who is a member of a historically underrepresented group and one additional voting member who is a person of color and/or a person whose primary language is other than English.  Though the amendment was being recommended by the Church Council, the assembly voted 492-279 to refer it back to the Legal and Constitutional Review Committee of the Church Council.

As I mentioned in my article in the May 2025 issue of our newsletter, a Continuing Resolution passed by the Church Council defines historically underrepresented groups as including persons of color, persons whose primary language is other than English, persons of diverse gender identities, persons of diverse sexual orientations, persons experiencing poverty, persons of lower income, persons living with disabilities, and persons who are not natural-born United States citizens.  If the Legal and Constitutional Review Committee ends up recommending and a future Churchwide Assembly ends up approving this amendment, a large number of the positions in churchwide assemblies, the church council, and churchwide boards and committees will be given to youth, young adults, and members of historically underrepresented groups.  Since a large percentage of the members of the majority of ELCA congregations are old white people, who will then be the underrepresented group? 

The Churchwide Assembly extended much acknowledgement and consideration to Indigenous people.  There was the required opening land acknowledgement, an evening Powwow, a Day of Remembrance for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls, and much discussion and repentance over the ELCA’s complicity in the abuses caused by Indian Boarding Schools.  But there is one major way in which the ELCA rejects a basic value of Indigenous people – the respecting and valuing of the wisdom of tribal elders.

7. ENDLESS CONFESSION

I stayed Friday afternoon for the Service of Confession and Repentance for Sexism and Patriarchy.  It seemed strange that I was being called on to repent of Sexism and Patriarchy in the midst of the following realities.  The two top elected leadership positions in the ELCA at the time were being held by women.  The Conference of Bishops is pretty equally divided between men and women.  A majority of ELCA seminary presidents are women.  A majority of the members of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church are women.  A majority of leaders of Lutheran churches in other countries who greeted the assembly were women.  And I did not keep a running tally, but it seemed that the majority of people who went to one of the microphones to speak were women.

As I said before, DEIA is the new gospel of the ELCA – even though DEIA is not Gospel.  Instead it is a law that always demands more and will never be satisfied.  You can never grovel, repent, apologize, and change your ways enough.      

There was also a very interesting phrase in one of the petitions during the service.  God was addressed as “Holy midwife.”  Now I am not surprised that the designers of the service would want to include every possible feminine image for God, but “Holy midwife”?   Think about it.  A midwife does not procreate.  A midwife does not bring about new life.  A midwife merely helps deliver new life that has been created by others.  The image of God as “Holy midwife” diminishes God from being “the one through whom all things were made.”

8. THE RISKS OF BEING WOKE

And now I would like to conclude by sharing two things that say a lot about the risks of being Woke.

First, Tuesday was the day that everyone was to wear red in solidarity with Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls.  When the ELCA treasurer came to the podium to give her report, she was wearing red.  She said that it was not good for a treasurer to wear red, so she ducked behind the podium and came back up wearing green.  Everyone – or at least almost everyone – chuckled. 

As the last item of the day, one person went to the microphone and shared how triggered and offended she was by someone’s making light of such a serious and sacred thing as a Day of Remembrance for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls.  What a downer way to end the day.  But it did show that Woke will always find something to be triggered and offended about and by.

Second, on Friday afternoon someone made a substitute motion to amend the language of bylaw 7.31.02.a.8, striking the proposed phrase and replacing it with words including “giving special honor to members of historically underrepresented groups.”  Several people of color went to the microphone to say that they are looking for justice and equality, not special honor.  When the maker of the motion was asked where the language of “special honor” came from, she replied from Paul in 1 Corinthians 12.  Bishop Eaton asked her, “Have you read that passage?”  That question alone should have been cause for alarm.  The substitute motion was defeated (703-52).

A few minutes later a voting member went to the microphone and shared how livid and offended she was because of what 1 Corinthians 12: 24 actually says.  “God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member.”  The maker of the substitute motion was calling members of historically underrepresented groups inferior members.  The voting member said to the maker of the motion, “You have hurt me in a way you will not believe.”     

