Consider the contrasting good news and not-so-good news ministry challenges that are confronting many of our congregations in 2024:

Good News: Many local churches have now been blessed by the return of members to in-person worship services now that the pandemic is over.

Not-so-good News: A great many of our congregations have nevertheless experienced a significant decrease in overall weekly in-person worship attendance when compared to 2019; i.e., before the pandemic.

Good News: Many smaller congregations are in good financial shape; benefiting from the generosity of  the active Boomers who make up a majority of their membership.

Not-so-good News: These aging Boomers will not remain active indefinitely.  And there are very few Gen X, Millennial, and Gen Z members to take their place; whether as generous givers or volunteers.

Good News: Both the LCMC and NALC are continuing to attract new congregations.  The NALC now has a total of 500 congregations, and the LCMC is now made up of almost 1,000 churches.  (75 of these churches belong to both the NALC and LCMC.)

Not-so-good News: A significant percentage of these new congregations have been dealing with extended pastoral vacancies.  Some of them are joining, in part, in the unrealistic expectation that they will now have an easier time finding and calling their next pastor.    

Good News: Most LCMC and NALC congregations are aware of how important it is for them to prioritize and pursue the Great Commission.  As a result, their congregational leaders are both aware of the importance of reaching out to the unchurched, and are motivated to take action.

Not-so-good news: Effective congregational outreach and evangelism is actually more challenging now than in the past.  The reasons include…

1. The on-going and increasing secularization of American culture; a process that has only accelerated with the advent and ubiquitousness of social media.

2. The politicization of so many American congregations in a time of unprecedented levels of divisive and partisan political conflict.  Many congregations have been dealing with controversial political and social conflicts that have directly led to significant internal conflict.  Of pastors who admit to considering leaving the ministry, 38% said that “current political divisions” were one important factor.

3. The growing percentage of Americans who claim they have no religious affiliation.  Gallup has asked about religious affiliation going all the way back to 1950, when more than 90% of respondents identified as Christian.  In 2012 it was 77%.  In 2023 it was 68%.

     However, I would like to conclude with some extra good news as you and your congregation plan for the immediate future.

Most of you belong to church bodies—like the LCMC and NALC—which adhere to and advocate for basing our Christian identity on the centrality of Scripture.  As a result, your pastors and congregational leaders don’t need to make apologies for being part of a national church body that has based its primary identity more on secular causes than on the Great Commission.

While our culture has indeed become increasingly secular, and fewer people identify as Christians, many unchurched Americans are in almost desperate need of the kind of supportive and loving community that the local church—your church—can provide.  The need of many unchurched Americans to be a part of a caring community is now greater than ever.  The pandemic became a profound reminder, to millions of Americans, that they have been living lives characterized by loneliness and social isolation.  This presents an amazing opportunity for local churches to incarnate the love of Jesus Christ for the isolated and hurting people living in their local communities. 

So consider challenging yourself and the individual members of your congregation to pursue these three simple steps:

A. To each think of an unchurched friend (or acquaintance) living in your local community.  Begin to meet regularly with this person; walking alongside him/her as he/she faces the challenges of life.  This is primarily a listening ministry, and learning to ask the right questions as a way of bonding over time.

B. When the time is right, invite your friend to visit your congregation on a Sunday.  Offer to pick your friend up on that first Sunday.  And give two or three of your church friends (and the pastor) a “heads-up”, letting them know you are bringing a first-time visitor.

C. In this role you will essentially become your congregation’s ambassador for Christ to this new friend (and now visitor).  You will be the one to not only assure your friend’s welcome on that first Sunday; you will also increase the odds that he/she will be assimilated and discipled by the members of your congregation.

D. One more thing: Even if the new friend is unwilling to visit, do not end the relationship.  Keep getting together, even if this becomes a solo ministry on your part.  Ultimately it’s not necessarily about membership; it’s about discipleship.

Pastor Don Brandt

Congregations in Transition

The Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative

I often wondered – during the years I was serving as a pastor – why God would bring the particular group of people together at the church where I had been called.  I have often wondered why Jesus chose the particular people that He selected to be the first twelve disciples.

According to Matthew 10: 2-4, the twelve included Matthew the tax collector and Simon the Zealot.  Why would Jesus have chosen to be among His first followers and those to whom He would entrust the work of the Kingdom two people who could not have been more poles apart politically?  Matthew, the former tax collector and employee of the Roman empire, and Simon the Zealot, a member of a revolutionary movement. 

The Zealots were passionate about obeying the Torah, especially its commandments against idolatry.  As the Romans continued to impose their pagan ways upon the Jewish people, the Zealots sometimes turned to violence.

