This post has been on my heart for a while now. It comes with some weight—and I don’t post it lightly. But I also don’t post it in anger or bitterness. I write out of love—for my family and friends, for the Church, for the truth. I hope it will be received that way.
Over the past few years, you’ve probably noticed how much I’ve written about human sexuality—issues like gender identity, same-sex parenting, and transgenderism.
These are hard topics. They touch real people. They touch us. And because they do, I haven’t wanted to treat them casually or toss out slogans from a distance. But I’ve felt more and more compelled to speak clearly—especially because these ideas have not only infiltrated our cultural institutions, but have taken root in the Church itself.
The final turning point for me was personal. For several years, I had been attending a congregation that was a blend of Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and Episcopal USA traditions. I loved the people. I still do. It was a generous, open-hearted community. But over time, I began to sense that the gospel being proclaimed there was subtly—sometimes not so subtly—drifting from the one I knew. The Bible’s authority and Church Tradition was increasingly treated as optional. Christian sexual ethics were reimagined to align with the culture. And then came the moment I could no longer ignore.
One Sunday morning, a woman ordained by one of those denominations—an openly practicing lesbian, whose “wife” was present in the congregation—stood before us and preached as a representative of Christ’s Church. That was the moment for me. I sat there grieving—not out of personal offense, but because something precious was being lost.
This wasn’t merely a difference of opinion. It pointed to a deeper divergence—a fundamentally different understanding of what the Church is, what the gospel proclaims (ie. that Jesus is Lord of the created cosmos), and who Jesus calls us to be.
The gospel is not merely a message of inclusion or affirmation. It is the announcement that Jesus Christ is Lord of all—that through Him all things were made, and in Him all things hold together. As Paul writes in Colossians:
"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:16–17).
This is the gospel: not a validation of our desires, but a call to live in joyful submission to the One through whom the cosmos was made.
After that Sunday, I knew I couldn’t do it anymore—not in good conscience. I couldn’t keep contributing my time and treasure to a church whose leadership had embraced a theological trajectory that I believe is deeply harmful. So I stepped away. And that decision still breaks my heart. I loved those people. I still do.
Love and truth cannot be separated. In the years since, I’ve come to believe that many parts of the Church have failed to speak the truth—especially about the body, about male and female, about marriage and children—and that failure has had devastating consequences. The cultural winds are strong. But the Church was never called to drift with the wind. We are called to be rooted.
I’ve written several blog posts recently, and I want you to know why.
The first was about gay parenting and the Regnerus Study—a work that dared to ask what’s best for children and found answers that challenge the prevailing narrative. It’s not enough to say children are “loved.” They also need a father and a mother. Our policies—and our churches—ought to reflect that truth.
The second addressed the ELCA’s 2025 Reconsideration of Human Sexuality—a document that appears to codify the denomination’s full embrace of sexual revisionism. The very truths that once shaped Christian witness on marriage, the body, and the created order are now treated as “harmful” or “exclusionary.” I couldn’t remain silent.
The third examined the ELCA’s doctrine of “Bound Conscience”—a concept I once thought might preserve theological diversity, but which has become a theological escape hatch. It allows the Church to affirm contradictory truths in the name of unity, while quietly discarding the authority of Scripture. That’s not unity—it’s institutionalized confusion.
I don’t write these things to score points or “win” debates. I write them because someone needs to say what so many faithful Christians—especially in more progressive circles—are afraid to say out loud. I write them because I fear that silence now will only mean deeper compromise later.
I believe the Triune God made us male and female—not as an accident of biology, but as a reflection of something sacred. I believe our bodies matter. I believe Christian love includes a call to repentance. And I believe that our first obligation of love is not to ourselves or one another, but to our Creator.
To affirm someone’s identity apart from the Lordship of Christ is not compassion—it is a tragic abandonment to a path that cannot yield life. And I believe the Church must have the courage to say so, even when it costs something.
