IT WAS BAD, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE:

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE 2025 ELCA CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY

by Dennis D. Nelson

That is how I would sum up the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  It was bad, but it could have been worse.  (2028 will probably be worse.)  For the most part, the voting members did not force the issues beyond what was being recommended, as had been feared, and on one important matter even showed some restraint.  I live in the Phoenix area, so I was able to attend most of the assembly in person as a visitor.  Being there in person you can get the “feel of the room” and also observe the makeup of the group.

1. INITIAL OBSERVATION

The first thing I noticed was how many young people and people of color there were.  I do not have the actual statistics, but a couple people at the microphone said that there were 137 people – or 17% of the voting members – who were under the age of thirty at the time of election.  The ELCA has certainly succeeded in creating the assembly makeup that they have wanted, even if some of the votes did not go as far as they would have desired.

2. ABUSE OF POWER

There is over-the-top euphoria over the election of the new presiding bishop.  Lutheran CORE experienced the worst kind of bullying and abuse of power behavior from him, as we described in our Summer 2023 and October 2023 Letters from the Director.  For several years Lutheran CORE had held a Spanish language and bi-lingual ministry Encuentro at an ELCA church in northwest Chicago.  The event was organized and led by an ELCA pastor who was also doing supply preaching at the congregation with the full knowledge of the previous synodical bishop.  After Yehiel Curry was elected bishop of the Metro Chicago Synod he threatened that pastor with removal from the ELCA clergy roster (even though he was rostered in another synod) if he did not immediately cease providing pulpit supply.  Bishop Curry then brought in an entourage to take over and close the congregation (citing S.13.24 in the model constitution for synods).  In shutting down the congregation he showed no respect, regard, consideration, or appreciation for the current congregational leaders and the decades of faithful ministry that had taken place at that location (including the decades of faithful ministry by the father of the current congregational leaders).  He evicted the sons of the former pastor from the parsonage with thirty days’ notice, even though these brothers were maintaining the property and providing leadership for the congregation.  After evicting the current leaders and forcing out the confessional supply preacher, he brought in two pastors from Peru, who introduced shaman-blessed, ayahuasca-induced seances.  I read an article written by one of these Peruvian pastors.  Her argument was that since the Conquistadores were so culturally insensitive when they conquered the Indigenous people, it is appropriate to honor and include Indigenous culture with shamans and ayahuasca (a hallucinogenic plant from the Amazon basin).  I cannot imagine the Old Testaments prophets saying that since Joshua and company were so culturally insensitive about the way they came in and conquered the land of Canaan, it would be appropriate to have an altar to Baal in the Temple in Jerusalem.

I sent the article that I had written about Bishop Curry’s style and behavior to Bishop Eaton, Imran Siddiqui (vice president of the ELCA), and the person who was chairperson of the conference of bishops at the time.  I never heard from any of them.  ELCA leaders do not want to hear anything other than the official and preferred narrative.  They will completely ignore a very valid and serious complaint about bullying and abuse of power on the part of a synodical bishop.   

 The ELCA values speaking truth to power.  I was speaking truth about the abuse of power by the person who will soon hold the most powerful position in the ELCA.  At the assembly we also heard about the ELCA’s Truth and Healing Movement as well as the truth-seeking and truth-telling initiatives revolving around Indian boarding schools.  But here we see top ELCA leaders ignoring the truth about the behavior of a fellow leader. 

3. OBSESSED WITH DEIA

We have shared how the Lutheran Congregational Support Network has responded to ELCA synodical bishops who say, “Don’t worry; what you fear will never happen; the ELCA will always respect the integrity of congregations; the Lutheran Congregational Support Network is spreading lies and misinformation.”  The words and behavior of one of the co-chairs of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church totally invalidated that argument.   

On a positive note, the “Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations” that are listed in the DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) audit which the ELCA Church Council had done of its governing documents (DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf  ) are not yet mandatory, but it was obvious that certain powerful people and forces will not stop until they are.  The wording of Memorial B14 – “Consideration of Recommendation 1 of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” – was not as strong as the wording of Recommendation 1 as it came from the Commission.  You can find the Commission’s original wording in my article regarding Recommendations 1 and 7 in the May 2025 issue of our newsletter.   But still the Memorial, which was approved 646-144, called for the church “to acknowledge the importance of accountability in addressing racism within all structures of the ELCA, to affirm the work of the Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity Advisory Team . . . and to direct the Church Council to add a timeline to its actions taken and to provide progress updates to this church with a final report by fall 2027, including possible constitutional changes.”

