Crisis in Missouri, Connecting the Dots, and a Call for More Catechesis
The following is a presentation I was privileged to make at the Texas Confessional Lutherans Free Conference in September 2026. I pray that my words might bring a better understanding, at least from my perspective, as to how we got to where we are as a district and synod today. My topic is the Benefit of Lutheran Catechesis. My credentials are that I was, and still am, a trained Lutheran school teacher and do have an Illinois teaching license, almost a Florida teaching license, and a Texas teaching license to prove it. But my biggest credential is that I have been in the Texas District most of my life, and I have seen what the lack of catechesis has done to our church body. Please bear with me as I may repeat some things you may have heard, and I may say some things that other presentations might say, but as they teach in methods classes, the best way to teach is to teach and re-teach, to say the same thing over and over until you get it. And I might repeat myself as well, but I am old and retired so I have an excuse. Although having said that, someone will remind me that I never used my age or retirement as an excuse to say what I want to say in the past. Anyway, I will begin with some of my history in the Texas District and try to help you see how the lack of catechesis has acerbated the decline of Lutheran Doctrine and Practice.
Luther’s Catechism
For me personally, especially as an educator, remember we are pastors and teacher, one of the two most important books to me is my Catechism. Let me briefly explain. When I was thirteen days old, I was baptized and brought into the Lutheran Church. I went to Lutheran Sunday School all my life. I attended a Lutheran elementary school, and while I attended a public high school, I was still involve very much in my church. I graduated from what is now Concordia University Chicago, and Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. I have earned a high school degree, college bachelor degree, and seminary masters and doctorate degrees. And one thing I have learned along the way is that the more I learn about God, the more I realize how much I do not know, and so I must continue my studies. And with all that education, when I am asked a theological question, one of which I either do not know the answer or have forgotten, the first place I look is in my Catechism. You see the Catechism is not only a teaching book, but it is also a useful tool for discernment. So, let us move on.
One last remark, while my topic is catechesis, please do not misunderstand my rants, as my wife calls it, thinking that I am just here to complain. What I hope to lay out for you is all the lack of catechesis with the understanding that simple catechesis all along the way may have helped alleviate the heretical doctrine that is being practice in our synod and district. That is why my time is extolling the benefit of Lutheran catechesis.
I will start at the beginning. It all started about 8000 years ago in a garden called Eden when a very young man failed in his God-given responsibility to care for his even younger naive wife and allowed her and ultimately himself to be deceived by the lying father of lies, Satan himself. Since that time there has been a struggle between Satan and God’s people. Okay, maybe I am starting too far back. Fast forward about 8000 years.
Historical Criticism
From my short life history in church work, first as a teacher, then DCE and now as a pastor, I see much of what has brought problems, theological problems into our church has been the teaching of Historical Criticism. I know others, who have a better memory and grasp of history, would start even further back in time to some of the philosophers of old, and I am sure their “philosophies,” love of wisdom, is yet a part of our theological problems as well. As you may recall, Historical Criticism was a failed attempt to sanitize the study of scripture by using the scientific method of study. The idea was to read the Bible like any other book from a humanist or naturalist point of view. I do not think it took too long for people, at least thinking people, to realize there was nothing scientific or sanitized about the method. Like much of science, there are many preconceived ideas that pollute the whole process. In other words, like most things in life, so too in science, when man’s fallible thinking is involved and elevated over God’s Infallible Word, things go amok. Thus, Historical Criticism was just another method of attempting to elevate human thinking, flawed human thinking, and reasoning above the Bible and God’s Word. We saw this play out fifty years ago at the Concordia, St. Louis Seminary and the Walkout.
For me and my history, I would posit that our catechesis failure begins with people failing to be in the Word as it were, failing to attend Bible Class, failure to read their Bible at home and have personal and family devotions. In every church I have served this failure is shown in Bible Class attendance, especially on Sunday morning when only a fraction of those in Divine Service are in Bible Class. Out of the 168 hours God gives us in a week, you would think that our tithe of 16.8 hours would include more than simply Divine Service attendance. Perhaps if we actually took inventory of our usage of the time God has given us, we may begin to realize that we are failing miserably. Just think about it for a moment; how much time do you spend in your relationship with God? Suppose you have a morning devotion, perhaps reading the Portals of Prayer, having a prayer, praying before and after breakfast, lunch, and dinner or supper as you may call it, having family devotions in the evening, saying prayers before bed, then add an hour or hour an a half for Divine Service and an hour for Bible Class on Sunday, maybe you will have spent five to five and a half hours with your Creator and the One who gives all things to you in the first place. I wonder how spending that little amount of time with your spouse would affect your marriage and other relationships? Yes, we are failing.
