Crisis in Missouri, Connecting the Dots, and a Call for More Catechesis

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).

Steps of Action - September 6, 2026 - Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 18) - Text: Matthew 18:1-20

Last week our Gospel reading had us sitting in and listening as Jesus laid out for His disciples what it meant that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. In other words, Jesus began to explain to His disciples that being the Messiah, the Savior of the world meant being mocked, ridiculed, persecuted, even suffering and dying on the cross, however, the cross and the grave would have no hold over Him, because on the third day He would rise again. This morning we skip a few verses to where Jesus speaks to us concerning how we are to treat each other as brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, that is in the Holy Christian Church.
 

We live in a world which likes to quote or rather misquote the Bible. How often do we hear someone say something like, “My god is not like that,” and then they go on to describe, not the God of the Bible, which is what they are implying that they are describing, but they go on to describe, what I call their own, “god in a box,” which they have created. But, let us go back in time a little. I have to begin in the sixties, because that is where my memories begin. Some of you can remember further back and I think you may have similar memories. Anyway, I remember the so called sexual revolution of the sixties and the outcry that came when anyone suggested that what was happening was not right. The outcry was a misquote of the Bible, something like, “Well, the Bible says you are not supposed to judge other people.” The meaning of that misquote was to suggest that anyone can do anything they want, and it was often added, “as long as they are not hurting anyone else,” and we should approve, otherwise we are accused of judging. Today the outcry is one of, “Well, we should be tolerant of other people,” and with that phrase we imply, once again, that we should not say anything bad about anyone or anything they do, and again, “as long as they are not hurting anyone else,” only approve, otherwise we are accused of being intolerant. And let me take that one step further. If you listen carefully, you will notice that the world is to be tolerant of everyone except those of us who have a different view of the world, or to be more blunt, the world is to be tolerant to everyone except true Christians who understand that there is a right and a wrong, a good and a bad. And we might add, and we know that God does not tolerate sin.
 

But, what does the Bible really say? The Bible really does say to not judge other people, but it also says we are our brothers keeper, we are to recognize sin, and the Bible even gives us ways to recognize sin, such as the ten commandments. Even our Old Testament reading for today tells us that we are to warn the wicked, that is sinners of their sin, lest we become responsible for their failure to repent. The problem is that in an attempt to get by with “doing as we please” in the name of the Bible, we have put up a false definition of “judging” and “being tolerant.” To judge someone according to the Bible is to say that they are “damned to hell.” That is what we are not to do, but we are to recognize sin and call it what it is, sin. Think about it this way. Is it more loving to let someone go on sinning and doing something that is not good for them or others, such as abusing alcohol or drugs, or is it more loving to confront them with their destructive behavior? Is it judging a person to call into question their self-destructive behavior? The Bible says “no.” The Bible also says that we are to be tolerant of others, but not at the expense of breaking the loving commandments which are given to us by God. When we sin, God is not tolerant of us, so when others sin, we are not to be tolerant of them. So, how do we go about, not judging, but calling one to account for their actions? That is what Jesus lays out for us today.
 

Step one, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother”(Matthew 18:15). The first thing we are to do is not go tell everyone else, but go to our brother, or sister, who has sinned against us, or against whom we have sinned, or just to the one to whom we have seen sin, just the two of us. This step is not a time to judge, “you are going to hell if you do not repent and mend your ways,” rather this is a time to simply share our love and concern for that person and help them to see what they have done or are doing wrong according to what God tells us. This step might even begin with an acknowledgment of our own sin. If our brother or sister repents, we have won them over. We rejoice and pray a prayer of thanks. We do not tell anyone else of the incident, it is over.
 

If our brother or sister does not repent, we are to keep trying. Interestingly enough, most of the time when we hear this passage of the Bible we hear something like, “do step one and if that does not work, move on to step two.” Actually, what we are to do is to do step one and continue to do step one until we are totally convinced that step one is not working and is not going to work. In other words, do step one and if it does not work the first time, do it again. The goal is to get our brother or sister to see their sin, not to advertise their sin, not to judge, but to gently get them to see their sin. Before we move to step two we are to exhaust step one.
 

Step two, “But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses’”(Matthew 18:16). Step two is to take a witness, another friend. This step still requires not to make this sin a public spectacle, but to show our friend and help our friend to understand our sincerity and the severity of their sin. Again, our brother or sister is to be approached in love, gently and with kind words, in other words, we go and speak to them recognizing our own sin and imperfection as well. And again, if he or she repents, it all stops, no one else needs to know, the matter is dropped.
 