Two lessons for all who want to be Woke –

1. Be always ready to always be triggered and offended.
2. Be very careful in your quotation and interpretation of Scripture.

I said at the beginning that the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly was bad, but it could have been worse.  Will the 2028 Churchwide Assembly be worse?  It could be.  It will be worse if bound conscience is eliminated and constitutional amendments are approved so that DEIA becomes mandatory for congregations.  Will that happen?  There are powerful, preferred, and well-positioned people who are determined it will happen and will not stop until it happens.  We will continue to monitor.

Trusting in Jesus the Lord of the Church,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

TOOLS FOR WORSHIP PLANNING – PART ONE

by Cathy Ammlung

Many thanks to NALC pastor Cathy Ammlung for this first in a series of videos intended to provide congregations – especially those with temporary and/or longer-term pastoral vacancies – with some tools for worship planning.  A link to Cathy’s video can be found HERE.  A link to our You Tube channel, which contains sixty reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf. 

 In this video, Cathy talks about why worship planning is important.  She describes the “flow” of the liturgy, how that actually helps create faithful worshippers, and how it creates a “reality check” for what you may be planning.  She discusses some alternatives when there’s not a Communion service.

Cathy then gives a brief preview of the other topics that will be covered in more detail in future videos: the church year; lectionaries and how to navigate them as you plan worship over a season; hymn selection and getting the most from the hymnals; and selecting, writing, and praying intercessory prayers.  An outline of these things can be sent to you as an email Word attachment.  You can contact her at [email protected].

As the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) considers sweeping constitutional amendments in 2025, it is crucial to revisit the foundational principles of the Lutheran Reformation—the Five Solas—and assess the implications of these changes for our confessional identity and mission. The Five Solas—Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory)—are not merely historical slogans but enduring guideposts for Lutheran faith and practice. Recent proposals within the ELCA threaten to compromise these pillars at a time when clarity and fidelity are most needed.

Sola Scriptura and the Authority of God’s Word

The move toward gender-neutral and nonbinary language in ELCA governing documents, as proposed in the November 2024 Church Council actions, raises significant concerns about Sola Scriptura. While inclusivity is a worthy goal, altering biblical terms such as “brothers and sisters” risks detaching the church from the clear witness of Scripture, which affirms humanity as “male and female” (Genesis 1:27, Matthew 19:4). The authority of Scripture, upheld by the Lutheran Confessions, must remain the foundation for doctrine and practice. When church language is shaped more by cultural trends than by God’s revealed Word, we risk undermining the very principle that sparked the Reformation: that “God’s Word shall establish articles of faith” (Luther).

Solus Christus and the Marks of the Church

Another critical issue is the proposed expansion of voting rights to synod assemblies for non-congregational ministries—such as camps and nonprofits—that do not regularly offer Word and Sacrament ministry. The Augsburg Confession defines the Church as the assembly where the Gospel is purely taught, and the sacraments rightly administered. To broaden the definition of “church” to include organizations whose primary mission is not the proclamation of the Gospel or the administration of the sacraments risks severing the church from its Christological center. Solus Christus reminds us that Christ alone is the head of the Church, and it is His presence in Word and Sacrament that constitutes the true church—not organizational structure or social activism.

Soli Deo Gloria and Church Governance

The Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC) has proposed streamlining the constitutional amendment process by eliminating the second Assembly vote, thereby centralizing authority and reducing congregational input. Such a move contradicts both the spirit of the Augsburg Confession and the principle of Soli Deo Gloria, which insists that all church governance must ultimately glorify God, not merely serve institutional efficiency. Furthermore, the lack of proactive communication about these amendments undermines transparency and trust, violating the church’s commitment to open dialogue and discernment.

Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and the Marginalization of Confessional Voices

Perhaps most troubling is the increasing marginalization of confessional and conservative voices within the ELCA. Sola Fide and Sola Gratia teach that all are justified by faith and saved by grace alone—not by ideological conformity or prevailing cultural opinions. When traditional perspectives are dismissed or excluded from meaningful dialogue, the church risks replacing genuine unity with superficial consensus, undermining the mutual respect and forbearance to which we are called (Romans 14:1, Ephesians 4:3). True inclusion, rooted in the grace of Christ, embraces the full spectrum of faithful Lutheran convictions.

