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.  

Many thanks to Stephen Heath for providing a video summary of his new book, “A Christian Worldview Primer for Twenty-first Century Americans.”  A link to Stephen’s video can be found HERE.   A link to our You Tube channel, which contains fifty-nine video reviews of books and discussions of topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.

Stephen describes himself as “a Christian layman who was raised in the faith and has strived to convey to his children and grandchildren what has been entrusted to him.”   His professional life has taken him through a career as an Air Force legal officer specializing in Government contract law.  After serving in the military, he continued to use his legal expertise in the private sector.

This primer begins by introducing the basic concepts of worldview.  It then outlines Christianity’s answers to the worldview questions of origins, purpose, and destiny.  Stephen writes –

“Christianity’s understanding of the universe and life and law within it is unique, comprehensive, and coherent.  In every age, the Christian worldview confronts a competing worldview which wrests authority from God and claims autonomy for humanity itself.  At this time and place, the world on its own opposes the Christian worldview in many ways. These ways include matters of authority, truth, ‘rights,’ sex, ‘social justice,’ the relationship between religion and politics, and society’s dependence on three basic independent institutions: the family, a religious institution, and a civic one.  This primer seeks to make the believer aware of these relationships and the differences between Christianity’s understandings of them and those of ‘the world.’  It ends on a note of hope, remembering the words of our Lord, ‘Be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world.’”

Summer 2025

Dear Friends in Christ –

Luke 8: 26-39, the Gospel Reading for June 22, the Second Sunday after Pentecost, tells of Jesus’ delivering the Gerasene demoniac.  This story is in all three of the synoptic Gospels and it occurred right after Jesus’ calming of the storm on the Sea of Galilee, which I believe is significant.  This was the first time that Jesus during His public ministry ventured into Gentile territory (the presence of pigs confirms that).  Satan tried to stop Him with a storm.  When that did not work, Satan tried to stop Him with a demoniac.  What are some of the ways in which you see Satan trying to hinder, disrupt, stop, and destroy the work of God today?  

Near the beginning of the account it says, “As He (Jesus) stepped out on land.”  Near the end it says, “So He got into the boat.”  It only mentions Jesus as stepping out of and getting back into the boat.  The disciples must have been too spooked – by the storm, by being in Gentile territory, and by the demoniac – to be willing to get out of the boat.  When have you been so spooked that you did not want to do the equivalent of following Jesus out of the boat?  With all the things that are happening in our country, in our world, and even in some parts of the church today, it would be very easy to be totally spooked and just want to stay in the boat.   

Notice the way in which Luke describes the demonized man.  “For a long time he had worn no clothes, and he did not live in a house but in the tombs.”  “Many times it had seized him; he was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the wilds.”  Mark adds, “He was always howling and bruising himself with stones.” 

Satan hates us.  Satan’s greatest desire is to hurt the people of God and to hinder and destroy the work of God.   How do you see Satan doing that today?  As I look around I see many ways in which Satan is active overtime trying to destroy the work of the church today.   

With all the turmoil happening in our world, it would be very easy to be totally afraid.  But here we see that the forces of evil immediately recognize the far greater power of Jesus.  When the demonized man saw Jesus, he fell down before him and shouted at the top of his voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me.” 

And then when Jesus asked the demon for its name, the demon replied, “Legion.”  The reason for that name is that many demons had entered him.  Jesus was establishing His authority over the demon by commanding the demon to tell Jesus his name.  Many who have a ministry of spiritual deliverance have said that demons have resisted telling their name.  A legion was the largest military unit in the Roman army and was composed of over 5,000 men.  By comparison, Mary Magdalene had only seven demons cast out of her (Luke 8:2).   

As I understand the Scriptures, God is omni-present, able to be everywhere all at the same time. Satan is a created being and therefore can only be in one place at a time.  Therefore, Satan has his various levels of followers – whom Paul describes as “rulers, authorities, cosmic powers of this present darkness, and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6: 12).  These Satan assigns to specific people, places, and situations.  That is why the legion of demons begged Jesus not to order them to go back into the abyss.  They would be in deep trouble with Satan if they were to abandon their post and return to hell.

Then we come to what has been for many people the most difficult part of the story.  Why would Jesus give the demons permission to enter a large herd of swine, which would lead to the death of the swine?  Why would Jesus allow the destruction of the property of others as well as the livelihood of the swineherds?  Many Bible scholars believe that these pigs were being raised to be sacrificed to idols.  So Jesus is showing that His power is not only far greater than the Legion of demons, it is also far greater than all pagan gods.   

If that is the most difficult part of the story, we then come to the saddest part of the story.  When the swineherds saw what had happened, they ran off and told people about it.  Rather than being overjoyed that the demoniac had been delivered, the people were afraid.  And because they were afraid, they asked Jesus to leave.  They asked Jesus to leave, and He obliged them by leaving.  The tragedy is not only that Jesus left – as requested – but there is no record that He ever returned.  Sometimes it seems that some parts of the church have so elevated other values and agenda priorities that they basically have asked Jesus to leave.    

The story concludes by telling us that the man who had been delivered of demons begged Jesus that he might be with Him.  But Jesus said to him, “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.”  Naturally this person would want to follow Jesus because Jesus had liberated him.  But Jesus knew that he would be most effective in witnessing to people who had known him before he had been delivered.  I am very grateful for all the people who tell me that they are sharing our materials with others.  Who are the people who would be most apt to listen if they were to hear it from you?