Church Growth Movement
I would further posit that our catechesis failure within the church began with the invitation to participate in the so-called Church Growth Movement, which truly was not a church movement or a growth movement. It was not a theological movement and had questionable theological moorings but rather was a sociological movement as in “build it and they will come.” Having said that, not everything in the sociological movement was bad such as the common sense things like having a large enough parking lot, a large enough sanctuary, making people feel welcome, and so on, but none of these items truly grow a church. To be fair, most of the tenets of the Church Growth Institute would work well to help grow any secular organization, the Lions Club, the Rotary Club and so forth, but what little it had in the way of Bible study was completely counter to our Lutheran doctrine on how the church grows, which is the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace.
Before I go on, let me come clean and make a true confession, one of which I have been absolved. I returned to the Texas District out of college in 1984 as a DCE. I returned to a congregation in San Antonio, and the Texas District had recently bought into the Chuck and Win Arn Institute for American Church Growth from California. I hit the ground running as the saying goes. I read all the material. I went to all the conferences. I taught the material, “The Master’s Plan for Making Disciples.” I baptized it Lutheran, as it were, and really, “ate it up.” Yet, all the while I was thinking that there was something missing, something not quite right. But, I was a lowly DCE; who was I to argue or know the difference, or for that matter, be discerning? The District, Synod and local Pastor did that work, right?
When I left the district in 1988 to attend the seminary and actually get a theological education, it was then that I discovered the problem or problems, but more on that later. And it was not until I got back into the district in 1996 as a pastor that I began to see the results of those years of sociological teachings and non-theologically discerned teachings. I began to understand what my father would tell me when we talked about what was happening in the Texas District. Yes, even my now sainted father with a high school education could discern what the so-called church growth teachings were doing to the church, his beloved church. He could discern the effect the practical changes were having on the doctrine of the church. And he constantly lamented to me his discouragement.
The montra we heard was, “This isn’t your grandfather’s church.” “We are interested in saving souls; you’re only interested in purity of doctrine.” My response to the first was it is my grandfather’s church because I was actually serving in the church my grandfather was a member. And to the other I would suggest that unless you are concerned about purity of doctrine, you really do not care about souls, only numbers.
So, let us examine those unchallenged elements (and I do most certainly mean those doctrinally unchallenged elements) of the so-called Church Growth Movement which brought in a change in doctrine and practice. After all, the mantra of the movement was an attempt to separate doctrine and practice. Unfortunately, there are those who continue to espouse such doctrine and refuse to recognize that their change in practice has brought about a change in their doctrine such that we are not of the same spirit, as Luther said to Zwingli.
Adiaphora and Koinania
The attempt to separate doctrine and practice is reinforced with an attempt to make everything “adiaphora.” And even more so by emphasizing congregational “autonomy,” that is, that every congregation is autonomous of the whole of synod, simply agreeing to certain doctrines. So, the demise of our church has taken the usual route of “let us be,” to “we want to be equal,” to “you have to praise and even emulate what we are doing, because after all, we care about the souls of people.” More on that later.
I know in my own circuit, we attempted to work through the Koinania Project, began by the sainted first vice president Herb Mueller. As we worked through the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, I distinctly remember when it came to the articles concerning worship, it was constantly a challenge because there was an attempt to make everything an adiaphora, something neither forbidden or commanded. And too many times this idea of something being considered adiaphora was translated as rites and ceremonies, which I believe are not translated the same in our church today. In other words, we know that Holy Baptism is a sacrament. We administer the sacrament through the rite of Holy Baptism, and in the rite of Holy Baptism we do not necessarily have to follow the same exact pattern, although to do so would be very didactic, a teaching of doctrine as seen in the rite practice. I do not believe the confessors ever considered the Divine Service an adiahora. Unfortunately, there was never the question concerning whether or not the idea was doctrinally sound, as in, “does this practice flow from our doctrine,” “does this practice change or have an effect on our doctrine?”
Again, in my circuit after our failure in koinania, rather than studying the confessions, we were reading and discussing books written by Anglicans as well as psychologists and the like (sorry I do not recall the title of the books as I attempt to erase those horrors from my head). I remember one book in which the author did not like to call the Holy Spirit, “the” Holy Spirit, so she simply said Holy Spirit. Another author kept speaking about faith arising in a person through these joyous connections in the brain, not by the Holy Spirit working faith. And the men in our circuit would get upset with me when I would call them out on these heresies. I actually asked if we were going to be speaking about metachlorines and the Force. Attending my circuit meetings became much like when I was a DCE and my pastor wanted me to attend the area youth events. I was never comfortable there, and in my own circuit as these men were speaking a different language, an evangelical language if I might call it that, I was getting less and less comfortable. The lack of catechesis, perhaps even seminary training so that they could be discerning, was amazing. And I’ll get back to this idea of seminary training later.
