Posts

Posted on

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

  • 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.

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

Posted on

Gay Parenting, Science, and the Well-Being of Children: A Surprising Vindication of the Regnerus Study


Children thrive in the context of stable, intact biological families—an ideal that remains statistically and morally significant.

In 2012, sociologist Mark Regnerus published a bombshell study that challenged the prevailing narrative in academic circles about same-sex parenting. His findings? Children raised by same-sex parents, particularly lesbian couples, experienced significantly worse outcomes on numerous metrics compared to those raised by their married, biological mother and father.

The backlash was immediate and severe. Regnerus was accused of bigotry, his study denounced as pseudoscience, and attempts were made to have it retracted. But more than a decade later, the dust has settled enough for a deeper look. And what a surprise (to some) that deeper look brings.

A Study Stress-Tested by Time

Science advances through testing—Regnerus’s study held up under millions of analytical variations.

The recent multiverse analysis conducted by Cornell sociologists Cristobal Young and Erin Cumberworth takes a new and rigorous approach to contested social science studies. Their technique? Run every possible reasonable permutation of analytic choices—literally millions of combinations—to see whether a study’s conclusions hold up across models.

It’s like subjecting the study to every imaginable stress test. And Regnerus’s study passed.

Not one of the more than two million significant models contradicted his core finding: children raised in intact biological families consistently fared better than those raised by same-sex parents.

To put that in perspective, this kind of consistency is almost unheard of in social science research, where findings often vary widely depending on how the data is modeled. 

What Was the Regnerus Study, and Why Did It Matter?

Regnerus’s 2012 New Family Structures Study (NFSS) surveyed nearly 3,000 young adults, making it by far the largest and most representative dataset available at the time on the topic.

Unlike earlier studies—which had tiny sample sizes (often fewer than 50 children) and often relied on parents self-reporting at Pride events or through gay-themed media ads—the NFSS used a random national sample. It included 248 individuals who had been raised by parents in a same-sex relationship.

His findings were sobering:

  • Children raised by lesbian parents fared worse on 25 of 40 outcomes
  • Those raised by gay men fared worse on 11

The problems were wide-ranging: depression, lower educational attainment, greater reliance on public assistance, higher unemployment, more criminal involvement, increased sexual abuse, and unstable relationships.

The Immediate Backlash

The response to Regnerus was not scientific critique—it was ideological suppression.

The study ignited fury. Hundreds of academics and activists called for its retraction. Regnerus’s reputation was dragged through the mud.

But rather than retreat, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he made his dataset public and invited others to analyze it.

Two major critiques emerged:

  1. Cheng and Powell argued that many individuals Regnerus classified as raised by same-sex parents had spent little time in such households.
  2. Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford insisted that Regnerus hadn’t adequately adjusted for family transitions, which are known to negatively impact child outcomes.

Regnerus countered that instability wasn’t a separate factor to isolate—it was intrinsic to same-sex parenting patterns.

The Critics Were Stacking the Deck

Young and Cumberworth found that both critiques had made analytical choices that reduced sample sizes—making it harder to detect statistical effects. They also committed what the authors call a “key mistake”: focusing only on whether the effects were statistically significant, rather than measuring how large the effects were.

In plain terms, the critics said, “We didn’t find a difference,” but they didn’t report whether their methods actually suppressed real effects.

The LGBT parenting effect was not only still there—it was strong and persistent.

When the new analysts combined family instability and parental structure in the same models, they found that:

  • Both factors independently contribute to negative outcomes
  • The problem wasn’t just instability; same-sex parenting itself mattered

Their conclusion: Regnerus’s central finding is not the product of statistical games. It’s a stubborn social fact.

The Problem Isn’t the Data—It’s the Ethics Police

Regnerus wasn’t condemned because his methods were flawed. He was condemned because his findings were morally unacceptable to the academic gatekeepers.

As sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz—both of whom support same-sex parenting—admitted in their review of the literature: “Ideological pressures constrain intellectual development in this field.”

Weak studies claiming “no difference”—even with tiny, biased samples—were waved through. But Regnerus’s robust, random-sample study was met with outrage.

For example, Nathaniel Frank called for a peer-reviewed study’s retraction simply because its findings were “irresponsible.” Not incorrect. Not unsound. Just inconvenient.

What happens to science when truth becomes subordinate to ideological comfort?