The ELCA Churchwide Assembly will be coming up at the end of July.  We are deeply concerned about actions that will be taken, including further cementing DEIA values and Marxist critical race theory into the governing documents of the church, substituting a “gospel” of dismantling racism for the Gospel of forgiveness of sins through the cross, a fast-tracking of the approval process for amendments to constitutions, and a full embrace of the most extreme LGBTQ+ agenda.  Like with the townspeople in Luke 8, it feels like many in the ELCA are asking Jesus to leave. 

Thank you for your prayers, words of encouragement, and faithful financial support, all of which enable and strengthen us to continue to do our work of being a Voice for Biblical Truth and a Network for Confessing Lutherans.  Please find enclosed a form which you can use to give a gift towards our regular operating expenses.  Your prayers are especially important as we face all the changes that we anticipate coming from the upcoming ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  Please let us know how we can be praying for you.     

In the all-powerful Name of Jesus,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE
P.O. Box 1741
Wausau WI 54402-1741

An Analysis of Recommendations 1 and 7 in the Final Report of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

The past couple years we have written extensively about the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, which was formed in response to action taken by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  We have expressed deep concern over –

• The primary mandate that was given to the Commission to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.” 
• The makeup of the Commission, with 20% being LGBTQ+ persons and 20% being DEIA officers or leaders at their place of employment and/or influence.
• The DEIA audit which the 2022 Churchwide Assembly instructed the Church Council to have done of the ELCA’s governing documents and how the results of that audit might be incorporated into the work of the Commission. 
• The consistent lack of specific information in all communications from the Commission.
• The way in which the ELCA dismissed and ridiculed persons who were concerned through the document which they released, “Myths and Facts about Congregational Governance.”
• The amendments to the ELCA Constitutions which have been recommended by the Commission, approved by the Church Council, and are being presented to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, especially the proposed amendments to chapter 22 of the Churchwide Constitution, which would fast-track the approval process for amendments that come from the floor at the assembly.

But my concerns have only grown greater as I have read and analyzed the final report from the Commission, which was recently released.  A link to that final report can be found HERE. 

I have studied and sought to grasp the entire report – all 75 pages of it.  My overall impression is the same as what I have of all documents that come from the ELCA.  It is too long and excessively verbose.  I always wonder if the reason for the length and all the verbiage is to hope that people will not read it – at least not read all of it or read it carefully.  My second impression is that rather than help facilitate functioning so that the ELCA can better focus on its mission, the Commission has made the process and structure even more convoluted and complex.  It is as though the Commission has created deeper snow and/or thicker mud for the ELCA to now have to try to navigate its way through.

But what I find most alarming are Recommendations 1 and 7 in the final report, which have accomplished nothing less than cementing a DEIA value system and Marxist critical theory into the ELCA governing documents.  This infiltration of a radical leftist agenda into the governing documents is no longer something that we fear might happen this summer at the Churchwide Assembly.  It has already happened.  The horse has already left the barn.    

Recommendation 1 reveals the Commission’s values and priorities.  Recommendation 7 exposes their accomplishments.

Recommendation 1 – “Immediate Action on Dismantling Racism” – can be found on page 34 in the final report.  This recommendation reveals what the Commission values the most and feels most urgent about.  The Commission is recommending that “the ELCA Church Council immediately begin identifying and acting upon mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA to ensure the proactive centering of dismantling racism within the denomination.”  These measures and incentives are to be guided by the recommendations outlined in the DEIA audit and the ELCA’s Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity.

Complaining about the slowness of the progress of the ELCA’s becoming in their eyes a “truly welcoming church” that realizes “authentic diversity,” the Commission’s position is that “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 they are not developed in time, then the ELCA Church Council needs to call for a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to evaluate and enact the necessary constitutional revisions. 

There is nothing else that the Commission sees as so urgent and compelling and feels as hot, bothered, and motivated about as dismantling racism.   

There are two things in the Rationale for Recommendation 1 that I found alarming.  First, the Commission admits that its “mandate was specific to the charge of dismantling racism.”  But it has enlarged its concern to encouraging the Church Council “to expand the work beyond dismantling racism to include dismantling discrimination against all historically underrepresented groups.”  More will be said about these groups in Recommendation 7.  I remember early on in the work of the Commission when Co-Chairperson Carla Christopher used the language of “dismantling oppression” rather than “dismantling racism” in a video regarding the work of the Commission.  I wrote to her and asked how that expansion happened, how victims of oppression will be identified, and whether people with traditional views who do not agree with the work of the Commission will become victims of oppression.  She wrote back, back-pedaling from “dismantling oppression” back to “dismantling racism.”  But here I see that she has reversed her course.

What is even more alarming in the Rationale for Recommendation 1 is the way in which it concludes with a sentence that gives a preview of what is to come in Recommendation 7.  It says, “While much that needs to be done to accomplish this work may be centered in our constitution and bylaws, which can only be amended by the Churchwide Assembly, the commission encourages the Church Council to act on continuing resolutions and policies that can advance this work before the 2028 Churchwide Assembly.”  Much of what we have feared the most is no longer something that might happen at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.  It has already happened.  The horse has already left the barn.    

Recommendation 7 – “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Related Changes to Governing Documents and Recognition of Historically Underrepresented Groups” – can be found on pages 47-49 in the final report.  What is most disturbing here is that this Recommendation contains a number of continuing resolutions which the Commission recommended and which the Church Council has already approved, thereby making them already part of the ELCA’s governing documents.  What these continuing resolutions that are already approved have already done is nothing less than cementing a DEIA value system and Marxist critical theory into the official governing documents of the ELCA.  The horse has already left the barn.     

5.01.H24. gives definitions of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility.  These definitions are now a part of the ELCA’s governing documents.   

