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.” 

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

• Reconsideration #1: A review of specific text references that “would consider the import that marriage legally is now a covenant between individuals;” review specific wording “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples;” and “consider references to diversity of family configurations.”
• Reconsideration #2: A fresh consideration of the “church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience” found on pages 19-21 of “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

The task force that has been appointed to work on these reconsiderations will have recommendations for the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1.  They describe these recommendations as “simply editorial.”  After the 2025 Assembly the task force will begin work on Reconsideration # 2.  This work will include recommendations which have been described as substantive.

The task force has released draft edits related to the first reconsideration, and the public comment period on these draft edits is open until January 31.  The following resources can be found on www.elca.org/Reconsiderations.

• A copy of the entire social statement with draft edits underlined and highlighted
• A document with Explanations of the Draft Edits, which helps connect each draft edit to the authorization from the 2022 Churchwide Assembly
• A conversation guide for groups
• A survey for people to submit their feedback on the draft edits

The task force has also updated the FAQs on the webpage.  Most of the resources are available in Spanish and large-print.

The task force will review the feedback at its next meeting in mid-February.  You can email comments or questions directly to the task force at reconsiderations@elca.org, but they would prefer that people fill out the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8PMDXQM.

I am very grateful for the two opportunities I was given to have conversation via zoom with the two churchwide staff members who are working with the task force.  I found them very easy to talk with and very respectful of my views and concerns.  When I was asked what hopes I had for the process, I told them that I have no hopes for the process.  Rather it is obvious that from the beginning there have been powerful and preferred voices who have been working relentlessly to eliminate the provision for bound conscience and that if they do not succeed this time they will not stop until they eventually succeed.  Also I believe that when the ELCA does finally eliminate the provision for bound conscience, it will be committing a massive breach of trust. 

Please join with me in praying for the friend of Lutheran CORE who is a member of the task force.  Pray that he will be bold in his witness and clear, articulate, effective, and compelling in his contributions to the discussion.

I encourage friends of Lutheran CORE who are still in the ELCA to participate in this feedback process.  There are basically two things that I have to say about changes being recommended as part of Reconsideration # 1.  I have sent this communication to the leaders of the task force as my response.

Comment # 1

The original 2009 social statement was 48 pages in length.  The document containing recommendations related to Reconsideration # 1 is 51 pages in length.  True, the recommended changes are clearly highlighted and the “Explanation of the Draft Edits” is only 11 pages in length.  But why are ELCA social statements always so long, convoluted, and complex?  How many people – what percentage of people – do they really think will thoroughly and carefully read, analyze, and evaluate all those pages?  It is easy to wonder whether the reason for so much verbiage is to include things in all those words and pages that people will not catch.

Comment # 2 

I do not believe that the task force is being accurate when it calls the recommended changes in Reconsideration # 1 “simply editorial.”  Nor was a January 7 communication from the Theological Ethics Staff of the Office of the Presiding Bishop accurate when it described them as “small word changes that update the text without changing its meaning.”        

To support that claim I would point to the resolution’s calling for changes “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  The key phrase is “gender non-conforming couples.”  The 2009 social statement affirmed publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships.  The new wording being recommended goes beyond that as it considers “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples” (page 19 of the “Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits”).  On the same page it speaks of “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.”  A footnote on that page defines “gender diverse” as encompassing “a wide diversity of identities and expressions in relationships between individuals, including gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender persons.”  That kind of change is far more than “simply editorial” and “small word changes” that do not change the meaning.    True, the recommended revised version still says, “The predominant historic Christian tradition has recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, reflecting Mark 10: 6–9” (page 15).  It also states, “The Lutheran Confessions assume and reflect this understanding of marriage” (pages 15-16).  But it is neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions that inform the recommended changes, but “public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  Those with traditional views knew that the ELCA would not stop with what was approved in 2009.  Nor will it stop with what is now being recommended in this revised social statement.         

Please check out the new page on our website, “ELCA Focus,” which brings together in one place a large number of resources and articles regarding the ELCA.  It is intended to help pastors, lay leaders, and congregations become aware of and prepared for the dramatic changes that are anticipated from decisions that will be made and actions that will be taken by the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  A link to that page can be found here. 