In recent years, no phrase has carried more weight—or more ambiguity—within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) than “bound conscience.” First introduced in the 2009 social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, it has become both a theological shield and a procedural tool for managing moral disagreement. But what does “bound conscience” actually mean? And more importantly, is its use in the ELCA consistent with Scripture and the historic Christian tradition?
The ELCA’s Definition: A Plurality of Convictions
In the 2009 statement, the ELCA proposed that faithful Christians may, in good conscience, come to mutually contradictory conclusions about same-sex sexual relationships. That is:
Some believe such relationships are contrary to God’s will.
Others believe they can be faithful expressions of love and discipleship.
According to the ELCA, both groups may be said to have consciences “bound to the Word of God,” and therefore both should be honored within the Church. This framework was presented as a means to preserve unity amid disagreement.
But is this a faithful application of the concept?
Reformation Roots: Luther at Worms
The idea of “bound conscience” is not new. It draws most famously from Martin Luther’s defense at the Diet of Worms:
“My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”
But for Luther, this was not about subjective conviction. It was about submission—conscience rightly bound by the authority of God’s Word, not by personal sentiment, political pressure, or communal consensus.
To reinterpret “bound conscience” as permission for contradictory moral positions is to sever it from its Reformation foundation.
Why the Bound Conscience Model Fails
1. It Redefines Truth as Preference If one person believes a behavior is sinful and another believes it is holy, both cannot be correct. The Church may be patient in discerning, but it cannot bless contradiction. As Paul reminds the Corinthians:
“God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33).
2. It Undermines the Church’s Moral Witness When the Church upholds opposing teachings as equally valid, it erodes its ability to proclaim any moral truth. Instead of a prophetic voice, it becomes an echo of the culture.
3. It Was Always a Temporary Measure The ELCA’s use of bound conscience in 2009 was framed as a way to hold diverse views together. But the current reconsideration process—especially Reconsideration #2 scheduled for 2028—makes it clear that the provision will likely be removed. Those who were promised space for their convictions may soon find that space eliminated. That possibility is underscored by the church’s stated rationale for changes already enacted: “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. But the new language being recommended goes beyond that. Page 19 of the Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits refers to “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples.” On the same page, it broadens further: “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.”
This trajectory makes clear that the original logic of bound conscience is rapidly being replaced by a new moral consensus.
4. It Confuses Unity with Uniformity True Christian unity is grounded in shared confession, not in the suppression of moral clarity. The New Testament calls for unity in truth (Eph. 4:11–15) 1 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love., not unity despite its absence.
What True Conscience Requires
The Christian understanding of conscience is not private or self-referential. Biblically, the conscience is formed:
By the Word of God (Psalm 119:105)2Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
Through the community of faith (Acts 15:28)3For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
In submission to the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:1)4I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.
A truly bound conscience is not simply sincere. It is correctly tethered—anchored to God’s revealed truth. That truth, on matters of human sexuality, is consistent through Scripture and affirmed across centuries of Christian witness.
Conclusion: Truth Cannot Be Voted On
The ELCA’s deployment of “bound conscience” may have been well-intentioned, but it has become a theological smokescreen for unresolved contradiction. Conscience must indeed be honored—but only when it is bound to the truth.
The Church is not free to pronounce both light and darkness as equally valid. As Jesus said:
“If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matt. 6:23)
Let us call conscience back to its proper source—not to sentiment, not to social trends, but to Scripture. For only there can it be truly bound, and only there can it be truly free.
The 2025 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), held in Phoenix, Arizona, has now officially adopted what it describes as “editorial” changes to its 2009 social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. But contrary to this official framing, these changes are not minor word swaps or clarifications. They are, in substance and effect, a comprehensive revision of the Church’s understanding of marriage, family, and human embodiment—one that capitulates to the spirit of the age and redefines long-standing Christian doctrine in light of evolving civil law and cultural norms.