5.01.I24. commits the ELCA “to working to intentionally lift up voices from historically underrepresented groups.”  There are many places throughout the final report and in the recommended changes to ELCA constitutions and bylaws where provision is made for “historically underrepresented groups” to have voice, vote, and representation far beyond their actual numbers within the membership of the ELCA.  This continuing resolution identifies “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.

There is certainly no doubt that God loves all people.  In the First Reading for Easter Sunday Peter says at the house of Cornelius, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality” (Acts 10: 34).  The Second Reading for the Fourth Sunday of Easter describes “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the lamb” (Revelation 7: 9).  Consistently throughout the Bible God shows His love for the poor and commands that His people be concerned for the poor.  And among the things that the prophet Micah says that God requires of us is “to do justice and to love kindness” (Micah 6: 8).  What troubles me is the way in which through continuing resolution 5.01.J24. the Church Council has not only fully embraced every form of sexual orientation and gender identity.  It has also made the following a special privileged and protected class that one dare not discriminate against.

5.01.J24. Persons of diverse gender identities and persons of diverse sexual orientations means individuals who identify beyond the sex and gender binary, individuals whose gender identity may be fluid, and individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, or other sex, gender, and sexual identities that are more complex than sex, gender, and (sic).  (I believe something has been cut off in the final report.)

And then, to make it completely clear, the final report states the following – “Continuing resolutions 5.01.G24, 5.01.H24, 5.01.I24, and 5.01.J24 (as amended) were adopted by the Church Council and are now part of the ELCA’s governing documents.”

Why would anyone still believe that bound conscience has a chance to survive in the ELCA?  Bound conscience is the concept from 2009 in which the ELCA promised to provide a place of dignity and respect for those who hold traditional views regarding human sexuality.  Why would any congregation still believe that they would have the option of not calling a pastor with a “diverse gender identity” or a “diverse sexual orientation”?  What we knew all along would happen has happened.  The ELCA has officially turned its back on its promises from 2009.  The horse has already left the barn.     

And not only that but Marxist critical theory has been incorporated into the ELCA’s governing documents through the actions of the Church Council.  The whole language of dismantling racism – which is the primary mandate given to the Commission and as we saw in Recommendation 1 the primary concern of the Commission – reflects critical theory.  In this ideology racism is not just something that people say and do that they must stop saying and doing.  Rather it is seen as so embedded into the very structures of society that those structures must be torn down.  Built into the very systems of our culture are structures that privilege some people and lead to the oppression of others.  Those who are in positions of power and privilege are not going to voluntarily relinquish that power and privilege, so those systems must be dismantled and destroyed.  This perspective has now been incorporated into the official governing documents through action that has already been taken by the Church Council.  The horse has already left the barn.  Continuing Resolution 5.01.I24. contains this sentence.  “This church recognizes that humans have multiple aspects of their identities that are tied to systemic privilege and oppression that shape the lives of individuals and communities in distinct ways.”

HERE and HERE are links to the official ELCA news releases which tell about actions taken by the Church Council at their November 14-17, 2024 and April 3-6, 2025 meetings.  Do they give any indication of the full depth, seriousness, and significance of what happened at those meetings?  Absolutely not!  Instead the news release for November 14-17 uses this innocuous, non-specific language to describe the actions of the Church Council –

• Approved amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that were drafted in response to the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility Audit.
• Recommended to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly certain amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that were brought to the council by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.
• Approved amendment of certain continuing resolutions in “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA.”
• Acknowledged amendment to the governing documents of this church related to nonbinary inclusion and to gendered language in the constitution.     

And the news release for April 3-6 uses this equally innocuous and non-specific language.  The Church Council –

• Authorized its Executive Committee to consult with the Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity advisory team to review its purpose and to create an ELCA handbook that includes recommendations for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) standards for congregations.
• Adopted continuing resolution amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that relate to the churchwide organization. 

* * * * * *

I would now like to conclude by saying a few words to those who might be persuaded to believe the ELCA’s claim that DEIA is supremely compatible with the gospel and truly reflects and is consistent with Biblical values.  First, the ELCA’s DEIA is not the gospel of the Bible.  The gospel of the Bible is the gospel of the forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life through Jesus and His death and resurrection.  The ELCA’s DEIA gospel is a gospel of God’s welcoming, including, and loving all people equally.  There is a major difference.  Jesus is not really necessary in the ELCA’s DEIA gospel.  Second, DEIA and critical theory are not gospel.  They are legalism at its absolute worst.

With DEIA and critical theory there is no satisfaction.  You can never do enough.  No matter how much you apologize for, repent of, and grovel over your racism, abuse of power, and misuse of privilege, it is never enough.  If you are white, and especially if you are a white male, you will never be able to apologize enough for, repent enough of, and grovel enough over the racism, abuse of power, and misuse of privilege of all white people around the world and in all times past.

With DEIA and critical theory there is no forgiveness.  There cannot be forgiveness, because if oppressed and marginalized people forgive oppressive, privileged people who have apologized, repented, and groveled enough, then oppressed and marginalized people will lose their power over privileged people, and power is what it is all about.

With DEIA and critical theory there is no deliverance.  If you are white – and worst of all, if you are a white male – then you cannot not be racist.  You will do everything you can to perpetuate the systems that have privileged and empowered you.  The only thing that can be done is for “woke people” – on behalf of the oppressed and marginalized – to tear down, dismantle, and destroy the systems that have empowered the privileged people.  (The only problem is that the “woke people” who lead the process of dismantling will then come into positions of power and privilege and themselves begin oppressing and marginalizing oppressed and marginalized people.  For that is what you get when the greatest value is power.)

The apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Galatians 1: 6-7).  Paul then had some very strong words to say about those who were proclaiming a gospel contrary to what the Galatians had originally received.  I believe that his words are very relevant to what is happening in the ELCA today. 

