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.” 

It started with Holy Communion.  When people ask me to share my experience with leaving the ELCA, the story begins where questions of church fellowship must always begin: the altar.

Following the churchwide votes of 2009, people started using “impaired communion” more frequently to describe the ELCA’s situation.  I particularly recall David Yeago using it to good effect.  To commune is to share something in common, and what the Church shares is Christ.  Not only the 2009 votes, but also the long trajectory of the ELCA’s doctrinal development, made it clear that differing Christs were confessed in the ELCA.

I remember a dedicated revisionist agreeing with me, already in 2003.  “Yes,” he said, “that would be the classical Lutheran understanding of our situation.”  Communion could not proceed as usual.  I realize that many people, including many conservatives, might disagree with that diagnosis.  But that’s where my experience began: the simple recognition that “impaired communion” impairs Communion.  It is there, at the altar, that impaired communion is either repaired, or it is not.

Our first bishop under this new circumstance didn’t like our perspective, especially when we informed him that we would no longer host the Supper at conference or synodical events, but he did not press us to change.  The second bishop was far less sympathetic.  Here I should pause and note that we’ve already encountered two key points about leaving the ELCA.  Having led two congregations out of the ELCA, and counseled and accompanied several others, I’ve seen these points prove valuable time and again.

First, start by asking what your dissatisfaction with the ELCA has to do with doctrine, if anything at all—determine if you disagree on the fundamental question of “Who do you say that I am?”—and distinguish those concerns from other, lesser ones (like, “We’re willing to bet we can get a pastor faster and cheaper somehow else” [unfavorable odds, honestly]).  Then, if you have a doctrinal disagreement, ask yourself how Jesus repairs that sort of thing.  Is it at the conference table, debating constitutions, or at His table, communing or not communing? 

At the very least, that sort of reflection will help clarify your thought.  Constitutions are works; Communion is grace.  Are your problems with the ELCA work problems or grace problems?  If grace is being misunderstood, then the place to begin the remedy (and, potentially, to begin changes in fellowship) is where grace is clarified.  Trying to address a grace problem through a works solution (i.e., trusting a constitutional rearrangement alone) won’t get at it, ever, because the problem is not disagreement about your works, but about the Lord’s gifts. 

Fumbling this distinction continues to hound the various departure movements, I would suggest.   Holy Communion is where Jesus forgives sins.  So, if we now disagree over what sins He forgives, how He forgives them, or who He even is, then we also disagree about what He does at His altar.  Burying that simple problem under layers of constitutional finesse will not clarify the situation to you or to the people whom you serve—and when I say, “the people whom you serve,” I include representatives of your synod, which brings me to the second point.

One bishop is not like another.  Like you and me, each is his or her own little bundle of insecurities, aspirations, and ideas half finished.  If you think it’s hard to be you, being you as an ELCA bishop would be ten times worse for everyone.  I don’t say so out of any animus towards those who hold the office.  We should sympathize with them.  The office as presently constituted is a nightmare, as if someone had found the corpse of a thirteenth-century bishop of Bangor and used an electrical storm to try combining it with Grok, only to find too much personality remained.  The point is: the bishops need your help.

The bishops and their representatives belong to a much larger organization that tries to solve grace problems with work solutions.  “Synod means walking together,” apparently, and each churchwide assembly tries to lock the step, but the differences only widen because they’re trying to heal a flesh wound with a welding torch.  Still, that’s the solution they have, and so the bishops and their representatives will come to you by way of constitution, not Communion.  If your beef is a grace problem, you will need to help them face it, not for the sake of justice or something like it (you’re a Christian, so there’s no room for revenge here), but for the sake of their own souls.  

They will not appreciate this idea.  It won’t be easy.  I call it “playing catch with someone who won’t throw back.”  Here’s how it went for me:

Bishop: “Well, Steve, thank very much for meeting with us today.  I appreciate that your time is valuable.  Why don’t we begin with you explaining to me what your concerns are?” [this starting point can be a trap, but that’s another article]

Me: [Explains my concerns.]

