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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ + +

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace Lutheran’s Scenario

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor: Okay Sammy. Go ahead. 

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

Pastor: Yes they do Sammy.

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

Pastor: You are on track so far. 

Sammy: And then they hear the voice of God. 

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

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

Pastor: I’ll be quiet now Sammy. 

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

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

Sammy: It is? 

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

Sammy: Why is that. 

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

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

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

Sammy: But how do we approach God then?

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

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

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

Sammy: You did Pastor.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congregational Outreach Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Director’s Note: Many thanks to Bob Benne, esteemed NALC theologian and friend of Lutheran CORE, for his review of the history of the whole issue of “Bound Conscience.”

The 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly passed two resolutions that called for reconsideration of
the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

• Reconsideration #1 called for a review of specific text references in light of the 2015
  Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage and “public acceptance of marriage of
  same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”
  
• Reconsideration #2 called for a reconsideration of the “church’s current concept of the
  four positions of bound conscience” found on pages 19-21 of “Human Sexuality: Gift and
  Trust.”

The task force that was appointed to work on these reconsiderations had recommendations for
the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1. They described these
recommendations as “simply editorial,” even though they amounted to no less than a complete
embrace of every form of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The task force is now working on its recommendations for Reconsideration # 2, which will be
voted on at the 2028 Churchwide Assembly. Given everything that is happening and the
direction in which everything is going, it is hard to imagine that providing a place of dignity,
belonging, and respect for traditional views and those who hold them will survive.

Most Lutherans know of Martin Luther’s famous appeal to “bound conscience” at the Diet of Worms in 1521.  He insisted: “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason… my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”  His appeal to “bound conscience” meant that his theological and inner moral compass were not free but held captive by the authority of Scripture and clear reason.  For Luther, this wasn’t about subjective feeling but about obedience to God’s revealed truth, a profound conviction that led him to refuse to recant his writings, seeing it as right and safe only to follow God’s Word.   

There are no doubt many uses of the phrase in the history of Lutheranism since the 16^th century, but the use we want to examine is its use in the midst of a controversy in the ELCA over the nature of marriage and its attendant sexual ethics.  While we will focus on the ELCA since 1989, it is important to note that agitation to change traditional teachings on those subjects was already present in the merging churches—the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches—especially in their youth divisions, as well as in their seminaries.

The Past

In the first Assembly of the ELCA in 1989, I roomed with a Virginia pastor who later became the Bishop of Virginia. He was assigned to attend the newly emerging youth organization. Every evening he would sorrowfully recount to me the ways that the adult leaders were propagandizing the youth into accepting practicing homosexual pastors and homosexual marriage.  We could already see what was to come in the new church.

Soon thereafter there were theological gatherings to resist the revisionism pushed by the new church and its Bishop, especially the Called to Faithfulness Conferences held in Northfield, Minnesota. By the turn of the century the newly organized Word Alone led many congregations out of the ELCA as a protest against its agreement with the Episcopal Church that all ordinations must be in the “apostolic succession,” which generally meant that Lutheran ordinations had to have an Episcopal Bishop among the presiders.  Those churches then became Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.

Word Alone also sponsored the emergence of a protest movement against the moral revisionism of the ELCA.    I was present at its first gathering at St. Olaf College in 2003, which was organized and led by retired ELCA Bishop, Paull Spring.  Soon it took the name of Solid Rock and began organizing resistance to proposed changes in sexual ethics that would come about in the Churchwide Assembly of 2003. Solid Rock morphed into Coalition for Reform (CORE) with Roy Harrisville, Jr., as its executive.  Enough resistance was organized in both 2003 and 2005 that the revisionists did not get their way.  In 2005 a report noted that  “When Christians disagree about an ethical issue of this magnitude, one important category for determining the policy of the church may be the recognition that participants in this debate are disagreeing not out of pride or selfish desires, but because their consciences are bound to particular interpretations of Scripture and tradition. The careful way Luther approached moral dilemmas (e.g., in The Estate of Marriage [Luther’s Works 45: 17-49] or Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved [Luther’s Works 46: 93-137]) showed a genuine concern for the integrity of disputants.”  This report would become the groundwork for the “bound conscience” clause of 2009.

The Assembly of 2007 was supposed to be a truce concerning these issues, but at the end of the Assembly a Bishop proposed a successful amendment that no discipline should be used against those who were already disobeying church rules on sexual ethics.