What follows is a rebuttal—not only to the changes themselves but to the misleading narrative that they are somehow neutral or non-theological. They are a redefinition of the Church’s public witness on marriage, sexuality, and the nature of family.
From 2009 to 2025: A Timeline of Theological Drift
2009: Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust is adopted, controversially, by a narrow two-thirds majority—the minimum required for passage. While it affirms marriage as between a man and a woman, it also introduces the concept of “bound conscience,” allowing for differing positions on same-sex relationships within the ELCA. This marked a historic shift in Lutheran teaching and ignited deep theological conflict. A substantial percentage of members and pastors maintained that same-sex sexual relationships were incompatible with Scripture and the Church’s long-standing moral tradition. Many saw the decision as a departure from biblical authority and confessional integrity. The controversy led to widespread disillusionment, the formation of breakaway associations, and the departure of hundreds of congregations in the years that followed.
2022: The Churchwide Assembly passes Memorial C3 and Motion K, authorizing two reconsiderations:
Reconsideration #1: Language changes in light of civil law, church policy, and public acceptance.
Reconsideration #2: A future substantive review of the “bound conscience” framework (scheduled for 2028).
2025: The ELCA adopts the “editorial” changes recommended by its task force—changes which redefine terms, introduce new theological categories, and shift the center of moral authority from Scripture and Church Tradition to civil law and cultural sentiment.
Changing Words, Changing Doctrine
Let’s consider several before-and-after comparisons to highlight the depth of these so-called “editorial” revisions:
2009 Original: “Marriage is a covenant of mutual promises, commitment, and hope authorized legally by the state and blessed by God. The historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions have recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman…”
2025 Revision: “In the United States, individual states determine the legal status and definition of marriage… Within Christianity, marriage is often understood as a covenant of mutual promises, commitment, and hope between two individuals...”
The theological center of gravity has shifted. The 2009 statement rooted marriage in Christian tradition and Scripture (Mark 10:6–9)1But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”. The 2025 edit centers marriage in state law and replaces sexed-specificity with generalized individualism.
2025 Revision: “Sex, Gender, and Sexuality in Marriage.”
The 2009 phrasing, while itself a significant departure from previous Lutheran and ecumenical consensus, at least retained a specific and limited scope. It acknowledged that the matter was controversial and that such relationships were considered by some within the ELCA to be acceptable only under certain conditions. The new framing—“Sex, Gender, and Sexuality in Marriage”—broadens the subject dramatically. It signals a shift from constrained moral categories to an expansive and ideologically freighted framework that no longer clearly defines the theological boundaries of Christian sexual ethics.
And finally:
2009 Original: “We in the ELCA recognize that many of our sisters and brothers in same-gender relationships…”
2025 Revision: “We in the ELCA recognize that many of our siblings of diverse sexual orientations in relationships…”
The use of “siblings” is not just inclusive. It is ideologically loaded—an erasure of the creational significance of male and female as part of our shared human identity.
The Collapse of a Compromise: What Was Warned in 2009 Is Unfolding Now
The 2009 social statement affirmed “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships”—a compromise that was hotly contested at the time and viewed by many as the beginning of a theological rupture. While presented as a way to honor differing convictions through the concept of “bound conscience,” the move was seen by a significant portion of the ELCA as a departure from Scripture and a rejection of the Church’s historic teaching. The new 2025 wording expands this compromise dramatically, now referring to “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.” A footnote 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.”
This shift is more than semantic; it signals a full theological reorientation. It also confirms the trajectory long anticipated by those who opposed the 2009 compromise—namely, that the so-called bound conscience framework would prove to be a temporary measure, soon to be dismantled entirely in the 2028 Reconsideration #2 process.