To help you understand how far lack of discernment has gotten and how doctrinal Lutheranism is being rejected, I know of one church whose senior pastor announced his retirement would soon arrive, so they have hired an outside church consultant group to help them decide how they want to move forward. It is this same congregation that, when people move away, they do not seek out another Lutheran church but something that suits their style. We actually had a couple move into our congregation from one of these churches, and after a while they declared that they were really Calvinist. And they did not get that from my teachings. And for those of you who have been though the district’s calling process in recent years, be careful of the questionnaire they ask you to send out. I would suggest making your own questionnaire if you want to do that. It appears being a confessional Lutheran is not the thing for some people.
And it gets worse, this lack of catechesis. Perhaps you remember about a year ago one LCMS congregation had a day of rebaptizing their members. They called it a “baptism remembrance.” Maybe if they had read Luther’s Small Catechism, they would have read these words, “The words ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ come from the baptismal command (Matt. 28:19) and are known as the Trinitarian Invocation. By repeating these words, in church or by ourselves, we recall, claim, and confess before heaven, earth, and hell all that God the Holy Trinity has given us in our Baptism.” Thus, instead of inadvertently teaching what may appear to be a re-baptism, some catechesis might have been the best approach at teaching good doctrine. Indeed, how often have these pragmatic practices occurred in the name of teaching or demonstrating what itching ears want to hear and another reminder of why God called Israel to wipe out the pagans living in the Promised Land. Another pastor once asked, “What’s wrong with an altar call?” And another was telling about a book he was reading that associated certain sins with certain bodily ailments. Why are our pastors reading such garbage instead of reading good sound doctrine, like the Book of Concord? We have and are failing in our catechesis, our teaching.
Divine Service
Personally, I believe the biggest influence on the change in doctrine came from a redefining of worship, and here again, a failure to be discerning in this redefinition. Again, I would suggest this failure happens because of a lack of proper catechesis. A Lutheran doctrine of worship is Divine Service wherein God is the actor and the laity, the congregation, are the ones being acted upon, or being given to. God, through the called and ordained pastor delivers the gifts of God to the people of God, and the laity respond with hymns, prayers, and first-fruit offerings. Even the church building reflects the doctrine of the Divine Service in the focus of the cross, and the placement of the baptismal font, the altar, and the pulpit. Lutheran doctrine is seen in the practice of the Divine Service beginning with the Invocation and a reminder of our baptism, the Confession of Sins and God speaking His Words of Absolution through the pastor, to the entrance (the Introit) into the chancel area, the Holy of Holies, to the reading of God’s Word and its proclamation in the sermon, to the reception of the Lord’s Supper, and the conclusion with the Trinitarian Aaronic Benediction. Thus, Lutheran Doctrine is seen and taught in this Lutheran practice, and this Lutheran practice teaches what we Lutherans believe.
The church growth definition of worship is that God is the audience and the laity are the actors. This definition leads to a completely different doctrine and practice. If God is the audience and the laity are the actors, then the laity must participate, they must act. They need to be involved in the praise band, in the drama team, read the lessons, do something for God. The clergy are simply there to prompt the laity in their works for the Lord. The building is no longer a sanctuary but an auditorium. The cross is no longer the focus but the stage, the band instruments, the screens to watch. The focus is no longer on God and His gifts but on the people and their actions.
At this point let me stop and remind you of Paul’s words to the Athenians. “24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24-25). When it comes to worship, when it comes to outreach, when it comes to God, He does not need anything from us; we need everything from Him. We worship, we pray, we give offerings; all we do we do because of our need to do, not because God needs something from us. So, God really does not need our worship. We need God’s gifts given through the Means of Grace in the Divine Service.