After much work by a rather loaded task force on those issues, it proposed a social statement entitled Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, The statement turned out to be ambiguous about every crucial issue and passed by a single vote at 666.  The Assembly also passed provisions for allowing partnered gay pastors and gay marriage.

Though the task force that drafted Human Sexuality was loaded with revisionists, there was enough resistance that the “bound conscience” provision was inserted as a concession to the traditionalists and as a defensive move to prevent a wholesale rebellion in the ELCA.  It recognized four “conscience-bound” positions that Lutherans could faithfully hold on the matter of same-sex relationships, ranging from full opposition to full affirmation of same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy.

When hearings were held about the provision during the Assembly of 2009, I attended one and posed the question about whether it was simply a sop to traditionalist pastors and congregations at the local level to prevent wholesale losses, but that it would not protect traditionalists in any other facet of the church.  That has turned out to be true.  The upper levels of the church have been purged of recalcitrants.

The provision has been crucial for maintaining a painful compromise within the ELCA amid diverse views on human sexuality at the local level. Though hundreds of congregations left after 2009, those traditionalist pastors and congregations that stayed sheltered under the bound conscience provision. I have taught a number of such pastors at the Lutheran Institute of Theology, but they are worried about the future.  One has already transferred to the NALC.

The Present

What is going on to make such pastors and their congregations apprehensive?  The ELCA has already edited the statement and its rules to allow for same sex marriage language and is contemplating a more systematic application of the diversity, equity, and inclusivity ideology, which would definitely not include those traditionalists who cannot agree with the LGBT gender agenda. They are the oppressors and should be silenced or expelled.  Further, the elite of the ELCA have committed themselves to new fervid anti-racist policies that signal panic about the loss of black members even after decades of affirmative action, including the election of a black man as Presiding Bishop.

Those moves certainly signal that the bound conscience provisions are in grave danger.  Further, the task force that has been organized to examine and propose future policy has a majority of “progressives” that are likely to favor a withdrawal of the bound conscience provision.  But it seems that such a proposal is some distance in the future.  Meanwhile, traditionalist pastors and congregations are in uneasy limbo.

The Future

My hunch is that the bound conscience clause will go. There are certainly many level-headed members of the ELCA who prudentially see what will happen:  lots of losses of pastors and congregation with no gains.  More perceptive folks will see the further accommodation of the ELCA to secular progressive culture, much like sister liberal mainline denominations have done. Such accommodation means continued decline.

However, I think the “commanding heights” of the ELCA will push forward with their agenda, including the abolishment of the bound conscience clause.  The ELCA will continue down the slippery slope of accommodation.  When we in CORE were defeated decisively in 2009, we wagered that the ELCA would be unable to say “no” to anything in the sexual revolution. To confirm that wager, it has even made the grave error of propagandizing for transgenderism for children.

There is a long shot chance that the elite themselves will not push their agenda so quickly, or that synod representatives at the ELCA Assembly of 2028 will rebel and resist. But it is more likely that the Assembly will be managed well by the dominant elite, as it has been in most of them. They will make sure that their agenda will prevail.  And there will be one more step away from the Lutheranism whose teachings on marriage and sexuality are clearly grounded in Scripture and Tradition, to which our bound consciences yet cling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISRESPECTING THE INTEGRITY OF A CONGREGATION AND MISREPRESENTING THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH

First Lutheran Church of Sioux Falls, South Dakota held their first vote to disaffiliate from the ELCA on September 28, 2025.  They will hold their second vote on January 25, 2026.  The results of the first vote exceeded the two-thirds that is constitutionally required for disaffiliation.

Prior to the first vote – on September 21, 2025 – Bishop Hagmaier of the South Dakota Synod came for the required consultation.  But she did not come alone.  She brought along a high-powered “Resource Team” of about twenty persons, some of whom are current or former members of First Lutheran.  The team included a representative from Luther Seminary, the president and senior campus pastor of Augustana University (an ELCA university in Sioux Falls), a Luther scholar, three previous bishops of the South Dakota Synod,  three previous pastors of First Lutheran, the bishop of another synod (who is also a member of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church), the vice president of the synod council, the synodical director for evangelical mission, the synodical director for candidacy and mobility, the dean of the local conference, the leader of the ELCA women’s organization for the local conference, and leaders and representatives from Lutheran Social Services, ELCA World Hunger, and Lutheran Planned Generosity.  That is a lot of people, some of whom traveled from considerable distance, especially Bishop Riegel from the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod. 