And again, if he or she does not repent, we do not go directly to step three, instead we do step two over again. We continue to do step two, over and over again, we and our friend, until either our friend repents, or we believe we have exhausted the whole situation.
 

Step three, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). At step three, and only at step three do we take it to the church. But even here, this step is not something which becomes a smear campaign. This person’s sin is shared only with the church, the members of the congregation and this sharing is done in the utmost of confidence with the best construction put on everything, as much as possible. If we win the brother or sister over, if they acknowledge and repent, then there is forgiveness and the matter is dropped.
 

And again this step is not something which is done once, but this process is repeated until either the person repents, or there is no resolve. If, and only if, there is no resolve, then we move on to the final step which is excommunication. And again, the whole point in this exercise is to win the brother or sister over to repentance and forgiveness.
 

After He outlines these steps, Jesus again reiterates the giving of the office of the keys, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matthew 18:18-20).
 

The office of the keys is judging, so that whatever is not forgiven on earth will not be forgiven in heaven. And, whatever is forgiven on earth will be forgiven in heaven. As a church we have the duty, the right, the privilege, the obligation, and the responsibility to lovingly recognize sin, to call it sin, to confront sin and to seek ways of winning the sinner over to Christ and forgiveness. We have the awesome responsibility to say, “you have sinned and unless you repent, you will remain in sin and your soul is in peril.” Not because that is something we say, but because that is what God says, that is what the Bible says, that is how we are to love others. What we are talking about is not judging and intolerance, rather that is love and care. The other option, which is the option that is truly judging and intolerance, is to let them go on sinning and let them die and go to hell. And again as I mentioned earlier, we are warned against this tolerance of sin in our Old Testament Reading for today. We could let our drug addict friend go on doing drugs and they will kill themselves. How much greater is our need to confront someone with sin because sin has to do, not so much with physical death, but with spiritual life and death even eternal death and hell. And yes, God is a just God, lest we forget this fact.
 

The goal of Christian discipline, of confronting our brother or sister with their sins, is to win the sinner, to get them to repent so that they might hear those most precious words, “Your sins are forgiven.” The most loving thing we can do is to not be tolerant of sin, to not let our family and friends go on doing the things that are harmful to them, but to lovingly confront them so that they might repent. If you had charge of a child who liked to run out into the busy street to play, would the most loving thing be to let your child do as he wished, or to discipline them so that they would not harm themselves? And, just as little children do not like to be disciplined and just as it is difficult as a mother or father or guardian to discipline, because it does not “feel” good to do so, so it is even harder when it comes to doing the things of God.
 

Jesus’ final words are a reminder of what is the church. The church is “where two or three are gathered together in His name.” We are the church. We have the duty, the responsibility, the privilege to rightly preach the Gospel in all its truth and purity and here I am speaking of the Gospel in its broad meaning, that is proclaiming what is sin and proclaiming what is forgiveness. We have the duty, the responsibility, the privilege to rightly administer the sacraments. And we have the duty, the responsibility to rightly say, “your sins are not forgiven” and unless you repent and change your ways, your sins will remain unforgiven. And when there is repentance, when there is a change of behavior, when there is faith given through the means of grace, we have the privilege and joy to say, “your sins are forgiven” and go out and sin no more.
 

Today we are reminded that there is a right and a wrong. We live in a world, even in a country which is so intent on tolerance that it often refuses to make any distinction between right and wrong, or for that matter between religions, whether one is more valid than another. As Christians, as believers in Jesus, as followers of His Word, we are reminded this morning, by our text, by Jesus Himself, that there is a right and a wrong, that there is only one way to eternal life as Jesus Himself tells us that He is “the way, the truth, and the life,” and that there is no other way to eternal life than through faith in Him and in His death and resurrection for us. How much more is it important that we first remain true to the Word of God, that is that we ground our faith and our lives in His Word, and I do not mean in our own understanding or misunderstanding of His Word, but in His Word whether we like that word or not, and that we ground our lives in His Word, living our lives according to the way that He would have us to live. Our text for this morning reminds us of the importance of caring for one another, which flows out of the fact that God first cares for us, because, yes, we are our brothers and sisters keepers.
 