There are three sections to the page – “What Is the Issue?”, “Stories from Churches”, and “Relevant Articles.”

“What Is the Issue?” (LINK) contains links to the websites for the Lutheran Congregational Support Network, the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, and the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  The page also includes a link to my evaluation of a communication from an ELCA synodical bishop where he totally dismisses the legitimate concerns that people have about anticipated coming changes.  You will also find a link to power point slides that were used by the Reformers group of one ELCA congregation to inform their fellow members regarding issues within the ELCA.

If you have not yet checked out the Lutheran Congregational Support Network, we urge you to go to their website – https://lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork.org/  Their goal is to provide a means to inform ELCA congregations of coming constitutional changes in the ELCA and to help congregations be prepared and know how they can respond. 

“Stories from Churches” (LINK) contains links to actual accounts of pastors, churches, and lay leaders that have experienced the heavy-handed tactics of synods.

“Relevant Articles” (LINK) contains links to articles previously published by Lutheran CORE.  I do not see how anyone could read several of these articles and not say, “Something is very, very wrong.”

We hope this resource is helpful for you and that you will share it with others.

This January marks the end of my term as President of Lutheran CORE.  I have been on the board of CORE since 2019.  In that time, my own congregation held a successful vote to leave the ELCA.  As a result, the fate of the ELCA will not have a direct impact on me and my congregation.  Nevertheless, with the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly approaching, I wanted to share some final thoughts about the denomination of which I was a part for 35 years. 

When I think about the direction of the ELCA in 2024, the words “no way to slow down” come to mind.  In case you don’t recognize those words, they come from the song Locomotive Breath by the rock band Jethro Tull.  It tells the story of a runaway train.  The refrain says, “Old Charlie stole the handle / and the train it won’t stop going / no way to slow down.” 

I have begun to wonder whether the bishops of the ELCA are less like the engineer of the train, and more like the unwilling passenger.  In my interactions with bishops and various other church leaders over the years, they always seemed to have a standard response to any question about the future of the ELCA.  Whenever I would share a concern, the answer I would get was, “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.” 

Are you concerned that “bound conscience” will be ignored, or worse yet, rescinded?  “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.”  Are you afraid that ELCA pastors will be required to preach and teach in accord with ELCA social statements?  “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.”  Are you afraid that the ELCA will close congregations and seize their assets to fund the church’s bureaucracy?  “Don’t worry. That will never happen.”

That is what we are told.  However, I also remember being told that the group “Naked and Unashamed” was a fringe group that would have no influence on the ELCA.  I remember being assured that seminary faculties would not be purged of those holding to orthodox teaching on marriage, the Trinity, Christology, or salvation.  I remember being assured that ELCA Advocacy would defend the right of religious organizations to adhere to traditional teachings on marriage.  All of those assurances proved to be empty. 

In 2019, one of the primary demands of “Naked and Unashamed” was met.  The ELCA removed the requirement that unmarried rostered leaders remain chaste and abstinent from Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.  At least three seminaries have seen purges of faculty or staff take place.  ELCA Advocacy declined to publicly support the freedom of religious institutions to follow their bound consciences in regard to marriage. 

Why do bishops resort to such empty promises?  You could argue that they are simply dishonest.  That may be true in some cases.  However, I think that explanation is too easy.  I think it might be the case that the bishops are afraid.  They are afraid to tell people the truth.  First of all, they are afraid of what will happen to the ELCA if too many people decide to leave at the same time.  Secondly, they are afraid of what will happen to them if they tell the truth.  There is an unnamed group of people who will make life very difficult for any bishop that steps out of line. 

Who are these unnamed people?  I can’t say for sure.  All I can say is that there is a sense in which the ELCA is a runaway locomotive that is outside of the control of its bishops.  Someone else is at the throttle and the brake handle has been stolen.  Even if a wreck is imminent, some think it is better to keep the passengers calm.  That’s why groups like Lutheran CORE have to sound the alarm.

The purpose of this communication is to inform you about a movement called the Lutheran Congregations Support Network.  Their goal is to develop a means to inform ELCA congregations of coming constitutional changes in the ELCA and to help congregations be prepared and know how they can respond.