Theology of Glory or Theology of the Cross
This change in worship practice is a change in doctrine. I would like to be so bold as to say that this worship practice is more of a practice of a Theology of Glory rather than a Theology of the Cross. I would definitely say it is not a Theology of the Cross. I would suggest that it does, subtly and in a broad sense, come from, a theology of glory. I would say subtly because, although there may not be an outright preaching of human strength, reason, ability and the like, the worship does focus on what the worshipper is doing rather than on what God is doing. I believe it may be described as Herb Keistman describes the Theology of Glory in “The Way of the Cross” (p. 76), taking about Thesis 18 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, “We will also see in this chapter the Old Adam’s presumptuous attitude in his Theology of Glory, that he thinks he has the right to approach the Almighty God on his own. In fact, the adjective ‘presumptuous’ well describes the Theologian of Glory. As Forde points out, the Theologian of Glory presumes to be able to impress God with his works, or at the very least with the will to please Him, and even presumes the ability to analyze and study God and His ways.” How else can we best describe this worship of us to God than our presumptuous attitude of pleasing Him. Also, much like our favorite evangelical and easy target Joel Olsteen, there is less preaching of sin and death because those topics remind us of our sinful nature and need for a Savior. Instead there is more “happy clappy” preaching pointing people to themselves which is actually Law preaching and what wonderful people they are. I will state again, this practice is a different doctrine than Lutheran Divine Service. Again, this worship practice often called Contemporary Worship that focuses on God being the audience and the worshippers being the actors implies if not overtly states that worship is something I must (Law talk) come and do for Jesus. And although the sermon may be a good doctrinally sound Lutheran sermon, it cannot overpower the non-Lutheran practice of the rest of the service. It is like saying one thing and doing another. Here again, the focus is contrary to Divine Service and a Theology of the Cross. We are not of the same spirit. We have a different doctrine and an incompatible doctrine.
At the Synod Convention last summer there was the continued discussion of laity participation in the Divine Service and especially with women readers. Well, if God needs our participation, He needs the participation of both men and women does He not? Here I will reiterate what I said earlier which is that the role of the called and ordained pastor is to deliver the gifts of God including reading the Scripture lessons, and the role of the laity is to come and be given the gifts of God delivered through the pastor and then to respond with prayers, hymns, and offerings.
I once asked a brother pastor what would happen if he asked the praise band to lead from the back. His response was that their church was not built for that. In other words, they were not having Divine Service in a Lutheran church building. I would suggest that many in the praise band would leave if they were told they did not need to be seen. Maybe a study on Lutheran Doctrine and Practice concerning how to construct a church which reflects Lutheran doctrine may have been in order. We have and continue to fail in catechesis.
But wait, there is more. If God needs us to worship Him, perhaps praise Him and build His self-esteem, maybe He needs even more from us. Perhaps God also needs us to grow His church. And so we come up with ideas and ways to help God grow His church. One great idea or buzz word is “contextualization.” The idea is that we need to help God grow His church by putting His Word and practice into the proper context, depending on the people we are trying to reach. Of course, this idea implies, if not outright states, that God’s Word, in and of itself, fails to reach all people unless we help it out by contextualizing it. So, there is now an attempt, and we saw this attempt at the Synod convention this summer with all the resolutions to lessen pastoral education, to lessen catechesis with the idea of allowing local and district people to “hone” their teaching “contextually.” But more on that later.
I remember a District Convention not too many years ago where our district had a discussion about planting a church in the “backyard” of another congregation because they had a different “target audience.” I suggested that they pretty much rewrote the “Great Commission.” I would suggest (tongue in cheek) their new translation would be something like this, “Go make disciples of your target audience, contextualizing God’s Word and your worship toward God to suit the felt needs of your target audience.” Notice God’s need for us to help Him out because His Word does not work well unless we help it out. Poor God.
So, there has been an attempt to separate doctrine and practice, an attempt to make everything adiaphora, an actual redefining of worship, and an attempt to suggest God’s Word needs to be contextualized. And next we see is an attempt at wanting to simply “identify” as a Lutheran rather than to “confess” as a Lutheran.
One more comment on this contextualizing: One Brother Pastor compared “target audience” to how HEB is contextualizing their Mi Tienda product line to appeal to Hispanics. Here again, we have a failure to believe that, unlike a consumer product with no power of its own, the Word of God fits all contexts and all people and has the power to give the gifts of which it speaks.
I hope you are beginning to see the problem with the lack of catechesis and indeed, proper catechesis. When men are poorly taught or not taught at all, when men who are taught fail to be discerning, we get one problem after another. Perhaps if we taught our pastors better and taught them to be better at being discerning, we might alleviate some of these problems,
Identity and Confession
Unfortunately the overuse of the word “identity” has almost emptied it of its meaning. With that said, there is a distinct and great difference between one’s “identity” and one’s “confession.” Today anyone may identify as just about anything. A woman may identify as a man (however that does not change her XX chromosome to XY), and a man may identify as a woman (again that does not change his XY chromosome to XX), and yet neither identity is true or real. I have actually heard of a teacher say that she had a student who identified as a wolf and had to treat the child as such. I don’t know about you, but a simple solution would be to put the child outside with a bowl of dog food and a bowl of water and a dog house and say have at it. I think that would solve the problem rather quickly. But I digress.