The format was that four of these resource people would speak, then there would be a time when people could ask questions of the bishop.  Then the various resource people were available for groups and/or individuals.  The reason given was so that people who did not have the courage to ask a question publicly could still have their question(s) answered.

Bishop Hagmaier obviously does not want to lose this congregation.  She put a lot into gathering this resource team.  I have not heard of any other synodical bishop who took the approach of so trying to overwhelm a congregation in a Bishop’s Consultation.

What I found most alarming about the Consultation were two things –

1. The way in which Bishop Hagmaier did not respect the integrity of the congregation.
2. The way in which Bishop Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod, who was also a member of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, misrepresented the work of the Commission.

Here is a link to a YouTube recording of the Consultation – Bishop Consultation // September 21, 2025.  This link can be found on the congregation’s website under “About FLC-Church Governance Task Force.”  Therefore, it is publicly available.  Anyone who wishes to can watch the seventy-minute consultation and find out for themselves whether what I am saying is true.  Here also is a link to the power point presentation from the Governance Task Force –   Presentation TO CONGREGATION – Master Version.  The Task Force has done excellent work summarizing the issues and expressing their concerns.  Their presentation reflects actions taken by the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

FEAR OR RUMORS VS. CLARITY AND TRUTH

Bishop Hagmaier began her part of the presentation by saying that the gathering would not be about fear or rumors but about clarity and truth.  And yet the president of Augustana University in her remarks told about generous scholarships that would no longer be available to young people from First Lutheran if the congregation were to leave the ELCA.  Also the leader of the conference women’s organization shared how the Women of the ELCA (WELCA) is constituted separately from any congregation.  Funds in a congregation’s WELCA treasury belong to WELCA, not to that congregation.  Therefore, if a congregation were to leave the ELCA, the funds would remain with WELCA, not with the women of that congregation.  One person – during the question-and-answer period – challenged the opening statement that the presentations would not be about fear or rumors given that those kinds of statements were made.  Also, when we come to the section where we tell about how the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church was misrepresented, it should be obvious that that part of the presentation was certainly not about clarity and truth.

DISRESPECTING THE INTEGRITY OF A CONGREGATION

I found it shocking that Bishop Hagmaier invited three former pastors of the congregation to be part of the Resource Team (though admittedly none of them were among the initial four presenters).  The ELCA has made it very clear that pastors who no longer serve a congregation are not to be involved in the life of that congregation and doing so would be reason for discipline. 

During the question-and-answer period one of the members asked if it is appropriate for a previous pastor to contact members of the congregation regarding the disaffiliation issue.  The person asking the question then said that these kinds of contacts were being made.  This member asked since ELCA guidelines for discipline prohibit it, will a pastor who does it be disciplined?  Bishop Hagmaier affirmed ELCA policy and said that any pastor who violated the policy would be disciplined by the bishop in whose synod that pastor is rostered.  She said that there was a process for this discipline and that any complaints should be brought to her in writing.  I thought it was astounding that Bishop Hagmaier reaffirmed as a reason for discipline behavior and action that she had invited three previous pastors to be involved in.

Bishop Hagmaier also clearly stated that the South Dakota Synod applies synodical administration (S13.24 in the model constitution for synods) only after a congregation has disbanded.  Only after a congregation has held its final worship service does the synod receive the keys to the property so the synod can make sure that the property is properly cared for.  I wonder how many synods apply synodical administration (S13.24) only under those kinds of circumstances rather than under circumstances such as we have described in other synods (including in the former synod of the current presiding bishop of the ELCA). 

MISREPRESENTING THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH

I also found it shocking how Bishop Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod, who was also a member of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, misrepresented the work of that Commission.  Bishop Riegel was among the four initial presenters.  During his opening remarks he made the following comments regarding the Commission.

The “primary drive” behind the memorials from ten synods to the Churchwide Assembly that led to the formation of the Commission was “a sense that this church structurally is too big for itself.”

The focus for the original memorials was for “increasing flexibility for congregations and synods,” “loosening things up so that congregations and synods would have more ability to dictate to themselves how polity would be structured, how they would do things, so they could respond more nimbly to their context.”  The goal was “untangling some of the uniformity of the church” and “having greater flexibility.”

