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 info@lcsn.com.

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.

Every year Lent is a time when we give thanks to God for His great love and amazing grace.  How much we need that love and grace.  Every year on the First Sunday in Lent the Gospel reading is the account in one of the synoptics of the temptation of Jesus.  This year the reading is from Luke 4.  The Gospel writers tell us that Jesus resisted the tempter and how He did so.  The author of the letter to the Hebrews expresses so beautifully and powerfully what that can mean to us.  “We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4: 15). 

We have a God who can empathize with us.  But more than that, we have a God who paid the penalty for and broke the power of sin and who won the victory over death and the devil.  Therefore, we can “approach the throne of grace with boldness” for it is there that we will “receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4: 16)  Do you see the throne of God as a throne of grace?  Do you know that you can approach it with boldness?  Have you found at the throne of God mercy and grace to help in time of need?

What I would like to do is to go through Luke’s account of the temptation as found in Luke 4: 1-13.  As we do so, we will see what makes God’s throne a throne of grace and why it is possible for us to approach that throne with boldness.

Luke 4: 1-2 tell us that after His baptism “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.”  Matthew and Mark say it a little bit differently.  According to Matthew 4: 1, “Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”  Mark 1: 12 says, “The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.”  When have you felt that the Spirit led you while you were in the wilderness?  When have you felt that the Spirit actually led you into the wilderness?  When have you even felt that the Spirit drove you into the wilderness?     

Luke 4: 2 continues, “He ate nothing at all during those days, and when they were over, he was famished.”  Note:  The devil attacked Jesus at a point of weakness – at a time of great vulnerability.  Remember: The devil also knows your points of weakness – your times of greatest vulnerability.  And that is exactly where the devil will attack you.    

We find the First Temptation in Luke 4: 3.  “The devil said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.’”  Just a few verses before, in Luke 3: 22, at His baptism, the Father had said to Him, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” 

I can see two possible things going on here.  First, Satan could be saying, “If you truly are who you think you are, then you should be able to turn these stones into loaves of bread.”  But Jesus knew that if He were to do that in order to have the strength to resist the devil, then He would be drawing on a power that would not also be available to us.  A second possibility is that here we see the devil attacking Jesus at His sense of self-identity.  He wanted to get Jesus to question whether He truly is the Son of God.  In the same way the devil will try to get you to question whether you are a child of God.  The devil is jealous of your identity as a child of God, so he will attack you there.  The devil will attack your self-identity, your self-image, your self-confidence. 

We find the Second Temptation in Luke 4: 5-7.  “Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.  And the devil said to him, ‘To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please.  If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.’” 

The truth is that the devil has no more right to lay claim to all the kingdoms of the world than I would have the right to try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.  The devil could claim that right only as a usurper – a thief.  The devil was also tempting Jesus to choose the easy, less painful way, and to avoid the way of the cross.  When has the devil tempted you to choose the easy, less painful way?  What was the result?  Would the easy, less painful way have worked? 

We find the Third Temptation in Luke 4: 9-11.  “Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,  for it is written, “He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,” and “On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.”’” 

Again, the devil attacks Jesus by trying to get Him to question His identity as the Son of God.  Here we see that the devil knows the Bible (in this case, Psalm 91: 11-12), though he will misquote and misuse the Bible.  If the devil knows the Bible (and he has had many more centuries than any of us have had to learn the Bible), then we had better get to know the Bible too, so that we will not be led astray. 

Luke concludes his account with these words.  “When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time.” (Luke 4: 13)  The devil is like the Terminator, who said, “I’ll be back.”

Again, I can see two things going on here.  First, the devil had finished every test.  The devil has thrown everything he has against Jesus and none of it knocked Him over.  Jesus experienced the full onslaught of evil and none of it worked against Him.  The devil does not need to throw everything he has against us, for we fall early in the process.  Jesus experienced the full severity of temptation in a way that we do not know because the devil does not need to use it all against us.

Second, we can ask the question, When was that “opportune time”?  I believe in the Garden of Gethsemane, where again the devil tried to tempt Jesus to go the easier, less painful way and avoid the way of the cross.