An online definition of “identity” states: “In psychology, the term ‘identity’ is most commonly used to describe personal identity, or the distinctive qualities or traits that make an individual unique. Identities are strongly associated with self-concept, self-image (one’s mental model of oneself), self-esteem, and individuality” (emphasis added). Notice the continual use of the word “self.” One might surmise that “identity” comes from within. Of course, Jesus reminds us, “From within, out of the heart of man come evil thought . . . ” (Mark 7:21).
To speak of a Lutheran, Biblical definition of “confessional” means to say the we agree in the Lutheran Doctrine, but not simply to say we agree the same, but to live and act the same. One’s confession of faith, one’s beliefs (doctrine) is lived out and seen in one’s life and worship (Divine Service). Doctrine, faith, belief, and confession cannot be separated from one’s practice, life, or actions. As we will see reading through the Bible, one’s confession does not come from within, but comes from outside, through the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace.
In the Lutheran Church and in our Confessions we do not use the term “identity,” but we use the word “confession” because to have a confession means so much more than simply to have an identity. To have a confession means that one not only confesses with their lips but believes in their heart, and that belief is then acted out and seen in their life. Thus, a true confession is a combination of faith and life or better said, doctrine and practice. For one to practice something different than their doctrine or to simply say they identify as something means that they are truly not confessing. As Mama always said, “Practice what you preach.” Or as we hear today, “If you’re gonna talk the talk, then you better walk the walk.”
So, what does the Bible say? The Bible speaks of a person making an acknowledgment or confession of faith in Jesus as we read in Matthew’s Gospel, “32So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32–33). Notice that the word translated as “acknowledge” is the same word that is translated as “confess.”
The Bible speaks of making a confession of faith. Take for example Peter’s confession: “16Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:16–17). Notice that Jesus tells Peter that this confession is not his but is God the Father’s. Notice, it was not Peter but God through Peter giving the confession. The same is true for us today. When we confess faith in Christ, it is not our confession, but it is the Holy Spirit speaking our confession through our mouths. The Holy Spirit puts faith in our hearts (through the Means of Grace) and stirs in us to speak that confession with our lips and finally brings that confession to fulfillment through our lives, that is, we live our confession.
In Romans Paul tells us, “9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved” Rom. 10:9-10). The word for confess is ὁμολογήσῃ, homolegeo, confess. In verse nine the word is an active word, to speak the same, to agree. In verse ten the word is passive meaning that it is something that is given to speak, as in the Holy Spirit giving us the word to speak. Thus, we see that we confess or acknowledge. We do not simply identify. Even John tells us, ”Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God” (1 John 4:15).
So, what does the Bible say about identifying as something. Fortunately or unfortunately there are no Scripture passages that speak of one’s identity, none, zilch, nada. Also, the Book of Concord, while it speaks of our confession of faith never speaks of our identity.
“The Lutheran Church is not defined by cultural or national identity but by its confession of Christ and the pure teaching of His Gospel. To be Lutheran is to confess what the Scriptures teach and what the Church has always believed” (Herman Sasse, Here We Stand: Nature and Character of the Lutheran Faith). Notice the difference in the words, identity and confession. So, to simply identify as a Lutheran does not make one a Lutheran. Only to confess with the lips and live that confession makes one a true Lutheran. Indeed, one cannot truly confess unless one is given faith, and one with faith given to them cannot help but confess.
But wait, there is more. Now the attempt is to rush men into the Office of Holy Ministry without being fully trained. The idea is that when they get into their first calling, they can complete their training in the context of where they are called. This attempt to lessen seminary training is guised as we need more pastors in the field, but the underlying attempt is to divert their training to be trained as one who simply identifies as a Lutheran, but does not practice as a Lutheran.
I hope you keep noticing what one might call an attempt to “dumb down” our pastors, to give them less catechesis. Why would we want to give them less catechesis, less education, at least at the seminary level? So, with less education and with less discernment, when they get to a certain place to serve they will be less interested in discerning whether or not something is doctrinally sound, but only have the concern if it “works.” This teaching is the way of pragmatism. If it works, use it. Unfortunately, we have too many men that are more interested in pragmatics than in sound doctrine with the accusation that one side is only concerned about “purity of doctrine” while the other side is concerned about “souls,” and here I would have you hear the word “numbers.” So we are back to these church growth, sociological ideas. My response to those interested in saving souls is that without purity of doctrine there is no saving of souls. I am reminded of God’s instructions to Israel when they entered the Promised Land, “Wipe out these pagans so their paganism does not rub off on you.” And what happened? They failed to wipe out the pagans, and eventually they became pagan as well. God was concerned about the purity of His doctrine for the salvation of souls because He knows there is a slippery slope when it comes to compromise.
