A Theological Rebuttal to the ELCA’s Reconsideration of Human Sexuality

Photo by Anna Shvets

The Quiet Revolution in Phoenix

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

  • 2009Human 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.

Another:

2009 Original: “Lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”

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:

  1. The ELCA’s public witness will become indistinguishable from progressive secularism.
    • It will no longer have the credibility to speak prophetically to the culture.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.


ELCA Sources:

Sexual Orientation of Survey Participants

  1. Heterosexual/straight – 61/1%
  2. No answer – 7.5 %
  3. Gay – 7.1 %
  4. Queer – 6.3%
  5. Bisexual – 5.0%
  6. Lesbian – 4.2%
  7. Other – 4.2%
  8. Asexual – 3.3%
  9. Pansexual – 1.3%

+++

Grace & Truth

Solution: Make Parents Opt-IN to LGBTQ+ Content at School

This Tuesday’s Supreme Court Case:

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of religious parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, are standing up for something pretty basic: the right to raise their children according to their faith. But the school district isn’t making that easy. It introduced storybooks and lessons about gender identity and sexuality to elementary school kidswithout even telling parents ahead of time, and without offering any way to opt out.

That’s a problem. These families aren’t trying to stir up trouble—they’re simply asking to be informed and allowed to make decisions that line up with their religious convictions. This is about the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, especially when it comes to moral and spiritual formation.

The parents point to Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the Supreme Court said Amish families had a right to pull their kids from school to preserve their religious way of life. The principle is the same here. Just like in Yoder, these parents aren’t trying to shut down education—they’re asking the state to respect their religious boundaries.

Even more, the school’s policy isn’t neutral. It selectively targets families of faith by refusing to accommodate them. That’s exactly the kind of government overreach the Supreme Court rejected in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. When the government targets religion—or refuses to treat religious people with equal dignity—it’s supposed to face the highest level of scrutiny. And this policy doesn’t come close to meeting that standard.

During the Supreme Court oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, it was revealed that Montgomery County Public Schools introduced concepts such as “preferred pronouns” and the idea that a child’s gender or sex is “assigned at birth” to young students, including those aged 4 to 6.

Eric Baxter, the attorney representing the parents, stated that the school district mandated instruction teaching that “doctors guessed at their sex when they were born” and that disagreeing with this notion is considered “hurtful and unfair.” 

Additionally, one of the books included in the curriculum, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, discusses a child’s experience with gender identity and pronoun preferences. 

The parents argue that such instruction conflicts with their religious beliefs and that they should have the right to opt their children out of these lessons..

Let’s be clear: these parents aren’t asking to ban books or rewrite the curriculum. They’re asking for a simple, commonsense solution—just give them a heads-up, and let them opt out when necessary. That’s not unreasonable. In fact, it’s the least the school could do to respect the diversity it claims to celebrate.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 2025, and a decision is expected this summer. At stake is a principle as old as the Constitution: parents, not bureaucrats, have the right to shape their children’s moral and spiritual education. Let’s hope the Court gets it right.

But wait! I’ve got a simpler solution: OPT-IN

Before any of these controversial LGBTQ ‘lessons’ are taught: Make Parents Opt Their Kids IN to LGBTQ++ content. Then for those who do, you can have a special time for their instruction. The problem, of course, is a lot of this controversial content has been smuggled into math, science, reading & writing curriculum. That needs to stop.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will side with the parents here, but it’s hard to say how the justices will ultimately rule. Still, it really shouldn’t even come down to a court case. Parents shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to opt their kids out of content they find inappropriate—especially when it comes to sensitive, sexual, or ideological material. Honestly, a lot of this content shouldn’t be in schools to begin with.

If schools are going to insist on including materials about gender identity, preferred pronouns, and LGBTQ themes—especially for very young kids—then it should be an OPT-IN system, not opt-out. In other words, parents who want their children to engage with that kind of material should be the ones who take action, not the other way around. Most parents, especially those with preschoolers or children with special needs (like the ones in this case), aren’t okay with their kids being exposed to content that doesn’t match their age or their family’s beliefs.

And let’s be honest—if schools did switch to an opt-in model, you’d probably find that very few parents would sign their kids up for this. That would calm down the outrage and allow the handful of families who do want that kind of instruction to have it—maybe in a separate elective or even as an after-school program.

