An Obvious Attempt at Damage Control:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY GUIDE
FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE HUMAN SEXUALITY SOCIAL STATEMENT
by Dennis D. Nelson
The task force that is reconsidering the 2009 ELCA social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” has released a study guide that focuses on the whole issue of bound conscience. They are asking for responses by September 30.
HERE is a link to an article I wrote which described the two reconsiderations that are a part of the process as directed by the 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly. The first reconsideration was approved by the 2025 Churchwide Assembly by a vote of 742-46 and consisted of changes which the task force described as “simply editorial.” In the article I argued that the changes are not “simply editorial.” Rather they amount to no less than a most radical full embrace of every form of sexual orientation and gender identity. The second reconsideration, which is being worked on now, is being described as “substantive.” It is a reconsideration of the whole issue of “bound conscience.” That is the term which the 2009 social statement uses to describe the fact that people in the ELCA hold different views on same sex relationships.
HERE is a link to the study guide. It is a series of readings and questions which congregations and individuals can use to reflect on the issues. The process is set up to consist of two sessions of one hour each, though there is also a way to divide it into four sessions. This schedule can be found on page 8.
2026 — The task force publishes study materials for congregations.
2027 — A draft of revisions to the social statement will be released for public comment. The task force will consider these comments in revising the draft.
2028 — The ELCA Churchwide Assembly will take action on any proposed revisions.
On page 7 there is a statement that for me has no credibility. “The end of the process is not pre-determined.” Leading up to 2009 and ever since 2009 there has been continually less and less space for traditional views. Why would we expect that the vote in 2028 will be anything other than another step in the same direction?
As part of the discussion of the first reconsideration at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly a motion was made to remove the phrase “to be a covenant between a man and a woman” from the language “The Christian tradition has historically defined marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman, as reflected in the language of Genesis.” The rationale for the amendment was that the current wording is harmful to LGBTQ people and does not correspond to their lived experience. The claim was that merely reminding people that marriage between one man and one woman has been the historic teaching of the church was traumatic and upsetting. The maker of the motion argued that rather than waiting three more years when bound conscience will be considered, something could be done then to make the social statement less harmful. The amendment to the amendment was adopted by a vote of 552-211, and the revised social statement was approved by a vote of 742-46. Two things were going on in this vote. First, a re-writing of history to eliminate what some people find traumatic, upsetting, hurtful, and harmful. Second, making truth conform to certain people’s liking and lived experience.
ELCA youth gatherings are grooming events for LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology. Synods post on Facebook the ways in which they celebrate June as Pride Month. ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council. Why would we think that this reconsideration process also will not result in great gains for the LGBTQIA+ cause and community? The only question is how much will they gain.
And yet the study guide tries hard to do damage control, emphasizing church unity as it seeks to limit potential losses as a result of the vote on this reconsideration. For example –
Page 10 – Focusing on God as the source of the church’s unity as well as on our shared vocation “can open our hearts to the many things we hold in common and to the behaviors and values that will support trusting and life-centered relationships.”
Page 13 – “What effect do you think it would have on our conversations about sexuality if we made these core beliefs the glue that holds us together even amid disagreement?”
Page 27 – “Even in disagreement, there is still much upon which this church agrees regarding how we relate to one another.”
Page 35 – “The social statement does not try to solve disagreements but to guide the church in living together amid disagreement.”
Page 14 introduces the example of Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, which they described as focusing on what unites us and being honest about what divides us as it fostered dialogue and renewed relationships.
Page 16 – “The joint statement reflects yearning for unity, but neither the Lutheran church nor the Catholic church lets go of its deepest beliefs. Dialogue across disagreement does not mean that either side must come to a quick or easy compromise. . . . The joint statement recognizes that these deep disagreements still exist and notes that the two churches commit to remaining in relationship, learning from each other.”
However, there is a huge difference between Lutheran-Catholic dialogue and the ELCA’s reconsideration of bound conscience and same sex relationships. Because of this huge difference I do not see any relevance in the comparison. In Lutheran-Catholic dialogue both parties come to the table from a position of strength. It is a conversation between two fairly equal parties – where neither party is at risk. That is not the case with ELCA discussions regarding human sexuality. There is great discrepancy between the strength and resources of the two sides. One side – those with traditional views – has been continually losing ground. The other side – those who are working relentlessly to advance LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology – is continually gaining ground. For one side – those with traditional views – the question is how much will they lose and will there be any kind of place remaining for them. For the other side the question is how much will they gain. And even if they do not gain everything they want this time, they will certainly gain some and there will always be a next time.
Finally, there are many references in the study guide to the importance of mutual respect. For example –
Page 32 – “The social statement calls upon us to live out the moral principle of ‘mutual respect’ amid our disagreements.”
On page 33 we find a section from the social statement which includes these statements –
“In our Christian freedom, we therefore seek responsible actions that serve others and do so with humility and deep respect for the conscience-bound belief of others.”
“This church . . . encourages all people to live out their faith . . . with profound respect for the conscience-bound belief of the neighbor.”
“Regarding our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this church will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral care, and mutual respect.”
I have already mentioned how ELCA youth gatherings have become grooming events for LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology. At the 2018 youth gathering Nadia Bolz-Weber, ELCA pastor and the ELCA’s first “public theologian,” led 30,000 young people in a chant rejecting traditional views on human sexuality as a lie from Satan. With the masterful way in which she structured and gave her presentation, she got the response that she wanted.
For me, until and unless the ELCA officially apologizes for and distances itself from this highly manipulative action by and these highly inflammatory comments from Pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber, there is no credibility to the ELCA’s talking about mutual respect.
Page 38 provides a link where people can respond to a survey. The link will close September 30, 2026. Additional comments and questions can be sent to the task force at Reconsiderations@ELCA.org. You can follow the process by visiting ELCA.org/Reconsiderations.