He also referred to the commitment to dismantle racism as merely a “proviso on the side.” 

Neither the final report of the Commission to the Church Council, nor the recommendations from the Church Council to the Churchwide Assembly, nor the actions of the Churchwide Assembly support his statements.

Contrary to what Bishop Riegel said, the commitment to dismantle racism was not a “proviso on the side.”  Instead it was a top priority of the process.  The resolution that was passed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly that called for the creation of the Commission instructed the Commission to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.”  Anything that any group is to be “particularly attentive to” is not a “proviso on the side.”    

Recommendation 1 from the Commission to the Church Council was entitled “Immediate Action on Dismantling Racism.”  It included these statements. 

“To ensure timely action, all constitution and bylaw amendments needed for the development and implementation of these accountability measures and compliance incentives must be developed and advanced in time for consideration by the 2028 Churchwide Assembly.  If by that time such measures and incentives have not been adequately identified or enacted, we recommend the ELCA Church Council call for a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to evaluate and enact necessary constitutional revisions that will enable and advance the ELCA’s commitment to anti-racism work.”

B-14 was a summary of memorials from several synods and was approved by the Churchwide Assembly 646-144.  The thrust of this motion was –  

• To acknowledge the importance of accountability in addressing racism within all structures of the ELCA
• To affirm the work of the Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity Advisory Team and request that the Church Council continue to work with the team to clarify the nature of mutual accountability as referenced in Recommendation 1 of the CRLC Report
• To direct the Church Council to add a timeline to its actions taken in response to CRLC Recommendation 1 and to provide progress updates to this church with a final report by Fall 2027, including possible constitutional changes, and
• To recommend that if this work is not accomplished by Fall 2027, the Church Council consider calling a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to enact necessary revisions to the governing documents of this church.

When you combine these actions with the development of a DEIA handbook and several pages of DEIA Recommendations for Congregations found in the DEIA audit which the Church Council had done of the ELCA’s governing documents, what you have is greater and enforced compliance and uniformity, not “greater flexibility” and “loosening things up.”

What has happened since then?  An October 9, 2025 news release from the ELCA reports that during the October 2-3 meeting of the Church Council the Council “received updates from its Executive Committee regarding a timeline of the ‘immediate action on dismantling racism’ . . . to develop mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA.”  Anything that calls for “immediate action” is not a “proviso on the side.”  “Mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA” do not speak of “greater flexibility” and “loosening things up.”  Instead they speak of greater, enforced uniformity. 

And then another way in which Bishop Riegel misrepresented the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church was in his incomplete reporting regarding a proposed amendment to the ELCA Churchwide Constitution – 22.11.b.  As I reported in my analysis of the Churchwide Assembly (LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR – AUGUST 2025 – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)) that amendment would have provided a way to fast track the approval of amendments that come from the floor.  According to the proposed amendment, they would no longer need to be ratified by a Churchwide Assembly three years later (hopefully after discussion in synods and congregations).  Rather they could be ratified by action of the Church Council within the next twelve months.  Bishop Riegel reported that he opposed that amendment, and he was correct when he said that it did not pass (though just barely).  But he did not say what happened next.  Later during the assembly a voting member proposed new language, which would provide for a provisional ratification of an amendment from the floor by a vote of the church council within twelve months and then a later ratification of the amendment by the next Churchwide Assembly.  After much discussion about whether the new language was appropriate and how it would be executed, the assembly voted 517-247 to refer the motion to the Office of the Secretary for further study.  This action raises the question of how newly elected Secretary Lucille “CeCee” Mills will interpret the constitution. 

I thought it was very interesting that Bishop Riegel did not tell the rest of the story.  Rather he presented the actions of the Churchwide Assembly in a way that would “calm the nerves” of the members of First Lutheran.  I also do not understand if the final report of the Commission was no more than what Bishop Riegel said it was, why he would have dissented to it in full.

I have only limited information from other congregations regarding the consultation that they had with their synodical bishop before they held their first vote on whether to disaffiliate from the ELCA.  But none of them were like this one.  This Consultation certainly says two things –

• ELCA synodical bishops need to respect the integrity of congregations.
• ELCA church leaders need to tell the truth.