The Network will not deal with theological or culture war issues.  Instead they will deal with constitution issues – what property rights and protections congregations have in the current ELCA constitution and how those rights and protections could be at risk in a new, revised constitution. 

A November 20 news release regarding the November 14-17 meeting of the ELCA Church Council reported the following as among the key actions taken by the Council –

• Approved amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that were drafted in response to the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility (DEIA) Audit. The audit report was presented to the council at its fall 2023 meeting.
• 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.

As has been typical, the ELCA is not communicating what those amendments entail, nor do they tell us how much advance notice they will give us prior to the July 28-August 2 Churchwide Assembly which will consider these recommendations.

As part of their goal and purpose of helping congregations protect their property and keep from being taken over, the Network is putting together a list of contract law attorneys that will help congregations think and act strategically. 

Here is a link to the website of the Network. 

lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork.org

This website will activate on Tuesday, November 26 and will contain links to three videos –

• interviews with pastors and congregations that have experienced ELCA tactics
• a description of the process by which a congregation can lose autonomy and come under institutional oversight
• publicly available information about the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.

May the Lord give you courage and wisdom as you consider this information.  Please help us get the word out to others.

Blessings in Christ,
Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork

Youtube:    https://www.youtube.com/@LCSN-us

Instagram: lcsn.social 

Email update signup:  https://mailchi.mp/f24b14632a56/subscribe-to-lcsn

WOE TO THE SHEPHERDS

The First Reading for July 21, the day after the conclusion of the ELCA Youth Gathering, was from Jeremiah 23.  In verse 1 the Lord says to the leaders of God’s people, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!”  I believe that the same thing could be said about the leaders of the ELCA, including the planners of the youth gathering, which was held July 16-20 in New Orleans. 

Because of COVID, the last youth gathering occurred six years ago in 2018.  That time recordings of the messages from the keynote speakers were available for some time after, so I was able to listen to them, analyze them, and report on some of them in detail.  This time the sessions were live streamed (except for when the arena was having difficulties with the internet connection) and the recordings were available only for a short time before they were removed.  I was able to watch the evening session on Tuesday, part of the evening session on Thursday, and the closing worship service on Saturday morning.  Other than that I am dependent upon written comments, including on Facebook, and the daily summaries – complete with ELCA spin – in the ELCA’s digital magazine, “Living Lutheran.”  Even the video recaps for days 1, 2, and 3 – which are still available on the gathering’s YouTube channel – do not give any content from the keynote speakers.  They basically show young people being energetic and doing service projects.  It gives the impression that the gathering planning team do not want people to know what the keynote speakers said.    

However, the team did put together a five minute “Week in Review” video, which is still available.  I will use that video to share my reflections on the gathering.  A link to the video can be found HERE.

The video concludes with the person who actually opened the gathering – Bishop Michael Rinehart of the host synod, the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod (4: 40).  He began not with an opening prayer calling upon the Lord to bless the event but instead by acknowledging the indigenous people who had previously lived on the land and from whom the land was stolen.  It reminded me of the opening of the August 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, where greater emphasis was placed upon the rivers that flow through the area of the host synod than upon the God who created the rivers.  Bishop Rinehart told of how one of the indigenous tribes had sued the federal government and had succeeded in getting their land back.  At the announcement that a tribe had been successful in a lawsuit against the U. S. government, the young people cheered.  Hearing their cheers, I wondered what else they would become (and had already become) conditioned to cheer for.

But what I thought was most significant in Bishop Rinehart’s comments in the “Week in Review” video is the fact that he is the only person in the video who mentions Jesus.  And how does he describe Jesus?  As the “Jesus who calls us to challenge systems of oppression and power.”  Jesus through the lens of Marxism, critical race theory, and DEIA ideology.

The “Week in Review” video opens with Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton.  This is not in the video, but on Tuesday (opening) night Bishop Eaton was introduced by one of the emcees, Rebekah Bruesehoff, as having worked for eleven years for “inclusivity, advocacy, and social justice.”  The introduction certainly shows what is considered most important.  I thought it was very interesting that Rebekah Bruesehoff, who along with her mother Naomi spoke at the last gathering in 2018 promoting transgenderism, was now one of the emcees.  In 2018 Rebekah was a pre-adolescent, transgender child.  Her mother is the author of “Raising Kids beyond the Binary: Celebrating God’s Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children.”  The ELCA reveals what it values most by whom it elevates, lifts up, and makes heroes of.