One of the offshoots of the Zealots was a group of assassins called the Sicarii, or daggermen.  They would mingle in crowds, slip up behind a victim, and then stab him with their sicari, or short curved knife.  One interpretation I have read is that Judas Iscariot had been a member of the Sicarii.  Talk about disastrous consequences if you do not practice social distancing.  Through their acts of terrorism the Sicarii sought to disrupt the Roman government. 

In Luke 22: 38, just before they left the Upper Room for the Garden of Gethsemane, the disciples tell Jesus, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”  It is not hard to imagine that one of the swords belonged to Simon the Zealot or Judas Iscariot, who kept it hidden.  We all know what Peter did with his.  He pulled it out and cut off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant. 

And yet what is amazing is that you never read of politically charged and divisive conversation among the disciples.  They lived during some very tense and difficult times.  We also live during some very tense and difficult times.  Matthew on one side, and potentially both Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot on the other side, would have come from totally opposite sides politically.  And yet you never read of politically charged discussions.  The only real dissension that I can think of among the disciples was the debate over who was the greatest, brought on by the request from James and John (or their mother, dependent upon which Gospel account you are reading) for the top seats in the Kingdom.

If the first century disciples could find their unity in Jesus and avoid explosive, divisive political rhetoric, then we – the twenty-first century followers of Jesus – should be able to do the same.

The days between now and the election in early November are going to be very difficult.  There will be many times when it will be very easy to get involved in very heated, even angry exchange, such as on Facebook.  I would urge all of us to take a deep breath, express ourselves in a responsible way, give each other the benefit of the doubt, not let comments from others “push our buttons,” and look to Jesus, the Pioneer and Perfecter of our faith.

May the Lord bless you,
Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE 

This is Lutheran CORE’s response, dated April 2017, to the “Naked and Unashamed” movement, which has come out of the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago.  CORE is doubly concerned because it is unaware of any response from the administration and faculty of the seminary, the ELCA Council of Bishops, and Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton rejecting or distancing the ELCA from this movement.

RESPONSE TO “NAKED AND UNASHAMED”

ELCA PASTORS AND SEMINARIANS NOT ASHAMED

TO REVEAL BLATANT AGENDA

In 2009 the ELCA Churchwide Assembly rejected as normative the traditional, Biblical definition of marriage as it approved changes to policy and practice which allowed for the endorsing of and ordaining persons in publicly accountable, “lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationships.”  There is now a movement within the ELCA which would reject any definition of marriage as normative for sexual relationships.

Known as “Naked and Unashamed,” this movement was started by seminarians at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago and since then has been reaching out to other pastors, leaders, and seminary students in the ELCA who share their beliefs and values.  Their purpose and agenda are clearly revealed on their website, www.wearenakedandunashamed.org, which contains such statements as the following in regard to current ELCA policy and practice –

• “The limited and hierarchical focus on marriage and family life over alternative forms of relationality is oppressive, preferential, manipulative, and culturally irrelevant to the variety of healthy sexual, emotional, contractual, and/or romantic expressions that could be part of an appropriate Christian lifestyle.”
• “Life and liberty are being oppressed in the pressure for church leaders to be in marital relationships, or otherwise abstain from all sexual intimacy.”
• “Marriage is not the only healthy relationship model within which sexuality can be safely enjoyed.”

As seminarians and pastors who have recently been ordained, they are objecting to “overt policies and direct questioning during the ELCA candidacy process that disallow sexual intimacy, cohabitation, and committed relationality outside of civil marriage.”

What can those who hold to the traditional, Biblical view of marriage as a life-long, committed relationship between one man and one woman, and even those who hold to what was approved in August 2009, which allowed for the ordaining of persons in publicly accountable, “lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationships,” now expect?  Based upon experience of what happened before, we can only expect that those who wish to reject marriage altogether are going to pursue their agenda relentlessly until they achieve their goals, and once they do so, then all conversation is to stop and anyone who still advocates for the traditional view, and even the approved-in-2009 view, will be criticized for being disruptive, divisive, schismatic, and trouble-making.  That is what happened during the time leading up to and since the August 2009 decisions.  Why should we expect it to be any different this time?

Never is there any Biblical basis given for this group’s thinking.  And why would we expect that there would be?  Just as the documents that were approved by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in 2009 were based not upon the Bible, but upon psychology, sociology, and the dynamics that build trust between and among people, so this group is arguing for their desired changes on the basis of such vague reasons as “the common good,” the fact that they are “healthy” and “life giving,” “the plethora of stories we hear,” and “our values and lived experience.”  

Even in their use of the phrase, “Naked and Unashamed,” this group is turning its back on the Bible’s description of God’s judgment and mercy.  Adam and Eve were described as “naked and unashamed” before their distrust of God’s word and their disobedience.  Their transgression caused them to be ashamed, to hide, to clothe themselves in fig leaves.  Their self-justification was their primary clothing.  When God sent them out of Eden, He gave them something better.  He did not send them into the world “naked and unashamed” to make a “fresh start” of things.  Rather He clothed them even more fully – with the skins of animals who died in their place, as a forerunner of Jesus who would die in our place and whose blood would be shed to cover our sins.