Bishop: [silence]

Me: [shrugs eyebrows]

Bishop: I’m not going to engage you on that topic right now.

Different words could be used. Sometimes no words would be used. There would simply be a long stare, followed by a deep breath and a change of subject.  At other times, there may be honeyed expressions of sympathy followed by continued denials: “That is not the problem.”  Or as one bishop put it to me, “I don’t accept what you’re saying, because I never learned that.”  He said so years ago, and it’s not a horrible answer in some instances.  But it is rather like being asked to play catch, and in good faith tossing the first pitch, only to watch the other person catch the ball, drop it in a bucket, and look back at you.

They won’t engage you on theology.  They don’t think it’s a grace problem.

So if you have a confessional point you want to make, you will need both to confess the truth and to create a situation in which they slow down long enough to a) hear it and b) consider their own confession in light of it.  At its best, the process of leaving the ELCA is an opportunity for everyone to walk away knowing more clearly who they are and why.  There are some synodical leaders who understand this, and if you should encounter some, you’ll feel the difference and be thankful for it.  Either way, remember that what you’re doing is for their sake, not yours, since you are a Christian.  The goal isn’t for you to win, nor is it only for the congregation to leave, but also for the bishop and their representatives to grow in the faith.  They will not necessarily look at it that way—to many of them, you are the problem, and you will be fixed constitutionally—and so you must help them see it.

You’ll do so by starting with Communion, not the constitution.

With all that said, there is one particular way that the ELCA constitutions perform a strangely gracious function, though I’ve rarely heard anyone acknowledge it.  By including in its governing documents a method for leaving the ELCA, the ELCA acknowledges that leaving its fellowship is both permissible and potentially good.  Constitutions are works and seek to govern works.  By including among their works the ability to leave the ELCA, the ELCA constitutions confess that it’s a potentially good work to do so.  If you are part of a congregation considering leaving the ELCA, please make that point to your congregation: the ELCA believes it’s okay to do this.

You’d be forgiven for not realizing it.  I do know one bishop who acknowledged that leaving can be a good work, and she didn’t even mean it in a passive aggressive way.  The acknowledgement is rare!  But no matter.  It’s there in print, and no church should pass into law something it thinks is inherently sinful.  If it is—if a church thinks that leaving is inherently wrong—then it needs to take the process right off the page.  But if it stays on the page, and so far it has, then every congregation needs to know that even the ELCA thinks this process is a totally okay thing.  Sure, you’ll sin along the way—watch for it; repent of it—but so it goes for every good work.  Abusus non tollit usum: the abuse of a thing does not nullify its use.

Don’t look at the process as your enemy.  It’s a friend if you make it so.  “To the pure all things are pure” (Titus 1:15).  You agreed to that process by virtue of being in the ELCA, so follow it.  That’s part of love.  At the same time, you can always read the process closely.   To create a circumstance where you may press the confessional point and help everyone clarify who they are in the light of grace, you may find unexpected, entirely permissible ways to fulfill and participate in the process outlined.  These unexpected ways will surprise others, but just so, they may create, for the Gospel, a forum. 

The cool kids are now calling that sort of thing “interruptive,” and they make it part of their mission statements.  I’d suggest that you just call it “all in day’s work” and not think very much about it.  It can be done politely and kindly enough, even joyfully, the way you’d perform a Baptism or eat soup at a soup supper (yes, Baptisms are very different from soup-eating, but you doing the Baptism, and you sitting with your congregation and eating the soup, are not).  Other, cooler kids will have even more important things for you to consider than what I’ve written here, but this is what I’ve got: start (and end) with Communion, be prepared to play one-sided catch, work hard to create a situation where they at least catch it, and know that the ELCA totally thinks this is an okay thing to do.

Otherwise, it wouldn’t be on the page. 

Director’s Note: The contents of this post were provided to Lutheran CORE’s director by the Lutheran Congregational Support Network (LCSN).

The ELCA Office of the Secretary has produced a document in response to what they identify as “rumors that have been circulating regarding supposed changes to ELCA governance…” This document is being shared by ELCA bishops and synod leaders in what appears to be a response to information on the LCSN website.  

