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.” 

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.

THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH:

HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE

The ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC) was formed in response to action taken by the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly. The assembly directed the Church Council “to establish a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” which would be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”  

As I wrote in my February 2024 Letter from the Director (LINK), the phrase “dismantle racism” is very significant. It reflects the position that racism is not just something that some people think and do. Rather imbedded into the very nature of our society are structures that privilege and empower certain races (white people) and disempower, victimize, and marginalize all other races (BIPOC people). The ELCA is therefore saying that it is not enough to just be non-racist – to not use racist language. We must be anti-racist. We must break down the structures that empower some and dis-empower everyone else. As I also wrote in the February 2024 letter, the report of the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee during the Commission’s November 30-December 2 meeting took the concept even further. According to that committee, it is important that all of the work of the Commission “is completed through an intersectional lens of dismantling racism.” Those also are very significant words. According to the concept of intersectionality, the various systems that privilege and empower some and victimize and disempower everyone else are so intertwined and interconnected that all of these systems need to be dismantled, whether they be white supremacy, male dominance, agism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, heteronormativity, or whatever.

Because of all that is involved with the concepts of dismantling racism and intersectionality, I was alarmed when I listened to a video on the Commission’s Facebook page from the two co-chairpersons, Carla Christopher and Leon Schwartz. A link to that Facebook page can be found HERE.  In that video Pastor Christopher said, “The language of the memorial and the commitment from each of the members of the CRLC also named dismantling oppression and ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church.” 

Concerned enough about the full and actual meaning of “dismantling racism,” and then being even more concerned by her changing the language from “dismantling racism” to “dismantling oppression,” I wrote to her. Among my questions were the following –

·      What is the difference between dismantling racism and dismantling oppression?

·      Is the focus of the Commission going to be on “dismantling racism” (which I would interpret as more narrowly defined) or “dismantling oppression” (which I would interpret as more broadly defined)? 

·      If the focus is on “dismantling oppression,” how did that change come about and what will it mean? 

·      How will it be determined who is experiencing oppression? 

·      Will the working assumption be that if anyone feels oppressed, claims to be oppressed, and/or identifies as someone who is oppressed, that person is oppressed?

I then concluded by asking – since all the members of the ELCA with traditional views who speak up will probably be among the oppressed (even though they represent the majority of the people in the pews) – what will the Commission be doing to address that anticipated oppression?

I also responded to her saying that each of the members of the Commission is committed to “ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church.” As glaring examples of inequity within the ELCA I mentioned the complete lack of speakers with traditional views at youth gatherings and Reconciling Works’ having a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while no organization with traditional views is in the same favored, privileged position.

Within less than two hours I received a response which I considered to be very dismissive and sloppy. In her email she backpedaled from dismantling oppression to dismantling racism. She also mentioned the “limited time and finite resources” of the Commission, insisted that the focus of the Commission “is specifically about structure and governance and constitutional language that may be more helpfully updated or clarified,” mentioned the “diversity of views” among the members of the Commission “regarding institutional structures and the relationships between the current three expressions of church,” and stated the desire of the Commission not to “duplicate or interrupt the work of other task forces,” such as the task force that is working on the statement on human sexuality.

In my response to her response, I did not bring up her mentioning the “limited time and finite resources” of the Commission. But I would say that twenty-two months have passed since the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, which directed the ELCA Church Council to form the Commission, while only fourteen months remain until the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, to whom the Commission is to “present its findings and recommendations . . . in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.” Unless the Commission does far more in the next fourteen months than it has done in the past twenty-two months, I do not see it as having a report that will satisfy those who were instrumental in the passing of the resolution to form the Commission.    

However, I did respond – in order – to several other things she said in her email.

First, in regard to her backpedaling from “dismantling oppression” to “dismantling racism,” I reminded her of the significance of the “intersectionality” language from the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee (which I discussed in the second paragraph of this letter). I told her that I interpreted her mentioning “dismantling oppression” in light of that statement from that committee.

Second, the major part of my email was in response to her stating that the focus of the Commission “is specifically about structure and governance and constitutional language that may be more helpfully updated or clarified.” I shared with her how that statement reminded me of the comments made by the two members of the Commission who held a Listening Session for members of the Grand Canyon Synod, the Synod in which I am rostered. They said that the work of the Commission is focused on structure and governance and that there is no pre-determined outcome to the work of the Commission.

I wrote to Pastor Christopher, “Personally I find that very hard to believe. Everything from the makeup of the Commission – whom the ELCA Church Council chose to serve on the Commission – to the reports of the work of the Commission points to a pre-determined outcome.”

In regards to the makeup of the Commission, I pointed out that 20% – 7 out of 35 – are DEIA officers and/or leaders at their place of employment and/or influence and that the three members of the Commission who serve as assistants to a synodical bishop all work in the area of social justice activism. 