In Luke’s account of the agony in the garden after Jesus prayed, “Father if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will but yours be done,” it says that “an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength.”  (Luke 22: 42-43).  Mark’s much more succinct account says, “He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan . . . and the angels waited on him.” (Mark 1: 13)

When have you experienced the ministry of angels after a particularly difficult time in your life, including a time of severe temptation?  When have you offered encouraging and strengthening ministry to someone else after a particularly difficult time in that person’s life, including a time of severe temptation?   My prayer for you during this Lenten season is that you will experience the throne of God as a throne of grace, that you will know that you can approach that throne with boldness, and that coming into God’s presence you will receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. 

Last month there was a discussion in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group where one person mentioned concerns that had been shared by a member of the congregation regarding last summer’s ELCA Youth Gathering in New Orleans. Specifically this member was disturbed over the promotion of LGBTQ ideology and the presence of drag queens. I responded by stating that a video had been shown at the gathering which argued on the basis of the creation account in Genesis for the possibility of more than two genders. I also reported that one of the summary videos for the event showed a group of young people with some drag queens.

Soon afterwards someone posted the question whether I am the Dennis Nelson who works with the NALC. I responded by saying that I am the Dennis Nelson who is the executive director of Lutheran CORE. That did it. Within a few minutes I found that I could no longer access the Facebook group. Several friends who are members of the group telephoned or sent me an email that confirmed that it had been reported by one of the administrators that – for the safety and well-being of the group – I had been removed. One of these informants sent me a screen shot of the announcement of my removal and the ensuing conversation. Some of it was quite nasty.

Here is the email that I then sent to the administrator who announced that I had been removed from the group.

* * * * * * *

Dear –

I was surprised to find out that I had been removed from the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when all I had done was to supply verifiable, publicly available information in response to a discussion regarding last summer’s ELCA youth gathering. I did not initiate the topic. Rather I merely contributed to the discussion by sharing that a video had been shown at the gathering which stated that the creation account in Genesis allows for the possibility of more than two genders and one of the recap videos showed some youth and drag queens.

I am a rostered ELCA pastor (retired) and am a member in good standing of an ELCA congregation where I do not cause disruption but instead contribute to the ministry. I serve as executive director of Lutheran CORE. Contrary to what was said in the conversation thread in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group, Lutheran CORE is not a ministry of the NALC. We are an independent, pan-Lutheran, reform and renewal movement. Our constituency comes from all three Lutheran church bodies – ELCA, LCMC, and NALC. Also contrary to what was said, Lutheran CORE is not the founder of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network. When we learned about that organization the board made it a priority to inform people of their work. We value what they are doing and the tone with which they are doing it.

You stated in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group that Lutheran CORE has “repeatedly demonstrated hostility and abusive behavior towards the ELCA and its clergy.” You said that I have “crossed boundaries targeting and undermining the very clergy this group exists to support.” You accused me of “targeted intolerance.” One member of the group said that it was important that I be identified by name “to prevent additional abusive (sic) from this individual.” Another member accused me of “tearing down ministries and churches.”

I would challenge you to identify any time when I have said anything hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group.

I would also challenge you to identify any time when I have been hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in any of my writings for Lutheran CORE. All of my writings are publicly available on Lutheran CORE’s website. Everything I report can be verified through the links I provide to ELCA primary sources. I feel that not I, but the discussion about me in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group has been hostile, abusive, and targeting. The only way that I can interpret the words that were said about me and the action that was taken against me is that you people are so skittish and easily threatened by opinions and information that do not fit with your preferred narrative.

We of Lutheran CORE feel that an important part of our work is alerting pastors, lay leaders, and congregations to what is happening in the ELCA as well as evaluating the significance of those dynamics. Since Lutheran CORE seems to be the only organization that is doing that, we feel that ours is a very valuable ministry. We are very concerned that people know about the possible changes that may be coming because of the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents, and the work of the task force that is reconsidering the human sexuality social statement. What motivates us is love for Jesus, the Gospel, and people, and concern for the ministry of the Church. We are not driven by anger, hatred, and a desire to undermine ELCA clergy and tear down ELCA ministries and churches.