The “Week in Review” video quotes Bishop Eaton as saying with joy and anticipation on opening night, “You can make a change; you can be disruptive” (0: 01).  Actually on opening night Bishop Eaton used three phrases – “You make a difference; you can make a change; you can be disruptive.”  Anyone who does public speaking knows that in a series like that, whatever you want to give the greatest emphasis to – whatever you want to be the climax of your comments – you put last.  On opening night, when Bishop Eaton said, “You can be disruptive,” the crowd cheered.

Many times during the five days the youth were told that they were “Created to Be Brave, Free, Authentic, and Disruptive Disciples.”  I noticed that none of the keynote speakers were brave and free enough to be introduced without including their pronouns.  (When I register for ELCA synodical events, I make sure that I do not give my pronouns.)  The model for being disruptive that was held up was Jesus’ overturning the tables of the money changers in the Temple.  But I wonder what kinds of behavior 16, 000 youth thought were being approved, endorsed, and even promoted when they were told that they were created to be disruptive.

Evidently there was one example of being disruptive that did not please everyone.  At the closing worship service Bishop Eaton mentioned that there had been a low point during the gathering when a group was made to feel as if they did not matter.  She said that the group had been offered a heart-felt apology on a previous evening.  Again, because recordings of the evening sessions were very quickly removed, I was not able to watch that apology and find out exactly what it was in response to.  But I can think of one strong possibility.  Someone posted on Facebook that his group had felt “triggered” by one of the speakers.  “Triggered” seems to be a favorite term for those who feel offended.  So the group started talking about it out loud.  People who were nearby asked them to be quiet because they wanted to hear the speaker.  That request led to the group’s feeling even more triggered and claiming that they were being subjected to racist behavior so they will never attend a future youth gathering.  I do not know if that is the incident that triggered the apology, but if it is, it does raise the question of whether talking out loud as a group near other people during a public gathering was validated and legitimized by the ELCA’s saying that we are created to be disruptive.  If my public rudeness leads to your having to apologize publicly because I feel triggered and subjected to your racist behavior, it also shows – in the strange world of wokeness, critical race theory, and DEIA ideology – that the one who is the most empowered is the one who claims to be the most victimized and oppressed.

For me the bright spot of the gathering was the presentation Tuesday evening by Michael Chan (2: 06).  Michael’s message at the ELCA’s Rostered Leaders Gathering last summer was also the bright spot at that event for me.  At the Rostered Leaders Gathering I felt that he was the only keynote speaker who expressed care and concern for us – the ministers of the church – rather than merely viewing us as underlings who need to get totally on board with fully supporting the ELCA agenda and priorities.  At the youth gathering he spoke on Psalm 139: 13 – “You formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”  He began by saying, “Wonders happen in the dark,” and then said so many other good things that I would have wanted the youth from my former congregation to hear.  These comments include “You were loved and treasured long before you performed your first good act” and “You were precious long before you could prove it.”  He talked about the difficult circumstances that can bury us and then said, “You are not in the grave, you are in the womb: something is happening in the darkness.” 

I would have been happy to have the youth from my former congregation hear Michael Chan.  I would not have wanted them to hear another keynote presenter, ELCA pastor Keats Miles-Wallace, who spoke on Thursday evening (3: 00).  Pastor Miles-Wallace shared that he always knew that he was different.  In middle school he did not fit in anywhere, and he made himself miserable trying to be what every group that he wanted to be a part of wanted him to be.  He finally learned that God created him to be free – “free to be my weird, different, unique, transgender, non-binary, neuro-divergent, and Anglo-Mexican-Indigenous self.”  Rather than finding his identity in Christ, he found his identity in being himself “out loud.”  He found peace when he finally experienced the “freedom of expression that God intended for all of creation.”  He is a member of the task force that is reviewing the 2009 human sexuality social statement. 