The Lutheran Congregational Support Network (LCSN) has recently released three more videos which tell of big changes that are on the horizon for the ELCA.    

HERE is a link to Part 5 – “Changing the Constitution: The Fast Track Proposal.”

In July 2025, key constitutional amendments will be up for a vote – amendments that could reshape the church’s future.  This video explains what is at stake and what these changes could mean.  We urge you to watch this video so that you will understand the ELCA’s fast-track proposal and why it matters. 

HERE is a link to Part 6 – “The ELCA’s Game Changer?”

This video unpacks a seemingly simple question posted by ELCA Vice President Imran Siddiqui: “If you were to change the organizational structure of the ELCA, how would you do it?” It explores how a single footnote in a recent report could have significant implications for congregational autonomy.

What does it mean when a lawyer-vice president calls a proposal to “eliminate congregational home rule” a “game changer (esp. in the legal sphere)”?  This video takes a close look at:

• How and why Section 9.22 of the ELCA constitution could be used in new ways
• How a simple footnote could point toward a path for imposing churchwide mandates without congregational consent
• The growing tension between local autonomy and centralized authority in the ELCA

HERE is a link to Part 7 – “Churchwide Assembly: Who Gets to Vote?”

This video tells of another change that will be voted on at the triannual gathering this summer – adding voting members who are not part of congregations. Instead, they represent Synod-Authorized Worshiping Communities (SAWCs), which are groups that are directly created and controlled by the Synod.  You will also hear about other aspects of the amendment like the addition of voting members based on demographic categories and how this continues a broader institutional shift that sidelines congregational voice.

These changes are not theoretical. They could reshape how your ELCA congregation operates, makes decisions, and defines its mission.

If you have not already done so, I highly recommend that you go to the LCSN’s website (LINK) and sign up to be on their email mailing list.  On their website you will find videos they have already released about the ELCA’s quest for ever greater control.  The LCSN very intentionally approaches matters related to the ELCA not in terms of theology, and not in terms of cultural issues and Biblical moral values, but in terms of the ELCA’s Constitutions and the whole matter of congregational autonomy. 

Easter 2025

Dear Friends in our Risen Lord –

The Gospel reading for April 6, the Fifth Sunday in Lent, is a powerful example of overwhelming love and deepest gratitude that express themselves in extravagant giving. John 12 starts out, “Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for Him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with Him.”

The previous chapter (John 11) tells the story of the resurrection of Lazarus. I believe that what is going on here in chapter 12 is that Lazarus and his sisters wanted to show their gratitude, so they invited Jesus and His disciples over for dinner. “Martha served.” If the account in Luke 10: 38-42 is any indication, when Martha served a dinner, she went all out. The meal and hospitality were over the top. There is a lady at the church where my wife and I are members who – whenever she is in charge of the food for an event – she goes all out. It is over the top. Whenever she – or the chef at a nearby Lutheran retreat center – are in charge of the soup for one of the Lenten soup suppers, you know that it is going to be very, very good.

What does Mary do? Verse 3 – “Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.” According to Judas in verse 5 this perfume could have been sold for three hundred denarii (what the average person would earn in a full year). Jesus responds in verse 7, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial.”

Mary just had to do something extravagant to show her love for Jesus – to express her deep gratitude to Jesus – for raising her brother Lazarus from the dead. What is the most extravagant thing you have done because of your love for someone – because of your love for God?

The apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians –

8: 9 – “You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, so that by His poverty you might become rich.”

9: 6 – “The one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.”

9: 8 – “God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in every good work.”

9: 11 – “You will be enriched in every way for your great generosity.”

9: 15 – “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!”

You have shown your great love for God by your faithful and generous support of the work of the Lord, including the ministry of Lutheran CORE. Thank you for including Lutheran CORE in your giving. A major part of our work right now is evaluating and alerting you to what will be coming to and what will be acted on by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly this summer. Again this year we are supporting NEXUS, the ministry of Bible study, theological reflection, fellowship, and vocational discernment for high schoolers put on by Grand View University in Des Moines. We are again supporting the Cross Country Mission and City Mission work of River’s Edge Ministries in Mt. Airy, Maryland, which provide encouragement and practical assistance for rebuilding their lives for victims of natural disasters in various parts of our country, as well as outreach into inner city Baltimore. In the past we have provided financial assistance for four students at the North American Lutheran Seminary in Ambridge, Pennsylvania. We have now doubled that number to eight.

And yet we know that the work of Lutheran CORE – as well as the work of our ministry partners – will be severely criticized by those who see us as a threat to their relentless efforts to remake the ELCA and redefine its mission. I have already shared how I was removed from the ELCA Clergy Facebook group because my work with Lutheran CORE was accused of being hostile and abusive. And ELCA leaders are obviously threatened by the work of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network as shown by the document the ELCA prepared in rebuttal. If you have not already done so, I urge you to sign up to be on the email mailing list of the Network. You will find a link to their website on the ELCA Focus page on our website. It contains written communications as well as videos that discuss the anticipated changes to the ELCA Constitutions that are most alarming. It does not surprise us that there will be powerful forces that oppose us, just as one of Jesus’ disciples severely criticized Mary for what she did for Jesus.

Please find below links you can use to give a gift towards our regular operating expenses. Please also let us know how we can be praying for you. Thank you for your partnership in the Gospel, as we seek to live as the apostle Paul wrote – sowing bountifully, loving extravagantly, and thanking God for His indescribable gift.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE
P.O. Box 1741
Wausau WI 54402-1741

ELCA leaders must have heard enough about the work of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network that the ELCA Office of the Secretary has prepared a document entitled “Myths and Facts About Congregational Governance.”  Here is a link to that document – LINK # 1. 