Myths or Facts: We want you to decide!

Start by:

• Reading a response to the “Myths and Facts” sheet found on LCSN’s website.
• Watching the videos of the synod assemblies of the Metro New York Synod and the Southwest California Synod as they apply synodical administration to viable congregations.
•  Connecting with LCSN if you have questions or need clarification.

We are simply providing information made public by the ELCA.

Read and engage in the discussion.

Stay tuned!

More videos will be coming soon…

Please reach out to us with any questions by replying to this email or contacting us directly at info@lcsn.com.

This isn’t about politics. It’s not about theology. It’s about autonomy.

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

Dear –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

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

* * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor’s Note: Dan Hetherington is the pastor at St. John Lutheran Church, Columbia, MD.

We have heard many stories from around the country about the problems some have faced in leaving the ELCA.  For us, at St. John, it was rather straight forward; however, a lot of the reasons why go back to leadership of previous years.

For many years, prior to my arrival at St. John, the staff and church council had refused to update their constitution and bylaws and so were operating under a different set of guidelines than most.  This was also before any regimented changes to bylaws from ELCA upper leadership.

The congregation of St. John has always been a ‘mixed bag’ when it comes to members’ political leanings.  For some, political affiliation has always been a leading influence on shaping values and beliefs, yet for others, Scripture has been the overriding authoritative source and norm for life. 

The straw which broke the camel’s back and led to the senior leadership beginning the conversation, and taking what they found to the Council, was what can only be described as movements towards universalism and, more concerning, paganism.

Once this was shared with the council there was deliberation on how this would be received among the congregation and what any fall-out might be.  Before anything was decided upon, we took our time to make sure that our membership roster was up-to-date and that only those who still have a ‘true’ interest in the mission of St. John would have a voice when it came to deciding our future.

Having things lined up, letters were sent to the congregation from the council president and from myself as the senior pastor, stating the requirements for discussing and ultimately voting, as well as sharing the primary concerns.

The bishop and his staff were very good.  He heard our grievance, spent time in speaking with members of the congregation, which brought us to the point whereby we could vote and then enter a process of discerning to which network we moved (either LCMC or NALC).

I have no doubt that the right decision was to leave the ELCA, and although this resulted in some people leaving the church, the major test for us was in our dedication to be who we said we were – and after voting to join with LCMC, keep to the statement of faith to which we agreed to uphold.

Being part of the ELCA had allowed for the church to be many things, and for a lot of our members, that was not Lutheran.  There were difficult discussions which resulted in people walking away over our stated beliefs and some of the practices which now held a stronger place in our worship.

All-in-all although the church membership is greatly depleted, and the active participation in worship even smaller, I believe that we are a mightier body than before.  The strength that I have seen from those who remain has given me great cause for celebration.  We don’t all agree on everything – there is still a divide in political alliance, and with that certain views on what some refer to as political issues and others moral issues.  But we stand together, and we hold the Scriptures as being the sole authority on which all things we decide to do must stand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment # 1

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

Comment # 2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Pastor Don Brandt

The Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), on its website, lists the average worship attendance of each of their 818 U.S. congregations.  This data represents a veritable “treasure trove” of information when it comes to how many of these congregations might be facing a crisis in the coming years concerning the viability of their ministries.  (This kind of information, by the way, is not available on the NALC or ELCA websites.)  Regarding the accuracy of these numbers, we need to keep in mind that the diligence of congregations in regularly updating their reported average attendance is probably a “mixed bag”.  To my knowledge the LCMC does not contact their churches each year to insure that the reported attendance figure is up to date.  And there’s another reality to consider: the cross-denominational impact of the pandemic on worship attendance.  We know that many churches saw their attendance drop between 10 and 40 percent between 2020 and 2023.  And some churches never fully recovered their losses in terms of in-person average attendance.  However, to avoid argument, I will assume that the LCMC attendance data is reasonably accurate and up to date.