And just an interesting aside, as I have been privileged to fill in and share the Gospel with many small congregations since I have retired, many of them have told me that when they approach the District for help, they are not told how the District cares about souls but how they should shut the doors and sell the property. It seems we only care about great numbers of souls, not small numbers as if a few people do not matter, only a lot matter.
But at the same time the district is “planting” all these little startup churches, which do not resemble anything like a Lutheran Church, and pouring in and dumping in money into them. And I know that many of them are even smaller in number than the well-established Lutheran Churches the District refuses to help and support.
One more comment on this contextualizing. One Brother Pastor mentioned how HEB is contextualizing their Mi Tienda line to appeal to Hispanics. He was comparing this contextualizing with that of God’s Word. Here again, we have the failure to believe that, unlike a consumer product with no power of its own, the Word of God fits all contexts and has the power to give the gifts of which it speaks.
Not too many years ago the pastors and congregations of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod were interchangeable. Any pastor could serve any congregation because the congregations all had the same confession, same doctrine, and same practices. At one point all the different Lutheran denominations had the same hymnal. That is no longer true. Now some congregations cannot call some men, and some men cannot serve in some congregations. The reason is that not all congregations have the same confession and doctrine, nor do all the pastors.
“Contemporary” Vs “Traditional”
Today we continue to have what I would label as a “mis-framing” and “mis-equating” numbers with outreach, faith, and growth. There are those who would point to a congregation in a growing area that is adding members as a growing congregation. While they may have more members, it is not necessarily because they are growing Christians, but maybe because people are moving into the area. The opposite is also true; just because an area is one from which people are moving out and the congregation is losing members does not reflect on the faith growth of the members or that the congregation does not care. Some would suggest that growth and/or decline has to do with style of worship. One Doctor of Ministry Major Applied Project actually did a study and what drew people into certain worship styles was not the style at all but rather the time of worship. If you had a “contemporary” service at 8 am, those who like an early church service would be the ones to attend and if you had a “traditional” service later, those who like a later service would attend.
But let me back up a moment, when all this church growth movement and redefining of worship began, you might remember there were “traditional” services, “contemporary” service, and “blended” services and unfortunately there really were no “rules” as to what you could expect in any, except perhaps Divine Service in the “traditional” or “liturgical” and full-blown praise band in “contemporary.” Blended seemed to be somewhat of a bit of folksy, made-up liturgy and some more modern hymns. And let me say as an aside, after being a DCE and making up some nifty, pithy responsive readings and the like, and after getting a seminary, theological education, I am ashamed at what I thought was God-pleasing, thinking I could make up something better than what God has actually given us in His Word. As my favorite professor, the sainted Dr. Norman Nagel would tell us, “We worship best when we say back to God the very Words He has given us to say.” In other words, there is nothing better than the liturgy which is permeated with God’s Word. Perhaps we need more such catechesis.
If I were to suggest a solution for our District, our Synod, our church body, that solution would begin by admitting we have a failure to teach going on in our churches, a failure of catechesis. Too many have bought into the idea that numbers means growth and success. Interestingly enough, the Bible never speaks about our being successful. Only in regards to war does the Bible speak about success, and that success is the success given by God Himself. Rather, the Bible speaks about being faithful. Ours is not to dwell on numbers but to be faithful to the Word of God, to the purity of that Word, and to realize that it is God who gives faith. He gives faith when and where He please, not according to us or our own time table and most definitely not according to our preaching what itching ears want to hear or our helping God out according to the right context.
So, we have failed in our understanding of what is God’s desire; faithfulness, not success. We have failed to recognize the power and necessity of the Means of Grace. In the so-called Church Growth Movement, through a reading of various verses in Acts, the authors Chuck and Win Arn arrived at the conclusion that people are the means of grace rather than people being the instruments that bring the Means of Grace. When I was at the seminary, I was writing a paper on Holy Baptism, and I could not find any information about Holy Baptism in the Church Growth Movement, so I wrote Kent Hunter from Indiana, our Lutheran Church Growth guru at the time. Back then we had to actually write letters and wait for a response, no email or text. Anyway, his response was that Baptism, nor the Lord’s Supper, nor even Holy Absolution were in the Church Growth Movement because not everyone agreed about the Sacraments. So, my thought was, how do you grow a church without the Means of Grace?
So, we have failed to recognize the difference between growing a Christian Church through the Means of Grace and sociological ideas that might simply help in numbers in attendance. Truly, the ideas of the so-called Church Growth Movement can be applied to any secular organization and will help that organization gain members, but is that the purpose of the church, simply to gain a number of members? Or is the purpose of the church to preach the Gospel, administer the Sacraments, forgive and retain sins, and build each other up as brothers and sisters in Christ, and the whole while living lives as priests in the priesthood of all believers, always being ready to give an answer for the hope that we have, and inviting others through our vocations to come and see Jesus? We have failed in being discerning.