I then gave her a link to the article I wrote for the September 2023 issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, where I discussed the makeup of the Commission – Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)

Regarding the work of the Commission, I also gave her a link to my February 2024 Letter from the Director, where I did an analysis of their November 30-December 2 meeting. LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR – FEBRUARY 2024 – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)

I continued by saying, “I do not see any way in which someone could claim that the Commission is merely concerned with governance and structure and its work does not have a pre-determined outcome. Rather the Commission was formed and is working hard to create a whole new church whose values and priorities will be based not upon Scripture, but upon critical race theory and DEIA ideology.”

Third, I responded to her saying that the Commission was formed so that it would have “a diversity of views regarding institutional structures and the relationships between the current three expressions of church.” I wrote, “The members of the Commission may have a diversity of views on those issues. There is certainly nothing in the reports from the meetings of the Commission that would tell me one way or the other. But the reports of your meetings certainly suggest no diversity of views in regard to the values and priorities that should shape the new Lutheran church.” 

Fourth, in response to her saying that the Commission will “stay within our scope and not duplicate or interrupt the work of other task forces,” such as the task force that is working on the statement on human sexuality, I said, “I certainly understand and would agree with that approach.” I explained that I mentioned the complete lack of speakers with traditional views at youth gatherings and ReconcilingWorks’ having a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council but no organization with traditional views being in the same favored, privileged position not because I believe that these are matters that the Commission should concern itself with. Instead they are examples of how – even though each of the members of the Commission has made a commitment to “ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church” – it is abundantly clear that in regard to the various positions on human sexuality, equity does not exist in the ELCA. 

I concluded by saying, “Thank you again for hearing and considering my concerns. Blessings in Christ.” I signed the letter – 

Dennis D. Nelson

Retired ELCA Pastor

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

So far I have not received a response.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

“A SHORT COURSE ON PRAYER”

by CATHY AMMLUNG AND TIM HUBERT

Many thanks to NALC pastors Cathy Ammlung and Tim Hubert for giving us a review of Tim’s book, “A Short Course on Prayer.” A link to their video review and be found HERE. A link to our You Tube channel, which contains reviews of around three dozen books as well as a dozen CORE Convictions videos on various topics related to the Christian faith and life, can be found HERE. 

This review is unusual in that it is more of an interview. Tim and Cathy have been friends for over forty years, and he was her ordination sponsor almost thirty-five years ago. Cathy has used various iterations of his manual on prayer throughout her ministry.

In this video review/interview, Cathy briefly describes the layout of the book. But mostly, she and Tim talk about his inspiration for writing it. They discuss the stumbling blocks to prayer experienced by many people. They examine some of the sixteen “prayer forms” in the first half of the book. And they reflect on some of the weightier issues about prayer: the joys and warnings, the hostility of the devil, and the spiritual warfare we are thrust into. Front and center is the insistence that prayer is a conversation, not a monologue. God himself provides words, topics, and insights for that conversation, and his Word grounds and centers every prayer form, directly or indirectly.

The interview is informal and casual, reflecting their long friendship and years of conversation on prayer as well as many other topics.

Folks interested in Tim’s book, for themselves or as a manual for an adult study group, may contact Cathy at [email protected]. She will put you in touch with Tim!

In the September and November editions of CORE Voice, Dennis Nelson analyzed the activist constituency of the members of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC). The fact that there are a number of activists on the Commission is not surprising, since the Churchwide Assembly’s directive to the ELCA Church Council was to create a commission to recommend restructuring the church being particularly attentive to the church’s commitment to “dismantling racism.” In other words, whatever recommendations the CRLC makes must take steps to dismantle racism within the denomination.

For many members of the ELCA, the question of racism in the church is confusing. In this instance, why is there a move to restructure the whole denomination around dismantling one particular sin?

To answer this question, it is important to understand the chief philosophical assumption of ELCA policymakers, namely, Critical Theory. In critical theory, the world is viewed chiefly through the lens of power and how some groups use their power to oppress other groups. There are oppressors and victims, especially in the sense that some groups are kept from having full access to the power that opposite groups enjoy. This oppression is racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, etc. This means that oppression like racism is much more than personal prejudice (which is how most of us would understand the term); rather, racism is systemic and institutionalized.

The assumptions at work in the ELCA’s effort to “dismantle racism” rely on a subset of Critical Theory usually called Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory has been popularized recently by books like How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi and White Fragility by Robin Diangelo. In Mainline Christianity, Critical Race Theory has long been defended by ELCA Pastor, anti-racism advocate, and author Joseph Barndt. Barndt offers the distinction in his work that power can be used by Christians for good when it is shared without exclusivity.

The modern anti-racist movement based on Critical Race Theory makes a fundamental claim: You are either a racist or an antiracist. Within this framework, you are either supporting racism or you are working to dismantle racism. Because, in this view, racism is so enmeshed in American culture, one cannot simply be “not-racist.” There is no neutrality. If you are a White person, racism is your original sin. Furthermore, because racism is institutionally enmeshed, to be anti-racist is about supporting particular political policy changes that deconstruct supposed hierarchies of power within society.

