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. 

 

An Analysis of the Work Of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

As promised, we continue to monitor the work of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC).   The Commission was formed in response to action taken by the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  The assembly directed the Church Council to establish a Commission “comprised of leaders of diverse representation” that shall “reconsider the statements of purpose for each of the expressions of this church, the principles of its organizational structure, and all matters pertaining thereunto.”  The Commission was instructed to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and to “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”

There was a very interesting article in “Living Lutheran,” the ELCA’s digital magazine, dated August 2, 2023 and entitled “Inside the commission that could restructure the ELCA.”  Here is a link to that article. The article begins by comparing the original Commission for a New Lutheran Church, which met between 1982 and 1987 and whose work led to the formation of the ELCA, and this recently appointed Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  According to the article, the original Commission (from the 1980’s) was “a mammoth research project that held forums across the country, reviewed over 12,000 letters from Lutheran faithful, and processed responses from the synod, district and national conventions of three Lutheran denominations hoping to merge.”  The original Commission was composed of seventy persons who spent five years doing their work.  In contrast, the current Commission will have less than two years to complete its work.  The article in “Living Lutheran” says, “The new group of 35 rostered ministers and laypeople from across the church will conduct a more condensed version of the original group’s investigation, examining ‘statements of purpose’ and ‘principles of organization’ for all three expressions and conducting nationwide research and listening forums.”

A Timeline for the work of the Commission can be found on their website. Here are some key dates.

The Churchwide Assembly that directed the Church Council to form the Commission was held August 8-12, 2022.

It was not until January-March 2023 that there was a nominating process for members for the Commission.

On April 20, 2023 the ELCA Church Council appointed members to the Commission.

On June 20, 2023 the Executive Committee appointed Leon Schwartz and Carla Christopher as co-chairs of the Commission.

It was not until July 13-15, 2023 that the Commission held its first meeting – almost a full year after the assembly which directed the Church Council to form the Commission and just a little more than two years before the July 28-August 2, 2025 Churchwide Assembly, which will vote on the recommendations from the Commission.  But the Commission needs to complete its work well before then.  Here are a couple more very significant dates coming up very soon which are on the Commission’s Timeline –

Spring 2025 – A draft of the Commission’s report and recommendations is to be shared with the Conference of Bishops for comment.

April 3-6, 2025 – The Commission’s final report and recommendations are to be shared with the Church Council, who will forward the report and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly for the assembly’s consideration.

The “Living Lutheran” article is filled with hope and anticipation.  It quotes from the memorial submitted by the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod, which says, “The governing documents, constitutions, bylaws, and continuing resolutions of the ELCA do not allow (congregations, synods and the churchwide organization) to reorganize quickly to meet the changing realities for effective mission in today’s world.”  According to the article the other nine synods which submitted memorials used similar language. 

The article shares comments made by Carla Christopher and Leon Schwartz, the two co-chairs of the Commission, in a sit-down interview after the first meeting of the Commission.

Carla Christopher said, “Church itself has changed.  The people coming to church have changed, and the systems necessary to support the work the church is doing have changed. . . . We want to make sure that churchwide is resourcing the best places where mission is happening and innovation is happening, that synods have the ability to support and address and equip rostered (ministers) for the future, that seminaries have relevant curriculum, and that parishioners have the ability to be active and involved even if they’re not traditional parishioners.”

Both Christopher and Schwartz told stories of a “church struggling to react quickly in a century when crisis is becoming the norm.”  Leon Schwartz added, “When the churchwide assembly meets every three years, and that’s the only chance you have to change the constitution, it’s very cumbersome. Even bylaws or continuing resolutions, they take a lot of time to change anything.”

Christopher cited numerous examples of the “church’s command structure breaking down” during the COVID lockdowns of 2020-21.  According to the article, neither co-chair would say that the decades-old model of three expressions is fundamentally flawed, but they did state that many areas of ministry do not fit under any of the three expressions.  These ministries include camps, colleges and universities, interfaith engagement, and environmental agencies.  Schwartz commented, “There’s a lot of things that have just grown up over the past 40 years.”

Leon Schwartz pointed out that the original Commission (from the 1980’s) “took six years to collect its data whereas the new commission is down to about a year and a half before its report comes due.”  Therefore he “lamented that so much time had elapsed already.”  “It’s a different environment,” he said. “You can’t take six years to make changes anymore in this world.”

This same attitude of hope and anticipation continues as the article says, “When the next churchwide assembly convenes, in summer 2025, the CRLC will present its findings and recommend whether the church should then mount a special reconstituting convention without delay.”  I do not remember the words “without delay” being in the original motion.

If all that is the hope, dream, plan, goal, anticipated outcome, and reason for which the Commission was formed, what is the reality?  As of the time of the writing of this article, the Commission has met six times – three times in 2023 and three times in 2024.  Three of the meetings were in person; three were online.  The plan is that the Commission will meet twice a year in person and online every other month during the other months.  Summaries of the first six meetings can be found on the Commission’s website – Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (elca.org)     

I have read, studied, and reflected on the written summaries of the first six meetings of the Commission.  I noticed that earlier summaries were more specific in their content.  For example, the Commission revealed their priorities through whom they invited to address them.  They also mentioned their receiving a copy of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of their governing documents.  They have not stated what impact that audit will have on their final report and recommendations.  But the two members who held a listening session for the synod in which I am rostered celebrated the fact that the ELCA is the first of its kind of organization to have such an audit done.

For me, the summaries of the more recent meetings are very general and non-informative.  They speak of such things as reviewing highlights from listening sessions and online surveys, holding listening sessions at the recent youth gathering and adjacent events, identifying essential functions of the three expressions of the church, hearing from synods about their functions, ensuring that their work is viewed through a lens of antiracism, and discussing the current seal and name of the ELCA.  Nothing specific is said.  Reading the summaries tells you nothing about what actually is being done and is going on.

I can think of two possible explanations.  First, they are not getting a whole lot done.  They have grand ideas but do not know how to make those ideas a reality.  After more than half of the time has passed between their first meeting and when they need to give their report and recommendations to the Church Council, they are spinning their wheels.

There is also a second possibility.  They are intentionally not telling us what actually is going on and specifically in what direction they are heading.  For example, they are not disclosing how the ELCA’s DEIA audit will impact their recommendations.  This possibility reminds me of how quickly the recordings of the evening sessions from the recent youth gathering were removed from the internet.

Either way, I see and have a problem and will continue to keep you informed.