Carla Christopher, co-chair of the Commission, first celebrated the fact that within the two synods where she works LGBTQ sensitivity and cultural competency training are mandatory.  Then she said that most recommendations of the DEIA audit are not possible with the ELCA’s current polity, so we need to preserve the possibility of a re-constituting convention.  Vice president Imran Siddiqui in his response to the report of the Commission said that “DEIA work has to be a part of everything we do.”  Later in the assembly one of the nominees for presiding bishop said that DEI means “of God” so DEIA must be of God.  When the top three nominees for presiding bishop were asked to respond to certain questions, one of the questions they were given was how they would implement DEIA.  And the Church Council has already cemented DEIA language and values into the governing documents of the ELCA through Continuing Resolutions which they have passed and which do not require approval by the Churchwide Assembly.  But I was most alarmed later on during the gathering when Carla Christopher, co-chair of the Commission, exploded at the microphone because of the resistance to the constitutional amendment recommended by the Commission which would fast-track the approval process for amendments that come from the floor.  Here is a recording of her stating emphatically, “We are giving the Council less than three years to make substantive changes to dismantle racism or we are going to need to rewrite the entire constitution at a special meeting.”   Here is a recording.   The process is already well underway to eventually make DEIA mandatory for congregations.  Powerful people in powerful positions will not stop until it has happened.

During her report Bishop Eaton spoke of the need to keep the ministry of Word and Sacrament central within the life of the church.  My heart was warmed as I heard her say that the proclamation of the Gospel through the Word and the administration of the sacraments are “the only thing given only to the church,” adding that she was concerned that “the church is not always clear on that.”  After stating that “our communities are filled with justice-loving and compassionate atheists,” she asked, “What makes us different?”  All of which sounds very good, and I have read her saying these things before, but they do not reflect ELCA reality.  For the ELCA DEIA is the new gospel – even though DEIA is not Gospel.  Instead DEIA is a law that always demands more and will never be satisfied.  It took a motion from the floor – which was approved 678-120 – to add a question for the final two nominees for presiding bishop regarding their faith in Jesus and to share a Scripture passage or story which shapes and sustains them.  

4. A GLIMMER OF HOPE

I experienced a glimmer of hope when an amendment was presented, discussed, and even by a very narrow margin approved that removed language from the proposed amendment to Churchwide Constitution 22.11.b.  As we discussed in our April 2025 Letter from the Director this amendment, if approved, would have provided a fast-track approval process for constitutional amendments that come from the floor.  The amendment to the amendment was to remove language that added the phrase “or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the Churchwide Assembly.”  I was encouraged to hear even some synodical bishops speak in favor of the amendment to the amendment because of the amount of suspicion and distrust already present within their synods regarding the ELCA.  This was the discussion when, as I previously mentioned, one of the co-chairs of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church exploded at the microphone, claiming that those who were in favor of the amendment to the amendment were silencing and disregarding marginalized people.  (Her comments made me wonder what kind of amendments she wanted and planned to have come from the floor.) 

But my glimmer of hope faded when later during the assembly a voting member proposed new language, which would provide for a provisional ratification of an amendment from the floor by a vote of the church council within twelve months and then a later ratification of the amendment by the next Churchwide Assembly.  After much discussion about whether the new language was appropriate and how it would be executed, the assembly voted 517-247 to refer the motion to the Office of the Secretary for further study.  This action raises the question of how newly elected Secretary Lucille “CeCee” Mills will interpret the constitution.  The ELCA’s summary of Day Five quotes Secretary-elect Mills as describing the church’s constitution as “something that magnifies all of the things that we understand ourselves to be as Lutherans in the ELCA. . . . Making something a document that is living beyond the people who are writing it in the moment is really important.”  Over the next few years we will find out what a “living” interpretation of the constitution means.   