Enter Jessica Bates

Jessica Bates was barred from adopting because of her Christian convictions. The Ninth Circuit rightly intervened.

A recent case shows how this ideological pressure is spilling into public policy. Jessica Bates, a widowed mom of five in Oregon, was barred from adopting because she couldn’t, in good conscience, affirm gender ideology.

The Ninth Circuit rightly found that Oregon’s policy likely violated her First Amendment rights—both free speech and religious liberty.

These kinds of ideological litmus tests are spreading in progressive states. And they are excluding faithful Christians from the foster care and adoption systems—hurting the very children who most need stable, loving homes.

Is Bias Against Christian Agencies Widespread?

Yes. Consider this partial list:

  • Catholic Charities in Boston, San Francisco, and Illinois shut down adoption services rather than violate their beliefs.
  • Philadelphia’s foster care contracts were rescinded over similar issues.

Ideological conformity is being prioritized over the welfare of children. That should concern all of us.

A Word to Fellow Christians: This Isn’t About “Being Nice”

Christian compassion must remain anchored to biblical truth—especially when it comes to the care of children.

Many well-meaning Christians feel torn on this issue—not because they lack conviction, but because they want to be compassionate and avoid offense. That instinct is admirable.

But for Christians especially, our compassion must be tethered to Truth, it must be rightly ordered. If we say we care about vulnerable children, then we have to be willing to ask some hard questions about what truly serves their long-term well-being.

Are we prioritizing what’s best for children—or what makes us feel better about being inclusive and affirming toward adults? Have we considered whether the assumptions behind some of the arguments for same-sex adoption actually hold up?

  • Do we really believe that if gay couples are not permitted to adopt, these children will simply be left without homes? That assumes no other families—especially traditional ones—are willing to step forward, which is a questionable and pessimistic assumption.
  • And are same-sex couples disproportionately adopting the most difficult-to-place children—those who are older, have special needs, or come from severely traumatic backgrounds—or, like many prospective parents, do they generally prefer younger, more adoptable children?
  • If simply increasing the pool of potential adoptive parents is the highest good, then why do we draw any lines at all? Why ask questions like: Should society allow adoption by men who think they are women? Or by unmarried throuples? Or by persons with histories of instability? The very fact that we do ask these questions reveals that we intuitively understand—at some level—that not every arrangement is equally good for children. So the real question is: what standard are we using to decide?

We need a rational, child-centered adoption policy—one that is guided by a clear set of priorities, with the well-being of children at the top of the list. Policies should ask: What kind of environment best supports a child’s development? What family structure most reliably offers stability, love, and the complementarity of male and female parenting? These should be our guiding questions—not adult preferences or ideological conformity.

And we should not be ashamed to say that the ideal remains a married mother and father.

Christian Teaching on Marriage and Parenting

Biblical anthropology and Church tradition affirm the unique significance of a mother and father in child formation.

From a biblical perspective, marriage isn’t primarily about adult fulfillment. It’s about covenant, fruitfulness, and forming children into the image of Christ.

“Male and female he created them…” (Gen. 1:27)

Every child has the right, where possible, to a mother and a father. Church tradition has long affirmed this—and so does the data.

As Christians, we must remember: we are not our own. Our bodies, our desires, our families—all belong to God. Adoption and foster care are sacred callings, not platforms for adult affirmation.

The Stakes Are High

Let’s not forget what’s at stake here. When Christian individuals and faith-based organizations—like Catholic Charities—are excluded from the adoption and foster care space simply because they uphold traditional moral convictions, it’s not just anti-religious bigotry. It’s also a disservice to the very children we claim to care about.

We can’t say children matter most while simultaneously banning some of the most stable, loving homes from even being considered—just because they don’t conform to a particular ideological agenda. Traditional Christian belief is not a disqualifying liability.

So, to my Christian brothers and sisters I say: Let’s not waffle. Let’s not shrink back out of fear of being unpopular. The call to speak the truth in love does not vanish simply because our culture finds that truth inconvenient or offensive. In fact, those are precisely the moments when the Church’s voice is most essential.

The data is on our side. More importantly, so is the truth.

Children deserve the best we can give them. And that means standing for what is good, even when it costs us.