What was once a disputed accommodation has become a blanket affirmation, and the Church’s distinctive voice is being absorbed into the ambient culture. Looking ahead, the evolving definition of “diverse family configurations” will almost certainly include not only same-sex couples but also throuples, polyamorous networks, and other arrangements increasingly recognized by secular norms. For instance, the city of Somerville, Massachusetts, in 2020 officially recognized polyamorous domestic partnerships in its municipal policy—an indication of how quickly the definition of family is expanding in civic life. Similarly, legal scholars and advocacy groups are increasingly calling for recognition of non-traditional relationship structures, framing them as a matter of equity and inclusion.
This trajectory reveals a breach—not only of doctrinal continuity but of the trust once promised to those who were told their traditional convictions would remain respected under the so-called bound conscience framework. It is also likely to accelerate membership and parish decline. As the Church’s moral vision becomes indistinguishable from the secular world, those seeking clarity, conviction, and creedal faith will continue to look elsewhere. The ELCA’s compromise has not preserved unity—it has diluted witness and driven away both confessional Lutherans and seekers alike.
A Mirror of the Nationalism You Decry
Here lies one of the greatest ironies of this shift. The ELCA frequently denounces what it calls Christian Nationalism—typically defined as the fusion of Christian identity with American political and cultural power, especially on the right. But this very reconsideration is itself a form of Christian Nationalism in reverse:
It aligns the Church’s moral witness not with the Kingdom of God but with the legal and cultural standards of the United States.
It canonizes Supreme Court decisions as theological turning points.
It treats public opinion and civil law not as areas to be evangelized or critiqued, but as authorities to be mirrored.
In short, this is a progressive version of what the ELCA claims to oppose: a Church conformed to the image of the nation. While the ELCA regularly challenges the political establishment on economic and immigration policies—often casting itself in a prophetic role—it nevertheless conforms to cultural consensus on matters of sexuality and identity. This inconsistency reveals a troubling pattern: resistance to the state when convenient, but capitulation when the culture demands it most. When the Church speaks boldly to Caesar in matters of justice but passively follows him in matters of sexual ethics, it reveals not prophetic courage, but selective conformity.
Public Sentiment as Theological Standard
The Executive Summary and Task Force materials confirm the real authority behind these changes:
“The edits… respond to the assembly’s authorization to update or clarify wording from the original social statement in light of: (1) the import that marriage legally is now a covenant between two individuals, (2) public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender non-conforming couples, and (3) the diversity of family configurations.”
There is no appeal to:
Biblical anthropology
Natural law
The history of Christian moral reflection
The creational structure of male and female as image-bearers
Instead, the guiding lights are public acceptance, legal precedent, and evolving definitions.
This is not Christian discernment. It is theological surrender.
A Bleak Forecast for Christian Witness
The consequences are plain:
The ELCA’s public witness will become indistinguishable from progressive secularism.
It will no longer have the credibility to speak prophetically to the culture.
The 2009-bound conscience framework will be dismantled in 2028.
Already, 37% of survey respondents said the section on differing views should be scrapped entirely. The direction is clear.
Those holding to traditional Christian views will find themselves further marginalized within the ELCA.
I predict that powerful and preferred voices will not stop until they succeed in eliminating all dissent.
The ELCA will accelerate its numerical and spiritual decline.
Churches that abandon creedal identity and biblical authority become indistinct, confused, and ultimately irrelevant.
Conclusion: Return to the Word, Not the World
The Church does not bear witness to the gospel by conforming itself to the laws of the land or the moods of the culture. It does so by proclaiming Christ crucified, risen, and reigning—not just in liturgy, but in moral teaching, in embodied discipleship, and in familial vocation.
The changes just approved in Phoenix are not cosmetic. They are catechetical. They re-educate the Church away from Scripture and toward the world.
Those who care about the integrity of the gospel and the created goodness of the body must say so clearly: these revisions are not simply editorial. They are ecclesial apostasy dressed in the language of inclusion.
Let the ELCA return to the Word—not to the world—for its hope, its witness, and its standard.