Lutheran CORE’s website shows that we are not a hate group that cares nothing about ministry. Our goal is not to disrupt congregations. Rather we provide many valuable resources for pastors, lay leaders, and congregations, including worship aides, daily devotionals, and weekly lectionary-based Bible studies and children’s messages. We have a support group for seminarians and are one of the sponsors of a program that challenges high schoolers to consider God’s call on their lives. We offer webinars on various topics related to church leadership and provide guidance for congregations in the call process as well as for congregations that are coming to the realization that very likely there will not be an ordained pastor available for them to call. We support cross-country mission trips to help people who have suffered a disaster, as well as local mission trips in the Baltimore area. We have held annual Encuentro events in the Chicago area for congregations that are already involved in as well as congregations considering becoming involved in Spanish language and/or bilingual ministry. The majority of those attending as well as presenting at those events are ELCA. All of the above show that Lutheran CORE provides valuable resources to pastors, lay leaders, and congregations.

I believe that as the administrators and members of the ELCA Clergy Facebook group you need to ask yourselves why you are so threatened by opinions and verifiable, factual information that does not fit with your preferred narrative. Through the things that you have said about me you have shown that you are the ones whose words are hostile and abusive.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Retired ELCA Pastor
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * *

Later that day I received a reply from the pastor/administrator. There are several things I would say about his response. I did not reply to him because I did not see the purpose or point of continuing the conversation. But I did want to let you know how he responded and I wanted to show you how fragile, inconsistent, hypocritical, and intolerant they are.

First, he said, “Your work with Lutheran CORE has long been a source of division and pain within the ELCA.”

It is not Lutheran CORE that has caused division and pain within the ELCA. Instead it is the LGBTQIA+ agenda. The election of the ELCA’s first gay bishop in the synod in which I was rostered before I retired caused total conflict and turmoil within the congregation where I had served as pastor for thirty-nine years, and that conflict continued throughout and beyond my final year there. The LGBTQIA+ agenda has caused pain in my life in a way in which I never have caused pain in their lives. Also, before the ELCA changed its policies in 2009 regarding the blessing of same sex relations and the ordination of persons in same sex relations, people who wanted those policies to change disrupted a Churchwide Assembly, defied ELCA standards, and were very blatant and brazen about doing so.

Second, he said, “The organization’s efforts, both direct and indirect, to encourage congregations to leave the ELCA, often under the guise of reform, have left deep wounds.”

Reform is not a “guise” that we hide behind. Instead it is central to our work. Our purpose and mission is not to get congregations to leave the ELCA. Rather it includes alerting persons and congregations that are still in the ELCA to what is happening in and to changes that could be soon coming to the ELCA. We fully realize that for many congregations, leaving the ELCA would not be possible and/or would not be the right or best decision.

Third, he said, “The shaming and mischaracterization of LGBTQIA+ individuals, who are beloved children of God, are especially harmful and stand in opposition to the inclusive love of Christ.”

We do not engage in shaming or mischaracterizing LGBTQIA+ individuals. We agree that they are beloved children of God. We love them and are concerned for them because we believe that they are living a life that is not pleasing to God. We are also deeply concerned as we see that it is only non-binary and LGBTQIA+ ideology that is being promoted at the ELCA youth gatherings. The young people there never hear anything that supports and encourages a traditional view of human sexuality, even though the ELCA still says – in its 2009 human sexuality social statement – that traditional views still have a place of dignity and respect within the ELCA.

Fourth, he said, “When individuals or organizations repeatedly engage in actions that cause division, foster animosity, or promote intolerance – especially towards marginalized communities – it becomes clear that their participation is not aligned with the group’s purpose.”

During the years leading up to the 2009 decisions, during the time when traditional views still prevailed – though always by an ever-decreasing percentage amount – those with traditional views always bent over backwards to make sure that all views – including revisionist views – were treated respectfully and were heard. After revisionist views prevailed in 2009, those with traditional views were not afforded the same kind of courtesy that they had extended for years. It felt like we were being pushed over the cliff. It is not the LGBTQIA+ community that is marginalized. Instead they are a preferred and empowered community. It is those with traditional views that are marginalized. Evidence for this is in the fact that ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while the same courtesy is not extended to any group with traditional views.