A video was shown on Thursday evening about ten minutes before Pastor Miles-Wallace spoke, which certainly set the stage and prepared the way for Pastor Miles-Wallace’s remarks.  This video went through the various days of creation in Genesis 1 as it prepared the young people to fully embrace the LGBTQ+ agenda.  Its argument was that at first glance, creation seems full of binaries.  God created light and then separated the light from the darkness, but there are also sunrises and sunsets, dawn and dusk.  God separated the land from the waters, but there are places that are not fully land or fully water, such as marshes and bogs.  God created the sun and the moon, but there are also stars, planets, and asteroids.  God created creatures of the land, sea, and sky, but there are also land animals such as penguins that swim and fish that fly.  God created male and female, but He also made all other types of people.  The video concluded, “At a glance creation seems full of binaries, but there is also a beautiful in between.  Genesis gives examples, but does not exclude the possibility of more, and God saw that it was good.”

The video said nothing about God’s creating male and female not as just two of an endless number of possible varieties, but instead so that two could become one flesh and so that the two would be able to be fruitful and multiply.  (Genesis 1: 27-28, 2: 24; Matthew 19: 4-6)  The stage was now set for ELCA youth to fully embrace the full LGBTQIA2S+ agenda and every variety of gender identity.  No wonder the “Week in Review” video even showed a group of youth with a drag queen (2: 00).  

The video of the closing worship service on Saturday ended with a short introduction of the location of the 2027 gathering – Minneapolis.  Minneapolis was described as a city that has a “commitment to inclusivity,” “celebrates diversity and embraces dialog,” and where “every voice is heard and every story matters.”  I noticed the Palestinian flag at one point in the “Week in Review” video (4: 20).  I am sure that during the gathering the voices of the Israeli people were never heard and their story did not matter.  Typical of ELCA youth events, there was not even one person who spoke in support of traditional views of human sexuality and gender identity.  Typical of the ELCA, this time also not every voice was heard and there were stories that did not matter. 

Dennis D. Nelson

lcorewebmail@gmail.com

Most people would call me a “conservative” Lutheran, although I would prefer to be called orthodox or traditional. Nevertheless, I will accept the label. Therefore, as a conservative Lutheran, it is incumbent upon me to differentiate myself from the conservative Christians who hold views that I reject. So let me say clearly that I reject Christian Zionism.

What is Christian Zionism?  Normally, that term describes a fundamentalist dispensationalist theology that believes the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 was the fulfilment of prophecy.  Furthermore it holds that all the land currently in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza belong to the State of Israel by divine right. As a result, it holds that Israel has the right to annex territory and establish settlements wherever it wishes.  It does not recognize the Palestinians as a people, nor their right to have a state of their own.  Finally, it sees conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as a necessary and unavoidable precursor to the End Times.  Anyone who does not support Israel militarily is therefore considered an enemy of God. (Not everything called Christian Zionism falls under this definition.  See Israel Matters and The New Christian Zionism by Gerald R. McDermott)

I reject Christian Zionism as described above because it is a form of Millennialism, which the Augsburg Confession rejects in Article XVII.  I also reject Christian Zionism because I reject the notion that a person’s rights should be based on their religion or ethnicity.  In other words, I am a “classical liberal”.   I support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, in which Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and people of other religions have equal political and human rights.

Having said that, I would like to ask why some Lutherans of the left refuse to distance themselves from groups that deny the right of Israel to exist, that teach violent Antisemitism, and that use Marxist dualism to justify violence and terrorism? A very concrete example of the refusal to renounce Christian Marxist Antisemitism occurred at the 2024 Synod Assembly of the Florida-Bahamas Synod, ELCA.  In a resolution entitled Resolution 24-02 Palestinian Advocacy and Dismantling Christian Zionism in Our Churches, the assembly lamented the destruction caused by Israeli attacks in Gaza, saying

Be it Resolved, The Florida Bahamas Synod in Assembly laments both the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, housing, schools and universities, hospitals, and places of worship–and the millions of people who are experiencing displacement, facing malnutrition, and starvation, as a result primarily of Israel’s continuing air strikes and blocking entry of humanitarian aid trucks…

Among other things, it also recommends that congregations learn about the  SUMUD initiative and spend at least three hours of adult education time in the next three months in learning more about the conflict, occupation and Christian Zionism.  Missing is any condemnation of HAMAS for the killing of 1200 people in Israel on October 7, 2023, or of any attribution of responsibility to HAMAS for starting the war that is now devastating Gaza. 