Sources: Public Discourse & Alliance Defending Freedom

+++

Posted on

Borders and Brotherhood: A Catholic Look at Immigration and the Ordo Amoris

In our polarized moment, immigration policy is one of those topics that easily divides sincere believers. Some Christians—often from a more progressive persuasion—emphasize our Gospel duty to welcome the stranger. Others, more traditionally minded, stress the importance of preserving cultural integrity, the rule of law, and the common good of the political community. Both instincts, in truth, have a place within the Christian moral tradition.

But how do we hold them together?

Few writers today handle this balance better than Edward Feser, a philosophy professor and traditional Catholic thinker whose work I’ve followed and appreciated for years. In two recent articles —“A Catholic Defense of Enforcing Immigration Laws” and his follow-up, “Catholicism and Immigration: A Rejoinder to Cory and Sweeney”— Feser offers a deeply rooted, humane, and intellectually serious summary of the Catholic Church’s teaching on immigration. It’s a perspective worth hearing, especially for those who may assume that any restriction on immigration is incompatible with Christian love.

Order in Love: Why Family and Nation Matter

Feser’s starting point is an ancient and biblical idea: the ordo amoris, or the “order of love.” This principle, affirmed by St. Augustine and systematized by St. Thomas Aquinas, holds that while we are called to love all people, we are especially obligated to care first for those closest to us—our family, our neighbors, our nation.

As Aquinas puts it, “other things being equal, one ought to succor those rather who are most closely connected with us.” (Summa II-II.31.3)

This isn’t nationalism run amok—it’s common sense grounded in the reality of our created nature. We are not abstract global citizens first and foremost. We are embodied creatures born into specific families, places, and cultures. As Pope John Paul II argued, both family and nation are “natural societies” that shape and nurture us in essential ways. Patriotism—rightly ordered—isn’t idolatry. It’s a virtue connected to the Fourth Commandment: honoring your father and mother.

Welcoming the Stranger: A Real but Qualified Duty

Now, the Church is equally clear that we do have duties to the foreigner in need. The Catechism (2241) affirms that “the more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of security and livelihood.”

But—and this is the part often overlooked—that obligation is not absolute. The same paragraph goes on to say that political authorities may “make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions,” especially with respect to the immigrant’s duty to obey the laws and respect the heritage of the host country.

Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II both affirmed this prudential balance. The Church does not endorse “open borders.” Rather, it entrusts governments with the responsibility of weighing many legitimate concerns: economic stability, public safety, cultural cohesion, and social peace.

To quote Pope John Paul II: “Even highly developed countries are not always able to assimilate all those who emigrate….certainly, the exercise of such a right (to emigrate) is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant.”

Prudence Is Not Relativism

Feser is careful to point out that recognizing a range of morally licit policy options is not relativism. Rather, it’s an application of the virtue of prudence—something Aquinas sees as essential to moral reasoning in complex situations. Christians of good will can, and often do, come to different conclusions about immigration policy while still honoring the same moral principles.

But what we can’t do is selectively quote the Church to support one side of the argument while ignoring the rest. Feser’s articles are a call to integrity—a plea to read the Church’s teaching in full, not just the parts that support our preferred politics.

The Forgotten Vice: Oikophobia

Feser also makes an important cultural observation. While Scripture rightly emphasizes love for the stranger—precisely because the default human temptation is tribal exclusion—our modern Western problem often cuts the other way. Many today (especially in elite circles) seem embarrassed by patriotism and suspicious of national loyalty. Philosopher Roger Scruton called this “oikophobia”—a fear or hatred of home. In our desire to care for others, we risk forgetting that we also have duties to our own.

This is not just a political point. It’s a theological one. Love must be ordered. We are to care for the poor and the outsider—but not in ways that undermine the health of the family, or the peace and stability of the nation. The ordo amoris demands both compassion and clarity.

A Word to My Progressive Friends

If you lean progressive and are reading this, I want to thank you for caring about the dignity of immigrants. That concern is a beautiful reflection of God’s heart. But I also want to invite you to consider Feser’s argument—not as a reactionary screed, but as a thoughtful, deeply Catholic appeal to moral coherence.

You may not agree with every policy endorsed by conservatives. I don’t either. But don’t let personality or partisanship keep you from considering the moral seriousness behind traditional immigration arguments.

I’m including links to both of Feser’s articles. I hope you’ll read them—not necessarily to be convinced, but at least to be more fully informed.

“The entirety of Church teaching—not only what it says about welcoming the stranger, but also what it says about the limitations on that obligation—must inform our judgments.”

— Edward Feser

LINKS TO READ:

+++