According to the Lutheran understanding of the Bible, God gives us a “fresh start” in baptism.  Spiritually we go into the water naked.  Our old, sinful, deathly self is drowned in Jesus’ own death for our sake.  And when we rise in the power of His resurrection, we are immediately clothed in white robes that signify that we are more fully clothed in the righteousness, purity, and holiness of Jesus Himself.  As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5: 4, in our redemption in Christ we are not unclothed.  We are more fully clothed!

This group’s website claims that the ELCA’s teaching, expectations, and documents surrounding sexuality are “heteronormative, white-centric, economically oppressive, and non-Lutheran.”  Standards of monogamy, commitment, and chastity are deemed oppressive and demeaning.  Ideals of faithfulness and purity are rejected.  Biblical norms of “life together” are dismissed as the invention of elite, wealthy, and white Europeans.  This group asserts that other cultures have different understandings of sexual good.  In so doing, they are not only ignoring the very staunch standards for sexuality of our African fellow Lutherans, they are also ignoring the stringent sexual ethics of the Old and New Testaments, which certainly are neither elite, wealthy, white, nor European.  

Those who thought and hoped that the decisions of August 2009 to accept same gender relationships if they are publicly accountable, lifelong, and monogamous would be enough, would satisfy those who were pressing for changes, and would be as far as this issue would go, should be alarmed to read on this group’s website that they reject those decisions because of the way in which those standards define what is a “decent and acceptable marriage in the ELCA.”  They reject the 2009 decisions because they say that “acceptable same-gender relationships must look the same as acceptable heterosexual relationships.”  

The documents of this group even give a place for advocating for polyamory (multiple partners), as evidenced in these statements.  

• “This is what we are pushing back on:  the idea that one person in your life must be the one whom you trust the most, and with whom you simultaneously work together financially, domestically, sexually, emotionally, and parentally.”
• “There exists in the ELCA multiple positions on (several different relational patterns are listed, including polyamory).  We lift this multiplicity up and demand that its full diversity be recognized within the Christian lifestyle in our church.”

There is no sense of marriage as based upon our creation as male and female, and as given its most perfect expression in the model of God’s faithful and permanent love for His people and Jesus the bridegroom’s love for the Church, His bride.  Rather this group says that “understanding and practices of marriage, relationality, and sexuality also change over time, and must be understood as contextual.”  There are “many possible forms of ‘Christian’ relationality, just as we see diverse forms of Christian worship.”  To see different expressions of sexuality as no more significant than the difference between traditional and contemporary worship would be absurd if it were not so alarming.

This group makes absolutely no mention of the long-standing and profound Biblical linkage between sexual sin and idolatry.  At the risk of being gross and offensive, I would refer you to an article entitled, “My clitoris keeps my faith alive,” posted on the “Stories” page of the “Naked and Unashamed” website.  A seminary Ph. D. student writes, “My clitoris became a gateway to the mystery of God’s presence. . . . My clitoris became more than an organ of pleasure, but a piece of heaven within me.”

How is this different from the pagan sexuality and fertility cults of the Canaanites, which the Bible clearly condemns?  This is idolatry, making a god out of part of my own body.  This is what the apostle Paul described in Romans 1: 25 as he talked about those who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.”

Any faithful member of the ELCA should be absolutely alarmed to see this kind of thinking coming out of one of the ELCA seminaries.  Our concern for the future should be in overdrive, as we realize that our future pastors are being exposed to this kind of thinking during their seminary training.  Since this group is focusing especially on sexual ethics for pastoral candidates, are they saying that if a pastor or pastoral candidate has sex with a prostitute, it is okay, as long as s/he is respected as a sex worker?  Are they implying that if a congregation is not able to pay within guidelines, then a pastor or pastoral candidate is free to sell sexual favors to supplement income – again, as long as it is done in a healthy, life-giving, respectful, and mutually beneficial fashion?

This past February we were all reading and hearing with great alarm about the Oroville Dam in northern California.  Because of unusually heavy rains, the dam’s main and emergency spillways were significantly damaged, prompting the evacuation of more than 180, 000 people living downstream.  Those who oversee the Oroville Dam would be grossly irresponsible if they were to not take any and all necessary measures to repair the damage and ensure the future integrity of the dam.  Will the leadership of the ELCA – the Presiding Bishop, the Church Council, the Council of Bishops, those who oversee the ELCA’s seminaries – say, “Enough is enough; this has gone too far; this is not what was voted on and approved at the Churchwide Assembly in 2009”?  Or will they allow the damage and the erosion of Biblical values to continue – at probably an ever increasing rate?

Dennis D. Nelson

President of the Board and Director of Lutheran CORE