Consider an earlier part of the resolution:

Whereas, The ELCA Presiding Bishop, Elizabeth Eaton, on October 13, 2023 denounced the attacks and hostage-taking on October 7, 2023, by HAMAS and has denounced the subsequent disproportionate death toll among Palestinian civilians; as reported by the United Nations, more than thirty-four thousand civilians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023 ; https://elca.org/News-and-Events/8207…

Please notice two things.  First, while the resolution mentions that Bishop Eaton denounced the attacks and hostage taking, it never joins her in that denunciation.  Secondly, while it mentions the number of people killed by Israel in Gaza, it never mentions the number killed by HAMAS on October 7.

Is this an oversight?  Did the resolution simply assume that everyone denounces HAMAS and its ideology?  Sadly, the answer is no.  An amendment was proposed that clarified things by adding the following words:

and emphatically denounce the following Palestinian groups that have been involved in politically motivated violence to include the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of organizations[sic], Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas,

However, the Florida-Bahamas Synod declined. Why? The only answer that I can see is a convergence
of historic Christian Antisemitism and Christian Marxism. The Antisemitism of the Christian left follows
the Marxist practice of dividing all of humanity into oppressor and oppressed. This Marxist dualism sees the oppressor as always evil and the oppressed as always innocent. Furthermore, the oppressed are never really responsible for their actions. Whatever they might do, even if it involves the kind of
atrocities perpetrated on October 7, it is never their fault. The oppressor drove them to it. As Bishop
Eaton said in her letter on October 13, 2023, to which the resolution refers,

We must also call a thing a thing. The power exerted against all Palestinian people — through the occupation, the expansion of settlements and the escalating violence — must be called out as a root cause of what we are witnessing. 

Bp. Eaton

According Bishop Eaton, the root cause of the violent Antisemitism of HAMAS, is Israel. The Florida-
Bahamas Synod Assembly concurs. The refusal to denounce HAMAS and other militant groups is
intentional. So, one would guess, is the refusal to address the Antisemitic rhetoric, intimidation, and
violence at anti-Israel rallies in the U.S.

As a “conservative” Lutheran I am glad to renounce Christian Zionism. Are there any “liberal” or
“progressive” Lutherans who are willing to renounce Christian Marxist Antisemitism?

There is an old adage that says, “You show your values through what and whom you feature.”  That certainly is true of the ELCA.

Again this past June, in observance of Pride Month, “Living Lutheran,” the ELCA’s digital magazine, featured interviews with a number of LGBTQ+ persons.  According to “Living Lutheran,” they are “excited to affirm and embrace everyone in the church, and to amplify the voices of our ELCA siblings in the LGBTQIA+ community.”  Typical of the ELCA, they do nothing to “affirm and embrace” those with traditional views.

“Living Lutheran” featured interviews with several people during the month.  The typical interviewee told of being intimidated and deeply harmed growing up by the way they were treated by the traditional church because of their sexual preferences and gender identity.  But they thank God that God watched over them and guided them until they finally found an open and welcoming ELCA congregation that affirmed them as they are and taught them that God loves them and made them exactly as they are.  One person even shared the dubious Biblical interpretation that “Jesus washed feet; therefore, he must accept all sexual preferences and gender identities.”

Most of the interviews I would describe as typical and to-be-expected.  But one of them I consider to be dangerous – the interview with Elle Dowd published on June 3.  Here is a link to that interview.  At the bottom of the interview you will find the words – “Read more about – Voices of Faith.”  If you click on “Voices of Faith,” you will find pictures and links for more articles.  The ones entitled “A conversation with” are part of the series for Pride Month.