The document contains a link to the proposed changes to the ELCA Constitutions for Churchwide, Synods, and Congregations that will be coming from the Church Council to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.  The Assembly will be held from July 28 through August 2 in Phoenix.  Here is a link to the proposed changes – LINK # 2.  The document also contains a link to the Rationale for the proposed changes.  This notification is in line with the requirement that the Church Council must act on proposed changes and transmit them to the synods at least six months prior to the Churchwide Assembly.

According to the document –

• There is nothing in the proposed changes that would eliminate, or even reduce, congregational autonomy and self-governance.
• The proposed changes to the “Model Constitution for Congregations” are minimal and do not reduce congregational autonomy in any way.
• The proposed changes do not affect congregational property ownership.
• There are no changes to the provisions related to synod administration or preservation of congregational property.
• There are no proposed changes to the disaffiliation process.

Synod preservation is the name for the process described in S.13.24 in the “Model Constitution for Synods” by which synods can move in and take over the property and functioning of a congregation if – in the eyes of the synod – the congregation has become too scattered and/or diminished and/or is no longer able to fulfill its function.  We have previously written about how two synods have used that provision against congregations – Metro Chicago and Southwest California.    

The document also states that recommendations from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church have been incorporated in some of the proposed changes, and even though the report of the Commission is not yet complete, none of the Commission’s recommendations advanced to date would do any of the things mentioned in the bullet points above.

I have read, studied, and analyzed the twenty-one pages of proposed changes and the ten pages of rationale.  Here is my response.

1.  Why would the ELCA have spent who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars on a thirty-five-member Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and on hiring a law firm to do a DEIA audit of its governing documents if the results are no more than the constitutional changes that are currently being proposed?

2.  Do we really think that those who worked for the creation of the Commission are going to be satisfied if it accomplishes no more in advancing their goals – including the dismantling of racism – than what is included in the proposed changes?

3.  How can anyone imagine that the proposed changes call for something as major, involved, and expensive as a separate, reconstituting convention?  And will those who worked for the creation of the Commission be satisfied if there is no such convention?    

4.  We do not yet have the final report from the Commission.  The written summaries of each of their eleven meetings to date are very general and communicate very little.  And we do not know what will be included in their final report, which could very well contain recommendations that are more significant than what is included in the proposed changes.  But as we will see under the discussion of the amendments to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide,” the Commission has certainly prepared the way for the possibility (probability?) of their making and fast-tracking additional and more-far-reaching recommendations.     

My overall impression is this.  The ELCA does not value trust and does not know how to build trust.

1.   When the results of the DEIA audit were posted, which contained extensive recommendations for congregations which would consume the time and energy of any congregation that would try to meet them, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council came out with a statement regarding the status, implications, and/or ramifications of the audit. 

2.  Even though lack of communication creates fear and distrust, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council did anything to get the Commission to be more informative in their reporting. 

3.  The Presiding Bishop, Vice President, and Chairperson of the Conference of Bishops all totally ignored the communication from me regarding the bullying and abuse of power behavior on the part of the Metro Chicago Synod Bishop and Council in their using S.13.24 (synodical preservation) to take over and close a congregation.

4.  Nobody has stepped in and intervened when a synod (such as Southwest California) fights a war of attrition against a congregation.  Because of their closing congregations and selling properties, synods have the resources to fight long, protracted, legal battles against congregations, while individual congregations can only keep going for so long to try to protect themselves. 

With all of these dynamics, I do not understand why the Church Council and Conference of Bishops do not realize that there has been a crying need for greater communication all along.

Having shared these overall impressions, I would now like to highlight several specifics from the proposed changes and rationale which illustrate what I am saying.

PROPOSED CHANGES AND RATIONALE

The proposed amendments to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include the addition of several references to participants in Synodically Authorized Worshiping Communities (SAWCs) to “expand inclusion and leadership opportunities.”  SWACs consist largely of community outreach and social justice-oriented groups.  Because they are established by synods and their ongoing existence is dependent upon synodical approval, they would not be able to resist synodical influence as a congregation could, if it so chooses.

Changes to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include one being recommended by the Candidacy Working Group of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church –

7.31.03.  This amendment is intended to produce a more flexible, competency-based discernment and formation process for candidates for the ministry of word and sacrament.  As stated in the Rationale, “By moving certain bylaws to the policy level in the Candidacy Manual, which can be approved by the Church Council after consultation with the Conference of Bishops, revisions that respond to changing realities could be made more swiftly than they can by constitutional amendment.”  In other words, the formation process for your future pastor could more easily be changed to match new ELCA agenda and priorities.      

Churchwide 7.31.07 and 7.61.07 – The Task Force on On Leave from Call and Specialized Ministry (as called for by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly) is recommending that the existing policies whereby synodical bishops can unilaterally deny a request for On Leave from Call status for rostered ministers be replaced by a new protocol in which synodical bishops make recommendations but the final decision is made by the synod council following a consultation process.  I assume this change is because of the disaster and uproar in the Sierra Pacific Synod back in 2021.

A more pronounced change is the addition in several places of a mandated or desired level of participation of persons from “historically underrepresented groups.”  The ELCA views historically underrepresented groups as including persons of color, diverse gender identities, and diverse sexual orientation.  I assume this change is the result of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  Please note that this requirement and/or goal is in addition to a mandated or desired level of participation of persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.    

For example, proposed amendments for the “Constitution for Churchwide” include –

• 41.11.e. – 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.
• 21 – In selecting staff members for the Churchwide organization, a balance is to be maintained of members of historically underrepresented groups as well as women and men and persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English (please note that there are no mandated percentages here).

