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.” 

CANCEL CULTURE STRIKES AGAIN

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.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

“CRACKING OPEN THE HARD PARTS OF THE BIBLE”

by Ken Coughlan

Many thanks to Ken Coughlan for his video review of his book, “Cracking Open the Hard Parts of the Bible.” Ken is a Christian apologist and religion teacher at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Glen Burnie, Maryland. A link to Ken’s review can be found HERE. A link to our YouTube channel, which contains fifty-five reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.

Regarding the book Ken writes –

Does the God of the Bible condone slavery? Did he order genocide? Does he value men more than women? Isn’t the Bible filled with contradictions, especially in the stories about Jesus’ birth or his death and resurrection? If you believe most atheists today, you’d answer all of these questions, “yes.” But you’d be wrong. Equally useful as a six-week group Bible study or for individual reading, “Cracking Open the Hard Parts of the Bible” doesn’t just give answers to some of skeptics’ favorite targets in Scripture. It also provides six “interpretive principles” that will help you find the answers whenever you come across someone who says they’ve found something “wrong” with a Bible passage, or when you read something you find puzzling or troubling yourself. Not afraid to “crack open” those verses that are commonly thought to be the most problematic for the Christian faith, this book will give you the answers you seek and a strategy to tackle future conversations yourself.

* * * * * * *

LATEST ISSUE OF SIMUL

The latest issue of SIMUL, the Journal of St. Paul Lutheran Seminary, on “Free Will vs. Bondage of the Will” is now available. Click here: https://issuu.com/stpaulsimul/docs/issue_13_v5

Editor Dennis DiMauro writes –

This edition goes to the heart of the matter by exploring whether human beings actually have free will. In this volume, Roy Harrisville tells us what to do when those pesky door-to-door evangelists come calling. And Paul Owens explains what you should say when surrounded by a dozen free will preachers at the local pastors’ lunch.

Virgil Thompson takes another look at Gerhard Forde’s The Captivation of the Will to understand how freedom leads to bondage, but also (and paradoxically), how bondage leads to freedom. Marney Fritts provides a beautifully written and well-researched study on Luther’s Bondage of the Will.

Dennis finishes out this issue with a book review on Michael Massing’s 2019 tome Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther and the Fight for the Western Mind. Can the lives and experiences of these two great humanists shed light on their theologies about free will?

SIMUL can be read three ways. One can enlarge and read through the flip book on the top of the webpage (there is a full screen button that can be clicked on the lower right-hand side of the flipbook, and you can double-click or use the zoom slider at the bottom of the page for even more magnification), or one can scroll down and read each individual article. This second option

allows readers to share individual articles (that can be read on a cellphone) without sending the entire issue. You can also download a pdf to your device and keep it forever!

A “MARY” CHRISTMAS

Christmas is filled with things that take your breath away.  In fact, one person went so far as to say that life at its best is measured not by the breaths we take, but by the breaths we miss.  Life at its best is made up of times like Christmas – times of awe and wonder. 

How much do you think that first Christmas took Mary’s breath away?  How much was she not even able to speak?  Oh, she had talked with an angel in Nazareth, and she had sung her song to her cousin Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea.  But in Luke’s account of Christmas Eve, there is not recorded even one word from Mary.  It is as if what was happening to her was just too deep to put into words.  So it merely says, “Mary treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2: 19).

We need to be like Mary and spend some quiet time around the manager.  This Christmas we all need to be like Mary, who, apparently without saying a word, held her child, who was both God and human, close to her breast and pondered in her heart everything that was happening to her.

The first thing I believe she pondered was the LOWLINESS OF GOD’S APPROACH.  God did not come with noise and clamor.  Rather, as the beloved Christmas carol says, “How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift was given.”  How often does the power of God come to us not with great noise, but instead in silence?  How often is God best experienced where there is the least noise?  How often is it that in the quietest of moments God most touches our lives?  Yes, Christmas is a time when the world holds its breath and listens once again for the soft cry of a baby.  So gracious and so holy was the time that Mary may not have said a single word.  Rather she treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart, including the LOWLINESS OF GOD’S APPROACH. 

And then, second, I believe she also pondered the LOWLINESS OF GOD’S ARRIVAL.  There was no room for them except where the animals stayed, so Mary “wrapped Him in bands of cloth and laid Him in a manger.”  Do you think Jesus hesitated?  When the only begotten Son of God – pre-existent from all eternity – stood there on the balcony of heaven and counted what would be the full cost of His coming – of His emptying Himself, as the apostle Paul said.  Do you think He hesitated even for a moment before He came?  No, I do not think so.  Instead I think that He looked down and saw it all – including the cross and all the pain and all the shame – and then willingly and intentionally came.  Yes, I believe that when Mary was pondering all of these things, she was also pondering the LOWLINESS OF GOD’S ARRIVAL

And then, third, I believe she also pondered the LOWLINESS OF GOD’S AUDIENCE.  The first ones to learn of His birth were some shepherds.  Now I have read that the Pharisees of the day saw six professions as unworthy.  One of these was being a shepherd.  Shepherds were not permitted to give testimony in a court of law, and I have even read that they were not allowed to enter a synagogue because their work was considered ritually unclean.  So called “good people” would have nothing to do with shepherds.  But the good news of great joy was first given to a group of shepherds.  At the heart of the Gospel is the truth that knowing God is not something that is given only to important and powerful people.  Rather it is also given to shepherds.  And you and I are like shepherds – and we are all like sheep.  But the good news of Christmas is that we are all still worth everything to God.