We have failed to recognize and confess the power of God’s Word and the fact that God’s Word is not culturally or contextually limited. I always love it when someone suggests that our Lutheran Service Book is a German hymnal. But when you ask which part is, no one can answer. If you actually look at the hymnal, you will see that it transcends cultures as well as generations. There are hymns in our hymnal from countries all over the world. Likewise our hymnal is permeated with the Word of God and the Means of Grace, you know, those Means through which the Lord works to give the gifts He has to give. And the genre of our hymnal is not classical, but is its own genre. I have said it many times, if we want to do a service that caters to the particular likes of the congregants, we would need to have, I don’t know, fifty services, a hard rock service, a jazz service, an 80s service, a country service, an emo service, and so forth and so on. Instead, we set aside our favorite genre and worship in the genre of the Divine Service.
The context of God’s Word is the world. You can attend any Lutheran Divine Service in any language in any place around the world and know you are attending a Lutheran Divine Service. Interestingly enough, my neighbor across the street is a Vietnamese Catholic. We were invited and attended his house blessing and even though I did not speak Vietnamese, I could understand certain parts of the Catholic house blessing which had liturgical rites similar to the Lutheran house blessing.
We have failed, and in many cases I would suggest it is the laziness of the pastors, to teach the joy and beauty of the Divine Service. I remember a fellow student in the D. Min. Program who came from a contemporary service congregation who said he really liked to come to the seminary and worship in the “traditional” service as he called it. My question was, did he not think his congregation might revel in the same service? Why would he keep it from them? Instead, being undiscerning we have men who simply follow the latest pragmatic trend to bring in numbers without offering substance to those numbers.
Every year the District hosts a Theological Convocation. One year the convocation offered seven people giving their “testimonial” of leaving an evangelical congregation and becoming Lutheran after hearing about the freedom in the Gospel. And actually, while in Africa last March, having had the privilege to teach a class in Christian Outreach at the Lutheran School of Theology, they would tell me the same thing. After Africans convert to Christianity through missionaries of Evangelical churches they would be burdened by the Law and “all you gotta do” statements. When they would hear the freedom in the Gospel from Lutheran missionaries , they realized that Jesus does it all for them causing Africa to be the largest Lutheran Church body of all the Lutheran Church bodies in the world combined. After people in these evangelical (methabapticostal) churches hear the Gospel, they hunger for more. Anyway, after these seven people at the convocation heard about the freedom of the Gospel they found a Lutheran Church to join. Unfortunately, all of them continued in their evangelical worship practice instead of continuing on in the Lutheran practice of Divine Service. I wanted to ask, but never did, why not? Could they not discern that their worship practice was an offering or a work instead of a Divine Service and being given the gifts of God through His Means of Grace? We have failed in being discerning and in teaching discernment. We have failed in practicing our doctrine and in teaching our doctrine through our practice. As momma would say, we have failed to practice what we preach when our practice demonstrates something other than what we are speaking. We may be talking the talk, but we are not walking the walk. Our actions are betraying us and demonstrating our failure in living our confession.
Pastoral Education
We have failed in our reading of Paul’s words that a pastor is not simply a pastor but is a pastor and teacher (Eph.). I firmly believe that if pastors took the time to teach proper doctrine and practice, there would be no need for a divided church, and we would have a united church where pastors and congregations are once again interchangeable. If pastors would take the time to teach their own congregants as well as new members the intricacies of the Divine Service, there would be a stronger draw and desire for Divine Service. This education process happens at least three times a year with our youth attending Higher Things Gatherings where they are taught and practice the joy of Divine Service. My youth came back and requested we chant more. They were actually chanting everything they wanted to say on the bus. I teach this process when speaking about Lutheran Vocational Evangelism, that is I instruct the laity that as they live as Christians, as God gives them the opportunity to speak and answer questions concerning their faith and their church, and as they invite people to come and see Jesus, they explain the Divine Service so that when these people do come, they can get so much more out of it.
For too long our pastors have been too lazy to be Lutheran. They look for a quick fix, a gimmick, a man-made sociological answer of “build it, do this or do that and they will come.” They fail themselves and their congregations by failing in their own education and then failing by not teaching their members. They have bought into Satan’s lies of numbers means growth, of “give the people what they want,” fads, programs, and entertainment instead of giving them what they need: forgiveness of sins and God’s Word.