Here is a mandated proposed amendment for the “Model Constitution for Synods” –

S6.04.02 – It is to be the goal of every synod that at least 10% of the voting members of the synod assembly, synod council, and synod committees and organizational units be members of historically underrepresented groups in addition to at least 10% being persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.  The synod council is to establish a plan for implementing this goal.   

Another example is 10.21.03. in the “Constitution for Churchwide” which says that the ELCA is to foster organizations for persons of all gender identities. 

The only recommended change in the “Model Constitution for Congregations” relevant to Chapter 7 (Property Ownership) is in C7.03 – to change the language from “transfer” to “relate” to another Lutheran church body.   

 Certainly so far the proposed amendments do show ELCA values and priorities.  But I do not see how they would require a special, very expensive, reconstituting convention.  For me what are most alarming are the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide” which would fast track the approval process for any additional amendments that may come to the floor – including from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – without requiring a second, separate, full Churchwide Assembly.  These amendments to Chapter 22 were recommended by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church. 

A change in 22.11.a. would allow for the possibility of a special assembly amending the constitution in a single step, following recommendation of amendments proposed by the Church Council.    According to this amendment, the Church Council proposes an amendment and then sends official notice to the synods at least six months prior to the next (the word “regular” is eliminated) meeting of the Churchwide Assembly.

Changes in 22.11.b. would allow amendments introduced on the floor of the Churchwide Assembly to be ratified unchanged by a 2/3 vote of the Church Council within 12 months of the assembly, instead of waiting three years for the next Churchwide Assembly.   According to this amendment, 25 or more members of the Churchwide Assembly can propose an amendment.  It states, “The proposed amendment shall be referred to the Committee of Reference and Counsel for its recommendation, following which it shall come before the assembly. If such an amendment is approved by a two-thirds vote of members present and voting, such an amendment shall become effective only if (the words are changed from ‘adopted’ to ‘ratified unchanged’) by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting at the next (again the word ‘regular’ is eliminated) Churchwide Assembly.”  The amendment then adds “or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the Churchwide Assembly.” 

In the same way, Amendment 22.21, which also was recommended by the Commission, would allow for bylaw amendments to be approved by a special assembly, not only by a regular assembly.

Obviously, the Commission is planning on introducing amendments in addition to those that were given to the Church Council early enough so that the Church Council could send them out to the synods six months prior to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. 

SUMMARY

We do not know what else the Commission will be bringing to the Churchwide Assembly, though they obviously have prepared the way for their submitting more.  There appears to be a deliberate strategy so that recommendations still to come from the Commission can be approved and ratified quickly and easily.  We do not know what actually might happen at the Assembly.  Assemblies can take on a life of their own.  But we do know that it will not stop there.

* * * * * *

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

Many thanks to Larry Becker, member of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document, which he has sent to his congregation.  A link to his letter can be found HERE. 

HERE is a link to the analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document from the Lutheran Congregational Support Network.  They also have a video on the same subject, a link to which can be found HERE.  As I mentioned at the beginning, they are the organization whose work probably motivated the ELCA to produce that document.  If you have not already done so, I highly recommend that you go to their website (LINK) and sign up to be on their email mailing list.  On their website you will also find a just-released video regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the ELCA Constitution for Churchwide.  Future videos will review other proposed changes coming from the Church Council to the Churchwide Assembly.  The Support Network very intentionally approaches issues related to the ELCA not in terms of theology, and not in terms of cultural issues and Biblical moral values, but in terms of the ELCA’s Constitutions and the whole matter of congregational autonomy. 

Finally, because theology is important, HERE is a link to an account from Steve Gjerde, LCMC pastor and former vice president of the board of Lutheran CORE, of the process of his congregation’s leaving the ELCA and their theological reasons for doing so.  Steve particularly emphasizes their understanding of Holy Communion as informing and motivating their decision. 

AN ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS COMING FROM THE CHURCH COUNCIL TO THE 2025 ELCA CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY:

THE ELCA MUST NOT VALUE TRUST AND MUST NOT KNOW HOW TO BUILD TRUST

by Dennis D. Nelson

ELCA leaders must have heard enough about the work of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network that the ELCA Office of the Secretary has prepared a document entitled “Myths and Facts About Congregational Governance.”  Here is a link to that document – LINK # 1. 

The document contains a link to the proposed changes to the ELCA Constitutions for Churchwide, Synods, and Congregations that will be coming from the Church Council to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.  The Assembly will be held from July 28 through August 2 in Phoenix.  Here is a link to the proposed changes – LINK # 2.  The document also contains a link to the Rationale for the proposed changes.  This notification is in line with the requirement that the Church Council must act on proposed changes and transmit them to the synods at least six months prior to the Churchwide Assembly.

According to the document –

• There is nothing in the proposed changes that would eliminate, or even reduce, congregational autonomy and self-governance.
• The proposed changes to the “Model Constitution for Congregations” are minimal and do not reduce congregational autonomy in any way.
• The proposed changes do not affect congregational property ownership.
• There are no changes to the provisions related to synod administration or preservation of congregational property.
• There are no proposed changes to the disaffiliation process.

Synod preservation is the name for the process described in S.13.24 in the “Model Constitution for Synods” by which synods can move in and take over the property and functioning of a congregation if – in the eyes of the synod – the congregation has become too scattered and/or diminished and/or is no longer able to fulfill its function.  We have previously written about how two synods have used that provision against congregations – Metro Chicago and Southwest California.    

The document also states that recommendations from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church have been incorporated in some of the proposed changes, and even though the report of the Commission is not yet complete, none of the Commission’s recommendations advanced to date would do any of the things mentioned in the bullet points above.