“How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift is given! 
So God imparts to human hearts the blessings of His heaven.
No ear may hear His coming, but in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive Him, still the dear Christ enters in.”

What I pray for you during this Advent and Christmas season, is that you will have the heart of Mary, who sat there silently and nursed her child, who was both God and human, as she treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart.

From my heart to yours I wish you a Mary – a M-A-R-Y – Christmas.

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

 

* * * * * * *

LUTHERAN CONGREGATIONS SUPPORT NETWORK

I am very grateful to and for all those who are helping spread the word regarding the Lutheran Congregations Support Network and its work to inform ELCA congregations of the risks they are under and are likely coming to their congregational autonomy and property rights because of anticipated changes in the ELCA constitution and governance structure.  Here is a link to their website – lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork.org

Among the resources on their website are links to three videos, which give

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

Thank you for helping spread the word. 

 

* * * * * * *

With the 2025 March for Life in Washington D. C. coming up on January 24, we wanted to share with you two articles from the NALC Life Ministries Team.

Making Ourselves Gods

by Pastor Mark Chavez, Chair of the NALC Life Ministries Team

All life hangs on the first commandment: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:2-3) Martin Luther’s explanation of the First Commandment in the Large Catechism ends with these words:

Let this be enough for the First Commandment. We have had to explain it at great length, for it is        the most important. As I said before, if the heart is right with God and we keep this                                commandment, all of the rest will follow on their own. (BOC, Kolb/Wengert, p. 392)

The inverse of Luther’s words are equally true. Not keeping the First Commandment means we will not keep all the other commandments. Apart from Christ our hearts are not right with God. We have other gods. We do not keep the commandments. We do not preserve and care for life. Idolatry always leads to death.

We have many gods. They can be anything or anyone. The growth of one particular god in the current culture is especially disturbing and destructive. Culture would have us believe that we are each a god unto ourselves – “It’s my life, I can do whatever I want with it. It’s my body, I can do whatever I want with it.”

Self-idolatry is the extreme height of our sinful condition, incurvatus in se (turned or curved in upon self). Making ourselves gods, is also the height of our sinful rebellion. We attempt to displace the true “Author of life” (Acts 3:15). We think we are the authors of our lives. Our deception and delusion is profoundly tragic. Our authorship does not create, promote or preserve life. It destroys life. Not just our own life, but the lives of others as well.

Medical and scientific data has for many years proven that women who experience abortion and transgendered children and youth suffer physical, psychological and spiritual trauma. Were they to study the impact of physician assisted suicide on family, friends and the administering physicians, there is probably trauma for them as well. Culture says the above are ways of caring for life, but the truth is the opposite. Culture calls evil good.

Far too many are shaped by culture to assume life is in our hands, and we can do whatever we want with it. No wonder that the number of elective abortions, physician assisted suicides and transgendered children and youth is increasing.

Insisting we are gods is a complete rebellion against the only living God – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The true “Author of life” owns every human life and body. He alone creates life. All life rests in his hands, not ours, including both believers in Christ and unbelievers. God’s ownership of a believer’s life and body is especially personal and intimate:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from      God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1              Corinthians 6:19-20)

Since we, as God’s elect, were bought with an extravagant price, the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, our whole life belongs to him. As members of his body, we are called to speak the truth to the culture. We are not gods. All life is in God’s hands.

March for Life and Y4Life Conference in January!

 by Pastor Dennis DiMauro   

The NALC Life Ministries team is once again preparing for the March for Life in Washington D.C. this January, but our plan is a little different. Instead of holding a life conference, NALC Life has decided to team up with Lutherans for Life (LFL) and participate in their events at the March! Their youth conference, Y4Life, will be held at the Hilton Arlington Landing Hotel (2399 Richmond Highway, Arlington, VA 22202) from Thursday, January 23rd, 2025 through Saturday, January 25th, 2025 and it has over 400 kids already registered (register at https://y4life.org/event/y4life-in-washington-d-c-january-23-25-2025/ ). We encourage all our NALC youth to participate in this free conference.

On Friday, January 24th we will be once again participating in the March for Life under the NALC banner, and I hope you can join us at 12th and Madison Sts., N.W at noon as we march to the U.S. Capitol. Before the march there is a prayer service at DAR Constitution Hall 1776 D St. NW (18th and D St.) Washington, DC 20006 starting at 8:30am. All our NALC members are invited to attend this service and our clergy are invited to participate (stoles are white). If you have any problems at the march, please contact Pastor Dennis Di Mauro at (703) 568-3346. Pastor Di Mauro can also host you in his home if you would like to stay overnight in DC. We can’t wait to see you in our nation’s capital this January!!