Fifth, he said, “This decision is not about being ‘threatened’ by different opinions, as you suggest. It is about setting boundaries that foster a supportive, respectful environment for ELCA clergy. Intentionally divisive contributions, no matter how they are framed, detract from that goal.”

Nothing that we say or do is ever “intentionally divisive.” Rather it is motivated by the deepest of love for and commitment to Christ, people, and the mission of the church. For these people any dissent from the “preferred view” is considered disloyal, divisive, and disruptive.

And then he concluded by saying that he has “a deep pastoral responsibility to protect this group as a safe space for clergy who seek encouragement and support rather than conflict.”

In my contribution to the most recent discussion which got me kicked out of the group – as well as in all my other contributions in this Facebook group – I have never said or done anything disruptive, divisive, or conflict producing. Rather I merely pointed out information that would be available to anyone who went to the primary sources.

CANCEL CULTURE STRIKES AGAIN

Last month there was a discussion in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group where one person mentioned concerns that had been shared by a member of the congregation regarding last summer’s ELCA Youth Gathering in New Orleans. Specifically this member was disturbed over the promotion of LGBTQ ideology and the presence of drag queens. I responded by stating that a video had been shown at the gathering which argued on the basis of the creation account in Genesis for the possibility of more than two genders. I also reported that one of the summary videos for the event showed a group of young people with some drag queens.

Soon afterwards someone posted the question whether I am the Dennis Nelson who works with the NALC. I responded by saying that I am the Dennis Nelson who is the executive director of Lutheran CORE. That did it. Within a few minutes I found that I could no longer access the Facebook group. Several friends who are members of the group telephoned or sent me an email that confirmed that it had been reported by one of the administrators that – for the safety and well-being of the group – I had been removed. One of these informants sent me a screen shot of the announcement of my removal and the ensuing conversation. Some of it was quite nasty.

Here is the email that I then sent to the administrator who announced that I had been removed from the group.

* * * * * * *

Dear –

I was surprised to find out that I had been removed from the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when all I had done was to supply verifiable, publicly available information in response to a discussion regarding last summer’s ELCA youth gathering. I did not initiate the topic. Rather I merely contributed to the discussion by sharing that a video had been shown at the gathering which stated that the creation account in Genesis allows for the possibility of more than two genders and one of the recap videos showed some youth and drag queens.

I am a rostered ELCA pastor (retired) and am a member in good standing of an ELCA congregation where I do not cause disruption but instead contribute to the ministry. I serve as executive director of Lutheran CORE. Contrary to what was said in the conversation thread in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group, Lutheran CORE is not a ministry of the NALC. We are an independent, pan-Lutheran, reform and renewal movement. Our constituency comes from all three Lutheran church bodies – ELCA, LCMC, and NALC. Also contrary to what was said, Lutheran CORE is not the founder of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network. When we learned about that organization the board made it a priority to inform people of their work. We value what they are doing and the tone with which they are doing it.

You stated in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group that Lutheran CORE has “repeatedly demonstrated hostility and abusive behavior towards the ELCA and its clergy.” You said that I have “crossed boundaries targeting and undermining the very clergy this group exists to support.” You accused me of “targeted intolerance.” One member of the group said that it was important that I be identified by name “to prevent additional abusive (sic) from this individual.” Another member accused me of “tearing down ministries and churches.”

I would challenge you to identify any time when I have said anything hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group.

I would also challenge you to identify any time when I have been hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in any of my writings for Lutheran CORE. All of my writings are publicly available on Lutheran CORE’s website. Everything I report can be verified through the links I provide to ELCA primary sources. I feel that not I, but the discussion about me in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group has been hostile, abusive, and targeting. The only way that I can interpret the words that were said about me and the action that was taken against me is that you people are so skittish and easily threatened by opinions and information that do not fit with your preferred narrative.