Connected to this understanding of Critical Theory is the understanding of Intersectionality, which asserts that there are interlocking systems of oppression that affect more than one individual trait. Thus, oppression based on race is intricately tied together with oppression based on sexuality, gender, ability, etc. Under this framework, for example, opposing the full inclusion of practicing homosexuals on the roster of Word and Sacrament is descriptive of institutional racism. To be anti-racist is to support the full inclusion of any group that claims oppression.

Understanding this will help one understand many of the ELCA’s policy commitments. Working to end so-called Global Climate Change is an anti-racist policy, because it is argued that Global Climate Change disproportionately affects minorities. Likewise, Bishop Elizabeth Eaton’s statements such as those regarding Israel and Palestine or the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, which drew the ire of many moderate and conservative ELCA members, can be understood through the oppressor/oppressed framework of Critical Theory.

The question is, what will it mean to restructure a church around the tenet of dismantling racism? Barndt answers this question in his book Becoming an Anti-Racist Church: Journeying toward Wholeness, providing six steps: Commitment to Institutionalizing, Full Power Sharing, Assured Cultural Inclusion, Mutual Accountability, Multiplying Inclusion, and Restored Community.^[1] The purpose of these steps, according to Barndt is, “The ultimate vision that drives the process of institutional change is a future in which both the church and the wider community overcome systemic racism.”^[2] Consequently, this means that the fundamental goal of a church restructured to be anti-racist is to be an institution that can partner with the world to overcome systemic racism. In other words, the anti-racist church will be on the leading front of the anti-racist policies that shape the world.

Understandably, when one hears the phrase “dismantle racism,” it is easy to hear it through what we all know: Racism is a sin. There is no question, and the church must always call racism what it is; however, when you hear ELCA policy makers using phrases like “anti-racism” and “dismantling racism,” please understand the goal is to structure a church around political activism. This ought to concern those in the ELCA who understand that Christ has given his church a different commission, a commission found in Matthew 28:16-20 and John 20:21-23.

^[1] Barndt, Joseph. Becoming an Anti-Racist Church: Journeying toward Wholeness. 1517 Media, 2011, p. 188-189.

^[2] p.194

In the September 2023 issue of CORE Voice I gave an analysis of the expected outcome from the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  After reading the biographical paragraphs for the thirty-five members, I described the certain end result of their work.  Here is a link to my analysis, which I entitled “Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome.” 

Based on who was chosen by the Church Council to be a part of the Commission, I listed four things that are certain to characterize the Renewed Lutheran Church – social justice activism as the main mission and purpose for the church, an ever-diminishing role for men, LGBTQ+ activism, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as the primary value system for the church.  At the end of that article I said that I would keep you informed as the Commission continues to do its work. 

The Commission met electronically September 21-22.  A link to a description of their meeting can be found here. The work of the Commission is as predicted.  After all, “Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome.”

The first thing to note in that report is a phrase in the resolution passed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly which directed the Church Council to establish the Commission.  The phrase is “being particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.”  Those words are the only place where the resolution gets specific in defining what is to be the central mission and top priority of the Renewed Lutheran Church – dismantling racism.

Now certainly racism is wrong.  God so loved the world that He gave His Son.  God does not love just one race or ethnic group of people.  In the Great Commission of Matthew 28: 19, Jesus said that we are to make disciples of all nations, not that we are to dismantle racism.  In His final words to His disciples before ascending into heaven, Jesus told His followers that they are to be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1: 8).  Jesus does not say that we are to make our number one priority dismantling racism.

The second item of interest to note is who are the three people who were invited to join the meeting as staff resource persons to inform the Commission concerning specific issues.   

• Judith Roberts, ELCA Program Director for Racial Justice, who told about the efforts of the task force on “Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity.”
• Pastor Nicolette Peñaranda, Program Director of African Descent Ministries, who described the barriers that clergy and congregations of African Descent face in the ELCA.
• Vance Blackfox, ELCA Director for Indigenous Ministries and Tribal Relations, who spoke of the ongoing efforts to heal the broken relationship between the Indigenous community and the ELCA.

A couple years ago I sent an email to the recently appointed assistant to the bishop for authentic diversity for the synod in which I was rostered before I retired.  I wrote, “As an older, white, cisgender male, I am a part of a marginalized group.   In the spirit of authentic diversity, what kind of ministry will you be offering people like me?”  As expected, I never received a response.

I find it interesting that the Commission is concerned about barriers that clergy and congregations of African Descent face.  They show no concern at all for the barriers that seminarians, pastors, and congregations with traditional views face.  

And I find it interesting that the ELCA is concerned to “heal the broken relationship” between itself and the Indigenous community.  But it has absolutely no concern or interest to heal the broken relationship between itself and pastors, congregations, and lay people with traditional views, even though we also are people who have experienced broken promises, congregational leaders being removed, and church properties being taken over under the guise of S13.24 in the model constitution for synods.

In the spirit of “Once you know the makeup, you know the outcome,” we will continue to keep you informed.