Before summarizing this data I want to pose this question: At what point—when it comes to average attendance—are most churches facing nothing less than an existential crisis?  And for those churches facing such a crisis is there anything that can and/or should be done to maintain and preserve the viability of their congregational ministries?  Also, at what point do these smaller churches need to be asking whether they will always be able to assume the availability of an ordained pastor to lead them?

The following information represents the results of my online “survey.”  Of the 818 LCMC churches in the U.S. 484 churches report an average weekly worship attendance of 75 or less.  And of these churches, 276 report a weekly attendance of 40 or less.  Now given what I know regarding the current costs involved in calling a full-time pastor, I believe many of these 484 churches will be unable, in the coming years, to afford a full-time pastor’s salary with benefits and housing.  And because of the current clergy shortage, qualified pastors who are looking for a call usually have more than one opportunity to consider.  This gives a distinct advantage to those congregations that are able to offer the better salary and benefits package.  (In other words, usually larger churches.)

So what of the possibility of calling a part-time ordained pastor; especially when it comes to the 276 churches that have 40 or fewer people in worship each week?  This is definitely a possibility for churches that can no longer afford a full-time pastor.  However, as with full-time candidates, there is also a shortage of part-time pastors.  And with part-time pastors, call committees typically need to find a candidate that is close enough to commute to their community.  This factor, above all, limits the options when it comes to finding a qualified part-time pastor, especially in rural settings.  Then the usual fallback option is to find one or more “supply preachers” who live within driving distance of the congregation.  One more possibility to consider for these churches: enlist (and “train?”) one or two (or more) active members to share preaching responsibilities.

Here is the “bottom line”; too many smaller churches are making the erroneous assumption that they can stake their congregation’s future on always being able to find, call and afford an ordained pastor.  This is simply not the case for most of these smaller congregations.  When considering the LCMC, 60% of their congregations serve 75 or fewer worshipers in a typical week.  And over one-third of their churches serve 40 or less worshipers.

It is time for smaller congregations to consider long-term ministry strategies that do not assume the ongoing availability of ordained pastors.  Here—on a more constructive note—are some options that congregational leaders from these churches need to consider.  And sooner rather than later.

1. Consider whether one, two or three active members might be enlisted and trained to become part-time lay ministers for your congregation.  Their “training” could be online; either from Lutheran seminaries (like St. Paul Seminary), or through lay minister training programs like Beyond the River Academy or the LCMC Texas Mission District’s Harvest Workers ministry.  Online courses might focus on biblical studies, Lutheran theology, and preaching.
2. Check out Lutheran CORE’s Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative (CLI), which would mean having an “outside” coach to help your congregation address this ministry challenge.  (Full disclosure: I am the person for you to contact to find out more about CLI.)
3. Contact your regional mission district leader and ask for one or two names of competent retired Lutheran pastors who might be willing to enter into an online coaching relationship with your church council.  The primary focus of such a relationship is to prepare your congregation for a future that might not necessarily include an ordained pastor.
4. And the best long-term strategy might be do “raise up” someone among your active members who would consider eventually becoming your future ordained pastor.  This person might be active retired, or someone younger who would become a bi-vocational pastor, or a stay-at-home parent who has reached the empty-nest stage of life.  Obviously not all congregations have such a potential “candidate.” However, my guess is that too few congregations are even asking the question as to whether such a person is already a part of their congregational life.

What about your congregation?  Are you currently without a pastor?  Or is your current pastor close to retirement?  Does your church have an average weekly attendance of (approximately) 75 or less?  Or 40 or less?  Has your attendance been declining over the last five years?  Or longer?  If you have been in decline, and that decline continues, what do you anticipate your attendance will be in 2030?  What do you guess is the average age of your active members?  Is it old enough where your decline might actually accelerate?

These are difficult questions to even reflect upon, let alone discuss with your lay leaders.  However, this is a discussion smaller congregations definitely need to have.  We are entering an era when most congregations will not be able to depend on available ordained pastoral leadership.  We cannot afford to put off confronting this ministry challenge.  It’s time to act.

If you have any questions for me, including whether I can be of some assistance, email me at…

pastordonbrandt@gmail.com