5. MORE THAN MERELY “EDITORIAL CHANGES”

There were many who feared that the 2025 assembly would not be satisfied with the two-step approach that was given to the Human Sexuality Social Statement Reconsiderations Task Force.  The concern was that the 2025 assembly might force a vote on the whole issue of bound conscience.  That kind of premature action did not happen.  The vote on bound conscience, which is the provision which gives a place of dignity and respect also to traditional views and those who hold them, is scheduled to take place in 2028.  As we described in an article in the January 2025 issue of our newsletter, the task force was claiming that they were merely recommending “editorial changes.”  “Substantive changes” – such as what to do about bound conscience – will not be considered until 2028.   But I would not call the 2025 changes, which amount to no less than a full embrace of every form of gender identity and every sexual orientation – merely “editorial changes.”

The assembly stayed within the boundaries of the first step in the process except for one motion that came from the floor.  That motion was to remove the phrase “between a man and a woman” from the language “The Christian tradition has historically defined marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman, as reflected in the language of Genesis.”  The rationale for the amendment was that the current wording is harmful to LGBTQ people and does not correspond to their lived experience.  The claim was that merely reminding people that marriage between one man and one woman has been the historic teaching of the church was traumatic and upsetting.  The maker of the motion argued that rather than waiting three more years when bound conscience will be considered, something could be done now to make the social statement less harmful.  The amendment to the amendment was adopted 552-211, and the revised social statement was approved 742-46.  We saw three things happening here.  First, the re-writing of history to eliminate what some people find hurtful or harmful.  Second, the defining of truth as something that conforms to some people’s liking and lived experience.  And third, a preview of what is to come in the 2028 reconsideration of bound conscience. 

A member of the task force who was one of those who made the presentation spoke of the desire that there be “a place for each of us in this church.”  He also said, “We understand that we may not have your trust, but we hope moving forward we can earn it.”  Depending upon what happens to bound conscience in 2028, we will know whether the ELCA can be trusted.       

The assembly approved (748-15) “The Common Statement on the Filioque,” an agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The term “filioque” has to do with the phrase in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”  This agreement does not call for the removal of the “filioque.”  Instead it created a common understanding between Lutheran and Orthodox church bodies, allowing both versions to be recited. 

Much has been written and said about this decision’s showing that the ELCA cares more about church unity than doctrine.  But what I would like to focus on is Bishop Eaton’s comment that if Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox Christians can overcome a thousand-year division over this much greater issue, then we certainly should be able to overcome division over much lesser issues today.  Either Bishop Eaton is trying to minimize it or she does not understand what the full impact will be if the ELCA makes DEIA mandatory for congregations and/or eliminates the provision for bound conscience.

6. UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS

There was a very interesting amendment to bylaw 5.01.E19 that was approved by a vote of 530-236 to increase the percentage goal of youth and young adult voting membership of the Churchwide Assembly, Church Council, and churchwide boards and committees from 10% to 20%.  I have already mentioned the large number of youth and young adults who were voting members of the 2025 assembly.  This representation was to be on top of constitutional amendment 12.41.11.e, which states that 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.  Though the amendment was being recommended by the Church Council, the assembly voted 492-279 to refer it back to the Legal and Constitutional Review Committee of the Church Council.

As I mentioned in my article in the May 2025 issue of our newsletter, a Continuing Resolution passed by the Church Council defines historically underrepresented groups as including persons of color, persons whose primary language is other than English, persons of diverse gender identities, persons of diverse sexual orientations, persons experiencing poverty, persons of lower income, persons living with disabilities, and persons who are not natural-born United States citizens.  If the Legal and Constitutional Review Committee ends up recommending and a future Churchwide Assembly ends up approving this amendment, a large number of the positions in churchwide assemblies, the church council, and churchwide boards and committees will be given to youth, young adults, and members of historically underrepresented groups.  Since a large percentage of the members of the majority of ELCA congregations are old white people, who will then be the underrepresented group? 

The Churchwide Assembly extended much acknowledgement and consideration to Indigenous people.  There was the required opening land acknowledgement, an evening Powwow, a Day of Remembrance for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls, and much discussion and repentance over the ELCA’s complicity in the abuses caused by Indian Boarding Schools.  But there is one major way in which the ELCA rejects a basic value of Indigenous people – the respecting and valuing of the wisdom of tribal elders.