We of Lutheran CORE feel that an important part of our work is alerting pastors, lay leaders, and congregations to what is happening in the ELCA as well as evaluating the significance of those dynamics. Since Lutheran CORE seems to be the only organization that is doing that, we feel that ours is a very valuable ministry. We are very concerned that people know about the possible changes that may be coming because of the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents, and the work of the task force that is reconsidering the human sexuality social statement. What motivates us is love for Jesus, the Gospel, and people, and concern for the ministry of the Church. We are not driven by anger, hatred, and a desire to undermine ELCA clergy and tear down ELCA ministries and churches.

Lutheran CORE’s website shows that we are not a hate group that cares nothing about ministry. Our goal is not to disrupt congregations. Rather we provide many valuable resources for pastors, lay leaders, and congregations, including worship aides, daily devotionals, and weekly lectionary-based Bible studies and children’s messages. We have a support group for seminarians and are one of the sponsors of a program that challenges high schoolers to consider God’s call on their lives. We offer webinars on various topics related to church leadership and provide guidance for congregations in the call process as well as for congregations that are coming to the realization that very likely there will not be an ordained pastor available for them to call. We support cross-country mission trips to help people who have suffered a disaster, as well as local mission trips in the Baltimore area. We have held annual Encuentro events in the Chicago area for congregations that are already involved in as well as congregations considering becoming involved in Spanish language and/or bilingual ministry. The majority of those attending as well as presenting at those events are ELCA. All of the above show that Lutheran CORE provides valuable resources to pastors, lay leaders, and congregations.

I believe that as the administrators and members of the ELCA Clergy Facebook group you need to ask yourselves why you are so threatened by opinions and verifiable, factual information that does not fit with your preferred narrative. Through the things that you have said about me you have shown that you are the ones whose words are hostile and abusive.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Retired ELCA Pastor
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * *

Later that day I received a reply from the pastor/administrator. There are several things I would say about his response. I did not reply to him because I did not see the purpose or point of continuing the conversation. But I did want to let you know how he responded and I wanted to show you how fragile, inconsistent, hypocritical, and intolerant they are.

First, he said, “Your work with Lutheran CORE has long been a source of division and pain within the ELCA.”

It is not Lutheran CORE that has caused division and pain within the ELCA. Instead it is the LGBTQIA+ agenda. The election of the ELCA’s first gay bishop in the synod in which I was rostered before I retired caused total conflict and turmoil within the congregation where I had served as pastor for thirty-nine years, and that conflict continued throughout and beyond my final year there. The LGBTQIA+ agenda has caused pain in my life in a way in which I never have caused pain in their lives. Also, before the ELCA changed its policies in 2009 regarding the blessing of same sex relations and the ordination of persons in same sex relations, people who wanted those policies to change disrupted a Churchwide Assembly, defied ELCA standards, and were very blatant and brazen about doing so.

Second, he said, “The organization’s efforts, both direct and indirect, to encourage congregations to leave the ELCA, often under the guise of reform, have left deep wounds.”

Reform is not a “guise” that we hide behind. Instead it is central to our work. Our purpose and mission is not to get congregations to leave the ELCA. Rather it includes alerting persons and congregations that are still in the ELCA to what is happening in and to changes that could be soon coming to the ELCA. We fully realize that for many congregations, leaving the ELCA would not be possible and/or would not be the right or best decision.

Third, he said, “The shaming and mischaracterization of LGBTQIA+ individuals, who are beloved children of God, are especially harmful and stand in opposition to the inclusive love of Christ.”

We do not engage in shaming or mischaracterizing LGBTQIA+ individuals. We agree that they are beloved children of God. We love them and are concerned for them because we believe that

they are living a life that is not pleasing to God. We are also deeply concerned as we see that it is only non-binary and LGBTQIA+ ideology that is being promoted at the ELCA youth gatherings. The young people there never hear anything that supports and encourages a traditional view of human sexuality, even though the ELCA still says – in its 2009 human sexuality social statement – that traditional views still have a place of dignity and respect within the ELCA.

Fourth, he said, “When individuals or organizations repeatedly engage in actions that cause division, foster animosity, or promote intolerance – especially towards marginalized communities – it becomes clear that their participation is not aligned with the group’s purpose.”