Better yet, make it a rule that anytime a teacher or librarian wants to introduce content dealing with sex, gender, or identity, they have to get direct, written permission from parents first. Put the responsibility where it belongs: on the schools and educators. Let them explain exactly what’s being taught and why they think it’s helpful. That’s the kind of transparency parents deserve.

If you agree with this OPT-IN Solution, please share this post with others. Thanks.

A Longer Term Solution is Universal School Choice

As of April 2025, 14 U.S. states have enacted universal school choice programs, allowing all or nearly all K–12 students to access public funds for private education expenses, including tuition, homeschooling, and other approved costs. Here’s an overview of these states and their programs:

States with Universal School Choice Programs

  1. Arizona
    Pioneered universal school choice in 2022 with its Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, offering funds to all students regardless of income or background.
  2. Florida
    Expanded its Family Empowerment Scholarship in 2023 to include universal eligibility, allowing all students to apply for private school funding.
  3. West Virginia
    Implemented the Hope Scholarship Program in 2021, providing ESAs to all students, making it one of the earliest adopters of universal school choice.
  4. Iowa
    Launched the Students First Act in 2023, establishing ESAs for all students to attend private schools.
  5. Arkansas
    Passed the LEARNS Act in 2023, creating a universal ESA program for students statewide.
  6. Utah
    Enacted H.B. 215 in 2023, establishing a universal ESA program open to all students, regardless of income or disability status.
  7. Indiana
    Expanded its Choice Scholarship Program in 2023 to remove income limits, effectively making it a universal voucher program.
  8. North Carolina
    Approved legislation in 2023 to make its Opportunity Scholarship Program universally available to all K–12 students.
  9. Ohio
    Expanded its EdChoice Scholarship Program in 2023 to allow all students to apply, regardless of income or school performance.
  10. Oklahoma
    Implemented the Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit in 2023, providing universal access to private school funding through tax credits.
  11. South Carolina
    Passed legislation in 2023 to establish a universal ESA program, offering funds to all students for private education expenses.
  12. Tennessee
    In January 2025, enacted the Education Freedom Act, creating a universal ESA program that provides families with $7,000 per student for tuition and other educational expenses.
  13. Idaho
    In early 2025, approved the Idaho Parental Tax Credit, offering families up to $5,000 per child for private educational expenses, marking the state’s first private school choice program.
  14. Wyoming
    Passed the Wyoming Freedom Scholarship Act in 2025, establishing a universal ESA program providing families with $7,000 per student for education-related expenses.

States with Recent or Pending Universal School Choice Legislation

  • Texas
    In April 2025, Texas lawmakers approved a $1 billion education bill establishing a private school voucher program, allowing families to use public funds for private school tuition, homeschooling, or virtual learning. The program is expected to serve up to 90,000 students in its first year, with potential expansion in the future.  
  • New Hampshire
    Legislation is advancing to remove income limits from the state’s Education Freedom Account program, potentially making it universally accessible.  
  • Missouri
    House Bill 711, proposing a voluntary open enrollment program and universal ESA eligibility, has passed the House and is under consideration in the Senate.  

These developments reflect a significant shift in education policy, with a growing number of states embracing universal school choice to provide families with more educational options.

At a minimum parents need to require local schools and school boards to support OPT-IN before any LGBTQ+ content is presented. Parents can then choose what they prefer for their young kids.

[Sources: Becket Legal Defense Fund & Supreme Court Oral Arguments]

+++

Parents: Take Charge!

Return to Reality in the UK

This is such a huge, huge win for sanity.

“The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously ruled Wednesday that a woman is someone born biologically female, a move that now excludes transgender women from the legal definition of a woman.

Trans women can be excluded from some single-sex spaces and groups under the U.K. Equality Act, the five judges of the top court ruled. These spaces and groups include changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.”

“The ruling means that even a transgender person with a certificate that recognizes them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes.”

Fox News

I can’t believe we’ve come to this point in the Western world, that a ruling like this is required.  But it is welcomed nonetheless.  Stop the insanity!  And while we are at it, stop the mutilation and sterilization of our confused youth.

+++

Stay Human