7. ENDLESS CONFESSION

I stayed Friday afternoon for the Service of Confession and Repentance for Sexism and Patriarchy.  It seemed strange that I was being called on to repent of Sexism and Patriarchy in the midst of the following realities.  The two top elected leadership positions in the ELCA at the time were being held by women.  The Conference of Bishops is pretty equally divided between men and women.  A majority of ELCA seminary presidents are women.  A majority of the members of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church are women.  A majority of leaders of Lutheran churches in other countries who greeted the assembly were women.  And I did not keep a running tally, but it seemed that the majority of people who went to one of the microphones to speak were women.

As I said before, DEIA is the new gospel of the ELCA – even though DEIA is not Gospel.  Instead it is a law that always demands more and will never be satisfied.  You can never grovel, repent, apologize, and change your ways enough.      

There was also a very interesting phrase in one of the petitions during the service.  God was addressed as “Holy midwife.”  Now I am not surprised that the designers of the service would want to include every possible feminine image for God, but “Holy midwife”?   Think about it.  A midwife does not procreate.  A midwife does not bring about new life.  A midwife merely helps deliver new life that has been created by others.  The image of God as “Holy midwife” diminishes God from being “the one through whom all things were made.”

8. THE RISKS OF BEING WOKE

And now I would like to conclude by sharing two things that say a lot about the risks of being Woke.

First, Tuesday was the day that everyone was to wear red in solidarity with Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls.  When the ELCA treasurer came to the podium to give her report, she was wearing red.  She said that it was not good for a treasurer to wear red, so she ducked behind the podium and came back up wearing green.  Everyone – or at least almost everyone – chuckled. 

As the last item of the day, one person went to the microphone and shared how triggered and offended she was by someone’s making light of such a serious and sacred thing as a Day of Remembrance for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls.  What a downer way to end the day.  But it did show that Woke will always find something to be triggered and offended about and by.

Second, on Friday afternoon someone made a substitute motion to amend the language of bylaw 7.31.02.a.8, striking the proposed phrase and replacing it with words including “giving special honor to members of historically underrepresented groups.”  Several people of color went to the microphone to say that they are looking for justice and equality, not special honor.  When the maker of the motion was asked where the language of “special honor” came from, she replied from Paul in 1 Corinthians 12.  Bishop Eaton asked her, “Have you read that passage?”  That question alone should have been cause for alarm.  The substitute motion was defeated (703-52).

A few minutes later a voting member went to the microphone and shared how livid and offended she was because of what 1 Corinthians 12: 24 actually says.  “God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member.”  The maker of the substitute motion was calling members of historically underrepresented groups inferior members.  The voting member said to the maker of the motion, “You have hurt me in a way you will not believe.”     

Two lessons for all who want to be Woke –

1. Be always ready to always be triggered and offended.
2. Be very careful in your quotation and interpretation of Scripture.

I said at the beginning that the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly was bad, but it could have been worse.  Will the 2028 Churchwide Assembly be worse?  It could be.  It will be worse if bound conscience is eliminated and constitutional amendments are approved so that DEIA becomes mandatory for congregations.  Will that happen?  There are powerful, preferred, and well-positioned people who are determined it will happen and will not stop until it happens.  We will continue to monitor.

Trusting in Jesus the Lord of the Church,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

TOOLS FOR WORSHIP PLANNING – PART ONE

by Cathy Ammlung

Many thanks to NALC pastor Cathy Ammlung for this first in a series of videos intended to provide congregations – especially those with temporary and/or longer-term pastoral vacancies – with some tools for worship planning.  A link to Cathy’s video can be found HERE.  A link to our You Tube channel, which contains sixty reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf. 

 In this video, Cathy talks about why worship planning is important.  She describes the “flow” of the liturgy, how that actually helps create faithful worshippers, and how it creates a “reality check” for what you may be planning.  She discusses some alternatives when there’s not a Communion service.

Cathy then gives a brief preview of the other topics that will be covered in more detail in future videos: the church year; lectionaries and how to navigate them as you plan worship over a season; hymn selection and getting the most from the hymnals; and selecting, writing, and praying intercessory prayers.  An outline of these things can be sent to you as an email Word attachment.  You can contact her at [email protected].

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 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.