During the years leading up to the 2009 decisions, during the time when traditional views still prevailed – though always by an ever-decreasing percentage amount – those with traditional views always bent over backwards to make sure that all views – including revisionist views – were treated respectfully and were heard. After revisionist views prevailed in 2009, those with traditional views were not afforded the same kind of courtesy that they had extended for years. It felt like we were being pushed over the cliff. It is not the LGBTQIA+ community that is marginalized. Instead they are a preferred and empowered community. It is those with traditional views that are marginalized. Evidence for this is in the fact that ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while the same courtesy is not extended to any group with traditional views.

Fifth, he said, “This decision is not about being ‘threatened’ by different opinions, as you suggest. It is about setting boundaries that foster a supportive, respectful environment for ELCA clergy. Intentionally divisive contributions, no matter how they are framed, detract from that goal.”

Nothing that we say or do is ever “intentionally divisive.” Rather it is motivated by the deepest of love for and commitment to Christ, people, and the mission of the church. For these people any dissent from the “preferred view” is considered disloyal, divisive, and disruptive.

And then he concluded by saying that he has “a deep pastoral responsibility to protect this group as a safe space for clergy who seek encouragement and support rather than conflict.”

In my contribution to the most recent discussion which got me kicked out of the group – as well as in all my other contributions in this Facebook group – I have never said or done anything disruptive, divisive, or conflict producing. Rather I merely pointed out information that would be available to anyone who went to the primary sources.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

“CRACKING OPEN THE HARD PARTS OF THE BIBLE”

by Ken Coughlan

Many thanks to Ken Coughlan for his video review of his book, “Cracking Open the Hard Parts of the Bible.” Ken is a Christian apologist and religion teacher at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Glen Burnie, Maryland. A link to Ken’s review can be found HERE. A link to our YouTube channel, which contains fifty-five reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.

Regarding the book Ken writes –

Does the God of the Bible condone slavery? Did he order genocide? Does he value men more than women? Isn’t the Bible filled with contradictions, especially in the stories about Jesus’ birth or his death and resurrection? If you believe most atheists today, you’d answer all of these questions, “yes.” But you’d be wrong. Equally useful as a six-week group Bible study or for individual reading, “Cracking Open the Hard Parts of the Bible” doesn’t just give answers to some of skeptics’ favorite targets in Scripture. It also provides six “interpretive principles” that will help you find the answers whenever you come across someone who says they’ve found something “wrong” with a Bible passage, or when you read something you find puzzling or troubling yourself. Not afraid to “crack open” those verses that are commonly thought to be the most problematic for the Christian faith, this book will give you the answers you seek and a strategy to tackle future conversations yourself.

* * * * * * *

LATEST ISSUE OF SIMUL

The latest issue of SIMUL, the Journal of St. Paul Lutheran Seminary, on “Free Will vs. Bondage of the Will” is now available. Click here: https://issuu.com/stpaulsimul/docs/issue_13_v5

Editor Dennis DiMauro writes –

This edition goes to the heart of the matter by exploring whether human beings actually have free will. In this volume, Roy Harrisville tells us what to do when those pesky door-to-door evangelists come calling. And Paul Owens explains what you should say when surrounded by a dozen free will preachers at the local pastors’ lunch.

Virgil Thompson takes another look at Gerhard Forde’s The Captivation of the Will to understand how freedom leads to bondage, but also (and paradoxically), how bondage leads to freedom. Marney Fritts provides a beautifully written and well-researched study on Luther’s Bondage of the Will.

Dennis finishes out this issue with a book review on Michael Massing’s 2019 tome Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther and the Fight for the Western Mind. Can the lives and experiences of these two great humanists shed light on their theologies about free will?

SIMUL can be read three ways. One can enlarge and read through the flip book on the top of the webpage (there is a full screen button that can be clicked on the lower right-hand side of the flipbook, and you can double-click or use the zoom slider at the bottom of the page for even more magnification), or one can scroll down and read each individual article. This second option

allows readers to share individual articles (that can be read on a cellphone) without sending the entire issue. You can also download a pdf to your device and keep it forever!