The first thing I noticed about the interview with Elle Dowd is the totally posed and artificial picture of her arrest.  She begins by saying that she grew up in the ELCA and is now an ordained pastor, but she is currently on academic leave from call to finish up her Ph. D. in queer theology, researching bisexual theology.  In other places she describes herself as “bi-furious.”  Sounds like a wonderful person to be teaching your congregation’s future pastors.  In 2021 the ELCA’s publishing ministry, Broadleaf Books, published her book entitled, “Baptized in Tear Gas: From White Moderate to Abolitionist.”  (Link)  She describes it as “my own conversion story through my experiences during the Ferguson Uprising.”  In the promotional material for the book Elle Dowd describes herself as an “Assata Shakur-reading, courthouse-occupying abolitionist with an arrest record, hungry for the revolution.”  That description naturally raises the question, Who is Assata Shakur?  Be prepared for the worst.  Assata Shakur is a convicted murderer and one of the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists.”  Assata was a member of the Black Liberation Army.  In 1977, she was convicted in the first-degree murder of a state trooper during a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973.  She escaped from prison in 1979 and is currently wanted by the FBI.  There is a $1 million FBI reward for information leading to her capture, and an additional $1 million reward offered by the Attorney General of New Jersey.  Such is the hero and role model of someone whom the ELCA lifts up and features.

At the end of the interview, in answer to the question, “What do you pray for?” Elle Dowd answers, “I pray for our collective liberation, for the dismantling of white supremacy, for an end to cis-hetero patriarchy, for the fall of capitalism and empire, for #landback, for abolition, for reparations. . . .”

A few years ago the interim bishop of the ELCA synod in which I was rostered before I retired, Southwest California, scheduled Elle Dowd to be the featured presenter for a spring, multi-conference assembly.  I wrote to the bishop, expressing the same concerns I mentioned in this article.  Typical of my experience when I try to communicate with ELCA leaders, I never received a response, not even the courtesy of a form letter acknowledging receipt of my letter. 

What does the ELCA value?  Look at whom it lifts up and features. 

I am very grateful for the recent invitation to have a zoom conversation with the director and associate director of the ELCA’s Reconsiderations process.  This is the task force that has been appointed by the ELCA Church Council to review the 2009 human sexuality social statement and reconsider the provision for “bound conscience.”  I am glad that I was able to share very openly and that they listened respectfully. 

I appreciate the fact that they had read quite a number of articles on our website.  One of their initial questions was what hopes I had for the process.  I told them that I have no hopes for the process.  My understanding is that the concept of bound conscience was first used to justify and defend revisionist views, but over time it came to be used in an effort to calm down and reassure those with traditional views in an attempt to minimize the number of pastors and congregations that would leave.  However, there have been many loud and prominent voices that have been intent all along on eliminating bound conscience.  They sensed at the 2022 Churchwide Assembly that the time had come.  They had enough votes to begin the process that would eventually lead to the elimination of bound conscience.  And they were right. 

They then asked me what concerns I had for the process.  I told them that what is at stake is the question of whether the ELCA can be trusted.  If the ELCA cannot be trusted to keep its promise here – to continue to honor bound conscience – then it cannot be trusted to keep any promise anywhere.  I also said that we all should know that no matter what is stated, included, decided, and approved in a reconsidered social statement now, the ELCA is not going to stay there.

I then went through a history of specific times and ways in which ELCA leaders have ignored communication from traditional voices, not remained within the boundaries of what was actually voted on and approved in 2009, and favored revisionist views, such as in the makeup of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and ReconcilingWorks’ being given a non-voting position on the ELCA Church Council.

They asked me to communicate to our constituency (and I said I would) the fact that the vote on the social statement will actually occur in two phases.  The first vote, which they call Reconsideration # 1, will take place in 2025.  They describe the matters that will be voted on then as “editorial” – “small, clarifying word changes only” – brought about by the fact that “civil law governing same-sex marriages, public acceptance of such marriages, and diversity of family configurations have changed dramatically since 2009.”

The second vote, which they call Reconsideration # 2, will take place in 2028.  They describe the matters that will be voted on then as “substantive,” namely “examining the coexistence in the 2009 statement of four different but valid convictions that Lutherans can faithfully hold about same-gender relationships.” 

They are still saying that the resolution at the 2022 Churchwide Assembly set in motion a process – “a reconsideration of these ideas but does not determine the outcome.”  But we all know that the empowered and preferred voices will work relentlessly until they have achieved their goal of eliminating bound conscience.  We will keep you posted. 