Is there an answer? One answer and one that was discussed at the Synod convention, is a better education. To better prepare our pastors for the field. The SMP program is one example of this failure. Some guys who came out of the seminary through an alternate route, without even a bachelor degree, and they are considered a full pastor. Interestingly enough, when I was going through the DCE tract, I was being taught that my theological education was similar to that of a pastor. Yet, after attending and graduating from seminary, I know that my theological education as a DCE was quite lacking. I can say thankfully at least at the Synod convention they voted down the idea of less on-campus learning with online learning. Personally, while I had the opportunity to simply go through the colloquy program when I attended the seminary, my choice was the full education route, and I am glad I did. To me, and I make this statement as an educator which was my first calling, less education means less discernment means more easily duped. Of course, here again, that is the reason for the attempt to push men through with less education at the seminary level, so that the Districts can more easily “contextualize” the men in the way they would have them pragmatically go.
For those of you who do not know, our Synod’s desired avenue for pastoral education is a four-year bachelor degree, and preferably from one of our synod colleges and in the pre-seminary program, and three years of study and one year of vicarage (or internship) at a congregation for practical training with a seasoned pastor followed by continuous evaluations before being certified as a pastor in the LCMS. And yes, a person can earn a Master of Divinity degree from our seminaries and not be certified in the LCMS but be a pastor in any other denomination, depending on their requirements.
In real estate the saying is location, location, location. In Lutheran Vocational Evangelism I say, vocation, vocation, vocation. In Lutheran education and formation I say, catechize, catechize, catechize, teach, teach, teach. We have got to do better as parents in our homes at teaching our children, not only what we do as Lutherans, not only what we believe, but why we do what we do and why we believe what we believe. Ours is not a blind faith but a faith based in the historical person of Jesus Christ. As I have been hearing more and more in recent days, we need more apologetics, teaching why we believe. As pastors we need to do a better job of teaching the catechism and giving instruction in the Divine Service especially pointing to how the Divine Service, the church building, our education, and even our evangelism work flows from our Doctrine, what we believe.
Finally, and unfortunately, I would suggested that until those who have changed their practices and confess that they have a different doctrine, there will never be any restoration. Unfortunately, the only peaceful resolve will be an amenicable divorce as the case may be and a confession of a lack of fellowship based on a difference in doctrine. Since they tend toward larger congregations (which in my opinion cannot be well served as a small congregation where the pastor can actually know all his members), they can have the large churches. Since they do not like the name Lutheran, they can remove the name, as they are actually not practicing Lutheranism anyway, and they can continue to go down the road as evangelicals or even, eventually as they erode their doctrine, join the ELCA.
Conclusion
I would like to end with Luther’s own words concerning our catechesis from his Large Catechism:
O what mad, senseless fools we are! We must ever live and dwell in the midst of such mighty enemies as the devils, and yet we despise our weapons and armor, too lazy to give them a thought!
Look at these bored, presumptuous saints who will not or cannot read and study the Catechism daily. They evidently consider themselves much wiser than God himself, and wiser than all his holy angels, prophets, apostles, and all Christians! God himself is not ashamed to teach it daily, for he knows of nothing better to teach, and he always keeps on teaching this one thing without varying it with anything new or different. All the saints know of nothing better or different to learn, though they cannot learn it to perfection. Are we not most marvelous fellows, therefore, if we imagine, after reading or hearing it once, that we know it all and need not read or study it any more? Most marvelous fellows, to think we can finish learning in one hour what God himself cannot finish teaching! Actually, he is busy teaching it from the beginning of the world to the end, and all prophets and saints have been busy learning it and have always remained pupils, and must continue to do so.
This much is certain: anyone who knows the Ten Commandments perfectly knows the entire Scriptures. In all affairs and circumstances he can counsel, help, comfort, judge, and make decisions in both spiritual and temporal matters. He is qualified to sit in judgment upon all doctrines, estates, persons, laws, and everything else in the world.
What is the whole Psalter but meditations and exercises based on the First Commandment? Now, I know beyond a doubt that such lazy-bellies and presumptuous fellows do not understand a single Psalm, much less the entire Scriptures, yet they pretend to know and despise the Catechism, which is a brief compend and summary of all the Holy Scriptures.
Therefore, I once again implore all Christians, especially pastors and preachers, not to try to be doctors prematurely and to imagine that they know everything. Vain imaginations, like new cloth, suffer shrinkage! Let all Christians exercise themselves in the Catechism daily, and constantly put it into practice, guarding themselves with the greatest care and diligence against the poisonous infection of such security or vanity. Let them continue to read and teach, to learn and meditate and ponder. Let them never stop until they have proved by experience that they have taught the devil to death and have become wiser than God himself and all his saints (Luther’s Large Catechism, Longer Preface 15-19).