I have read, studied, and analyzed the twenty-one pages of proposed changes and the ten pages of rationale.  Here is my response.

1.  Why would the ELCA have spent who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars on a thirty-five-member Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and on hiring a law firm to do a DEIA audit of its governing documents if the results are no more than the constitutional changes that are currently being proposed?

2.  Do we really think that those who worked for the creation of the Commission are going to be satisfied if it accomplishes no more in advancing their goals – including the dismantling of racism – than what is included in the proposed changes?

3.  How can anyone imagine that the proposed changes call for something as major, involved, and expensive as a separate, reconstituting convention?  And will those who worked for the creation of the Commission be satisfied if there is no such convention?    

4.  We do not yet have the final report from the Commission.  The written summaries of each of their eleven meetings to date are very general and communicate very little.  And we do not know what will be included in their final report, which could very well contain recommendations that are more significant than what is included in the proposed changes.  But as we will see under the discussion of the amendments to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide,” the Commission has certainly prepared the way for the possibility (probability?) of their making and fast-tracking additional and more-far-reaching recommendations.     

My overall impression is this.  The ELCA does not value trust and does not know how to build trust.

1.   When the results of the DEIA audit were posted, which contained extensive recommendations for congregations which would consume the time and energy of any congregation that would try to meet them, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council came out with a statement regarding the status, implications, and/or ramifications of the audit. 

2.  Even though lack of communication creates fear and distrust, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council did anything to get the Commission to be more informative in their reporting. 

3.  The Presiding Bishop, Vice President, and Chairperson of the Conference of Bishops all totally ignored the communication from me regarding the bullying and abuse of power behavior on the part of the Metro Chicago Synod Bishop and Council in their using S.13.24 (synodical preservation) to take over and close a congregation.

4.  Nobody has stepped in and intervened when a synod (such as Southwest California) fights a war of attrition against a congregation.  Because of their closing congregations and selling properties, synods have the resources to fight long, protracted, legal battles against congregations, while individual congregations can only keep going for so long to try to protect themselves. 

With all of these dynamics, I do not understand why the Church Council and Conference of Bishops do not realize that there has been a crying need for greater communication all along.

Having shared these overall impressions, I would now like to highlight several specifics from the proposed changes and rationale which illustrate what I am saying.

PROPOSED CHANGES AND RATIONALE

The proposed amendments to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include the addition of several references to participants in Synodically Authorized Worshiping Communities (SAWCs) to “expand inclusion and leadership opportunities.”  SWACs consist largely of community outreach and social justice-oriented groups.  Because they are established by synods and their ongoing existence is dependent upon synodical approval, they would not be able to resist synodical influence as a congregation could, if it so chooses.

Changes to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include one being recommended by the Candidacy Working Group of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church –

7.31.03.  This amendment is intended to produce a more flexible, competency-based discernment and formation process for candidates for the ministry of word and sacrament.  As stated in the Rationale, “By moving certain bylaws to the policy level in the Candidacy Manual, which can be approved by the Church Council after consultation with the Conference of Bishops, revisions that respond to changing realities could be made more swiftly than they can by constitutional amendment.”  In other words, the formation process for your future pastor could more easily be changed to match new ELCA agenda and priorities.      

Churchwide 7.31.07 and 7.61.07 – The Task Force on On Leave from Call and Specialized Ministry (as called for by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly) is recommending that the existing policies whereby synodical bishops can unilaterally deny a request for On Leave from Call status for rostered ministers be replaced by a new protocol in which synodical bishops make recommendations but the final decision is made by the synod council following a consultation process.  I assume this change is because of the disaster and uproar in the Sierra Pacific Synod back in 2021.

A more pronounced change is the addition in several places of a mandated or desired level of participation of persons from “historically underrepresented groups.”  The ELCA views historically underrepresented groups as including persons of color, diverse gender identities, and diverse sexual orientation.  I assume this change is the result of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  Please note that this requirement and/or goal is in addition to a mandated or desired level of participation of persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.    

For example, proposed amendments for the “Constitution for Churchwide” include –

• 41.11.e. – 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.
• 21 – In selecting staff members for the Churchwide organization, a balance is to be maintained of members of historically underrepresented groups as well as women and men and persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English (please note that there are no mandated percentages here).

Here is a mandated proposed amendment for the “Model Constitution for Synods” –

S6.04.02 – It is to be the goal of every synod that at least 10% of the voting members of the synod assembly, synod council, and synod committees and organizational units be members of historically underrepresented groups in addition to at least 10% being persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.  The synod council is to establish a plan for implementing this goal.   

Another example is 10.21.03. in the “Constitution for Churchwide” which says that the ELCA is to foster organizations for persons of all gender identities. 

The only recommended change in the “Model Constitution for Congregations” relevant to Chapter 7 (Property Ownership) is in C7.03 – to change the language from “transfer” to “relate” to another Lutheran church body.   

 Certainly so far the proposed amendments do show ELCA values and priorities.  But I do not see how they would require a special, very expensive, reconstituting convention.  For me what are most alarming are the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide” which would fast track the approval process for any additional amendments that may come to the floor – including from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – without requiring a second, separate, full Churchwide Assembly.  These amendments to Chapter 22 were recommended by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church. 

A change in 22.11.a. would allow for the possibility of a special assembly amending the constitution in a single step, following recommendation of amendments proposed by the Church Council.    According to this amendment, the Church Council proposes an amendment and then sends official notice to the synods at least six months prior to the next (the word “regular” is eliminated) meeting of the Churchwide Assembly.