We all remember with horror the ways in which traditional views on such matters as human sexuality were rejected and belittled at the 2018 ELCA Youth Gathering.  Here is a link to an article in the Summer 2018 issue of CORE Voice newsletter about that event, including the way in which ELCA public theologian Nadia Bolz-Weber led 32,000 young people in a chant rejecting Biblically faithful views as a lie from Satan. I think it is very interesting that as of the time of my writing this article, the website for this summer’s ELCA youth gathering – taking place in July in New Orleans – does not yet include the names of the keynote speakers.  However, in the information for churches that will be sending their youth, there are more than enough reasons for congregations that take the Bible and the historic Christian faith seriously to stay far away.

Here is a link to the information that has been prepared to help youth and youth leaders get ready for the gathering. The theme for the event is “Created to Be.”  The preparatory materials are divided into five sections with two sessions each.  We have been Created to Be Brave, Authentic, Free, and Disruptive Disciples.  Each of the ten sessions starts out with a land acknowledgment, stating who were the original inhabitants of the land on which the gathering will be held, and from whom the land was stolen.  Not only is the ELCA conditioning its young people to think and feel negatively about the country in which they live, they are also displaying their blatant and pompous hypocrisy.  The ELCA is totally ignoring ways in which synods are abusing power and misusing a constitutional provision to take over the property of congregations.  Also I am not aware of any situation where a synod has returned the proceeds from the sale of the property of a closed congregation to the original inhabitants of the land.  Rather synods use this income to fund their radical-left agenda as their congregations, number of congregations, and the income from congregations continue to diminish.

The preparatory materials are filled with examples of ways in which the ELCA is indoctrinating its young people.  For example, the “Go Deeper” section of Session 2 of Unit 5 (Disciples) makes the statement, “Many of our young people have experienced Christians who do harm, speak hatefully, and work for laws that hurt our neighbors.”  The youth are then asked, “What negative words come to mind when you think of Christians or disciples?  What harm have you seen people do in Jesus’ name?”  In contrast, in the “Go Deeper” section of Session 1 of Unit 5 the young people are asked, “Is your church a Reconciling in Christ congregation?  If so, how long did your church take to make that commitment and adopt a welcome statement?  If not, what would it mean for you if your congregation became a Reconciling in Christ congregation?”  Any pastor who does not want the congregation to become Reconciling in Christ – and/or does not want the issue to be raised within the congregation – needs to be forewarned.  Also, the implication is that people with traditional views do harm, speak hatefully, and work for laws that hurt people, while congregations that are Reconciling in Christ are accepting, loving, and wonderful. 

And how does the ELCA indoctrinate the people who work with its young people?  Information regarding the general session speakers for the ELCA’s Youth Ministry Network Extravaganza being held this month also in New Orleans is available.  Here is a link to the website for this gathering for leaders in youth ministry.

Looking at the bios for the general session speakers, you will see that the overwhelming emphasis is on LGBTQ+ ideology as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Here is information regarding three of the five general session speakers.  If you want your ministry to and with your young people to be anything other than that, you need to look elsewhere.  

• Jamie Bruesehoff is listed as an “award-winning LGBTQ+” advocate.  Jamie and her at-the-time pre-adolescent transgender child spoke at the 2018 youth gathering.  She describes her experiences raising a transgender child as “rooted in her queer identity.”  She is the author of Raising Kids beyond the Binary: Celebrating God’s Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children.
• The Rev. Carla Christopher (she/they) is co-chair of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and chaplain for Proclaim, which her bio describes as “an ELCA ministry that supports LGBTQIA2S+ seminarians and rostered leaders.”  She serves as Assistant to the Bishop for Justice Ministries in two ELCA synods and is a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Consultant for multiple synods and faith-based organizations.
• Deacon Ross Murray is director of the Naming Project.  The website for that organization describes their goal as to “provide a safe and sacred space where youth of all sexual orientations and gender identities are named and claimed by a loving God.”  They also work to “advocate for systemic change in church and society.” 

If that is what you want your congregation’s youth ministry to be all about, more power to you.  If that is not what you want, stay far away from both gatherings and from any potential youth worker who attends or who would promote either or both gatherings.