A Call to Faithful Reformation

The proposed constitutional changes present a pivotal moment for the ELCA. To remain faithful to our Reformation heritage, the church must:

• Ensure all amendments are publicized directly to congregations, upholding Sola Scriptura.
• Reject fast-tracking governance changes that bypass congregational discernment, preserving Soli Deo Gloria.
• Host open forums to discuss amendments through the lens of the Five Solas, especially Solus Christus.
• Appoint confessional leaders committed to upholding Reformation theology.

The ELCA cannot credibly champion inclusion while sidelining conservative voices and obscuring governance changes. Only by realigning with the Five Solas can the church preserve its confessional integrity and witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sola slide with list of solas and German church, courtesy of Paul Fleming.

Six years. That was the length of time St. John’s Lutheran Church of Nanticoke, PA, went without a called pastor. For six years, this incredibly close-knit group of strong lay leaders worked hard to keep their church family together and to remain an active congregation.

Why so long? While it would be nice if there were only one reason, such as only having one pastoral candidate offered to them over those six years, sadly, that was not the case. As time passed, several factors ultimately led to their decision to consider alternative Lutheran church bodies with which to affiliate.

The most consistent factor was a lack of support from the Synod. Initially, the congregation had two or three pulpit supply options, but it later dropped to just one: a pastor who was dying of lung cancer. Ironically, this pastor was once their called pastor, whom they put under a one-year review and eventually dismissed because her sermons were highly volatile, divisive, and not centered around the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Over time, conditions worsened as the Synod could no longer provide or guarantee bi-weekly or even monthly pulpit supply, leaving St. John’s to fend for itself. St. John’s had no choice but to seek support from other Lutheran groups that could assist fellow Christians in need on an occasional basis. Rotating between lay leaders and occasional visiting supply pastors, church leadership started to question the future of the ELCA and whether they wanted to stay in it.

What about their interim? Their decision to consider other Lutheran bodies had nothing to do with her. They felt sorry for her because she had her own congregation and was also serving as an interim at St. John’s and a few other parishes simultaneously. She did what she could to support them.

In 2018, the congregation was surprised to learn that an eight-year-old, who had transitioned from his biological sex to the opposite with parental permission, was a featured speaker at the national youth gathering.

That same year, Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton was interviewed by the Chicago Sun-Times, where she expressed her opinion as a representative of the most prominent American Lutheran Church body, suggesting that she believed there may be a hell, and in her view, it would be empty. Her publicly expressed opinion, as a representative of the ELCA, constitutes a denial of her ordination vows, which state that the ordinand is to affirm what the Church confesses, accepts, and teaches concerning the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. The ordinand is then asked, “Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and these creeds and confessions?” How can an ordained Lutheran Pastor confess the Creeds and then say something that could cause others to doubt the existence of hell, contradicting the authority of Scripture? When someone no longer believes Scripture to be the norming norm, it is easy to understand such an answer.  

While I could continue, events like these prompted St. John’s church council to reach out and start discussions to find which denominations might be a good fit. As they learned more about the denomination they once proudly belonged to, the council shared their findings with the congregation. During the last three years of their pastoral vacancy, the congregation—which considers itself a church family—held many conversations and came together as one.

Feeling fed up, they took the necessary steps to initiate the vote process for disaffiliation. On November 19, 2023, they held their first vote. Afterwards, a representative from their Synod conducted a building inspection and asked whether the congregation had ever received a loan or grant to meet its church needs, which it had not. Following the constitutional rules, they held their second vote on February 18, 2024. Both votes were unanimous, and that is how St. John’s Lutheran Church of Nanticoke, PA, became the 500th congregation to join the North American Lutheran Church. By August of that year, they had completed their paperwork and gone through the call process. I was ordained and installed as their pastor on October 24, 2024. They prayed and worked to keep their church family together and are all the stronger for it.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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