Changes in 22.11.b. would allow amendments introduced on the floor of the Churchwide Assembly to be ratified unchanged by a 2/3 vote of the Church Council within 12 months of the assembly, instead of waiting three years for the next Churchwide Assembly.   According to this amendment, 25 or more members of the Churchwide Assembly can propose an amendment.  It states, “The proposed amendment shall be referred to the Committee of Reference and Counsel for its recommendation, following which it shall come before the assembly. If such an amendment is approved by a two-thirds vote of members present and voting, such an amendment shall become effective only if (the words are changed from ‘adopted’ to ‘ratified unchanged’) by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting at the next (again the word ‘regular’ is eliminated) Churchwide Assembly.”  The amendment then adds “or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the Churchwide Assembly.” 

In the same way, Amendment 22.21, which also was recommended by the Commission, would allow for bylaw amendments to be approved by a special assembly, not only by a regular assembly.

Obviously, the Commission is planning on introducing amendments in addition to those that were given to the Church Council early enough so that the Church Council could send them out to the synods six months prior to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. 

SUMMARY

We do not know what else the Commission will be bringing to the Churchwide Assembly, though they obviously have prepared the way for their submitting more.  There appears to be a deliberate strategy so that recommendations still to come from the Commission can be approved and ratified quickly and easily.  We do not know what actually might happen at the Assembly.  Assemblies can take on a life of their own.  But we do know that it will not stop there.

* * * * * *

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

Many thanks to Larry Becker, member of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document, which he has sent to his congregation.  A link to his letter can be found HERE. 

HERE is a link to the analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document from the Lutheran Congregational Support Network.  They also have a video on the same subject, a link to which can be found HERE.  As I mentioned at the beginning, they are the organization whose work probably motivated the ELCA to produce that document.  If you have not already done so, I highly recommend that you go to their website (LINK) and sign up to be on their email mailing list.  On their website you will also find a just-released video regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the ELCA Constitution for Churchwide.  Future videos will review other proposed changes coming from the Church Council to the Churchwide Assembly.  The Support Network very intentionally approaches issues related to the ELCA not in terms of theology, and not in terms of cultural issues and Biblical moral values, but in terms of the ELCA’s Constitutions and the whole matter of congregational autonomy. 

Finally, because theology is important, HERE is a link to an account from Steve Gjerde, LCMC pastor and former vice president of the board of Lutheran CORE, of the process of his congregation’s leaving the ELCA and their theological reasons for doing so.  Steve particularly emphasizes their understanding of Holy Communion as informing and motivating their decision. 

* * * * * *

VIDEO MINSTRIES

“MY LIFE WITH CARL BRAATEN AND PHIL HEFNER” by ROBERT BENNE

Many thanks to Robert Benne, Professor of Christian Ethics at the online Institute of Lutheran Theology, for his very warm and personal reflections and memories of two former colleagues.  A link to his video can be found HERE.

Professor Benne writes, “One of the blessings of my life was to share a significant portion of it with those of two major Lutheran theologians, Carl Braaten and Philip Hefner, both of whom have died recently.  We not only shared fifteen years of teaching together at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, but extended our friendships for many years before and after those Chicago seminary years.  In the following video I will go through some of the memorable moments I shared with both of them. Of course, since they were theologians, I will touch on their theological contributions.  But many of the memories I will share have to do with other dimensions of our lives.  The video is meant to be something of a historical record of a special time in Lutheran history, but also a winsome tribute to two Lutheran theologians who also happened to be my friends.” 

Director’s Note: The contents of this post were provided to Lutheran CORE’s director by the Lutheran Congregational Support Network (LCSN).

The ELCA Office of the Secretary has produced a document in response to what they identify as “rumors that have been circulating regarding supposed changes to ELCA governance…” This document is being shared by ELCA bishops and synod leaders in what appears to be a response to information on the LCSN website.  

Myths or Facts: We want you to decide!

Start by:

• Reading a response to the “Myths and Facts” sheet found on LCSN’s website.
• Watching the videos of the synod assemblies of the Metro New York Synod and the Southwest California Synod as they apply synodical administration to viable congregations.
•  Connecting with LCSN if you have questions or need clarification.

We are simply providing information made public by the ELCA.

Read and engage in the discussion.

Stay tuned!

More videos will be coming soon…

Please reach out to us with any questions by replying to this email or contacting us directly at [email protected].

This isn’t about politics. It’s not about theology. It’s about autonomy.

Many thanks to Alan Williams for his video review of his book, “Captain Comet and the Intergalactic Patrol.”  A link to Alan’s review can be found HERE.  A link to our YouTube channel, which contains fifty-six reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.    

Alan writes, “As a retired Lutheran pastor for 54 years of ministry (NALC and LCMC), I wrote three books that are science fiction, outer space and Christian, in hopes to touch the minds of high school and college aged people to come to know God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The spaceship Star Treader, with a crew of fourteen, has a five-year, galaxy-policing mission, which is completed with many challenges along the way and tragically the loss of some lives. The crew hail from five different planets and take their religious faith seriously as they call on God to help them deal with impossible difficulties such as space pirates, intelligent nuclear spiders, AI viruses, fighting trans-dimensional beings, and rescuing energy beings who are friends. They run into political shenanigans that almost cost them their lives. They find friends in unexpected places.  Alan writes, “The combination of adventure, faith, and camaraderie . . . is an exciting glimpse into the world of the future.”

Published by Christian Faith Publishing, Alan L. Williams’s new book is a thrilling space odyssey that will captivate readers of all ages. With its imaginative world building and dynamic characters, it offers a compelling exploration of courage, friendship, and the enduring power of faith. Consumers can purchase this book at traditional brick & mortar bookstores, or online at Amazon.com, Apple iTunes store, or Barnes and Noble. The author webpage is alanleewilliams.com.