Again I am reminded of the fact that we get it right and we know we get it right when we get our focus right. When our focus is on ourselves, we get it wrong. When our focus is on Jesus and His cross we know we get it right. May the Lord guard, guide and direct us so that we might always focus on Him. To Him be the glory, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

He must Be Killed - August 30, 2026 - Pentecost 14(Proper 17) - Text: Matthew 16:21-28

I hope you noticed that our Gospel reading for this morning comes right after our Gospel reading for last week. Last week we were with Jesus and His disciples as Jesus questioned His disciples concerning who others thought He was and who they thought He was. You might remember that Peter’s confession and the disciples confession was that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus then went on to give His disciples the keys to the Kingdom of heaven and to state that His Church, the Holy Christian Church, the body of believers is built on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah. Our “What does this mean?” of last week was that by faith in Jesus, that is, as we confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Messiah, we too are a part of the Holy Christian Church, the communion of saints and we too have the keys to the Kingdom of heaven which gives us the authority to tell others about Jesus as well as to announce forgiveness earned by Jesus to others.
 

Our text for this morning continues from last week by saying, “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (v. 21). Now remember, Peter and the disciples had just confessed that they believed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I am sure that Jesus is thinking that the disciples understand His mission and so He begins laying out the master plan in more detail.
 

The reason Jesus came to earth was to be our substitute, to suffer the punishment for our sins, the eternal death penalty of hell, to give His life for ours. He did not come to invest Himself in this world. He did not come to write a book nor to earn a wage in order to build a financial empire. He came humbly. He was born in poverty. He lived perfectly for us, in our place, because we cannot. He obeyed all of God’s laws perfectly. He fulfilled all of God’s promises, all His prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, perfectly. He took all our sins upon Himself and the sins of all people so that we might be given forgiveness through the payment of the price for sin which was His death. These details are what He is now laying out for His disciples. He wants to make sure that they understand what it means that He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.
 

“And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you” (v. 22). Peter does not like what Jesus is saying. He does not like all this talk about suffering and death. This suffering and death talk does not fit into Peter’s idea of what it means that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This lack of understanding should not surprise us, because we do not like to talk about death either, and as you may have noticed, neither do the TV preachers and so called “evangelicals” of today. Certainly we do not like to talk about the death of someone who is very close to us, a loved one perhaps and especially, a young loved one. And certainly that would not fit into our understanding of messiahship either. If we take a close look at the “Messiahs” that have come and gone in this world, we notice that they are not the Messiah as presented in Holy Scriptures. I believe that one of the reasons Peter, TV evangelists, evangelicals, and we do not like this death and dying talk, especially when it comes from Jesus, is the implication of such talk. The implication of such death and dying talk is that we are sinners who are, left in our sins, destined to eternal death and hell, and unless the price, the price of life, is paid, we have no hope. Thus, to recognize that Jesus had to suffer and die for us is to recognize and to confess the gravity of our true sinful nature. And we do not like that, it is not good for our self-esteem.
 

And so Jesus rebukes Peter, “But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (v. 23). Jesus knew the reason He came to earth. He knew the task that was ahead of Him. He had already been tempted by the devil himself to try a different way of “saving” the people. Now, here, one of His own disciples was tempting Him to try a different way. It is only Jesus’ death that will save all people. His death for our death. His life for our life. Thus, Jesus’ death would go contrary to the devils plan and so the devil will use whatever means necessary, even working through one of Jesus’ own disciples to stop Jesus’ plans to save the world. And so, Jesus calls Peter, Satan.
 

“Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?” (vs. 24-26).
 

The question that comes out of Jesus’ words to His disciples is the rhetorical question of, “What is discipleship?” “What does it mean to be a disciple, a follower of Jesus?” Jesus answers that question by saying that a follower of Jesus is one who denies him or herself. A follower of Jesus is one who takes up his or her cross. And I do not believe that He is talking about the crosses we put on ourselves. When we put ourselves in the position to be tempted to sin, that is not a cross which is put on us because of our faith. That is a self inflicted cross. In other words, and you have seen this scenario in movies and commercials on television and in real life, when someone has an addiction of one kind or another and still puts themselves in the position to be tempted with the excuse, “I can handle it.” That is a self inflicted cross. We would all probably relate the most to this self inflicted temptation when we go to an all you can eat smorgasbord and think that we will not over do it. Yes, we often forget that gluttony is a sin, just as stealing, killing and the like. Anyway, these things are not the crosses and self-denial of which Jesus is speaking.
 

When Jesus says to deny ourselves and take up our cross, He is speaking about living our faith even if it means being made fun of at work or leisure. He is speaking about not joining in, but walking away from the group that is telling the “off color” joke at the office coffee pot or around the office water cooler. He is speaking about walking away and not joining in the group that is “bashing” the boss or the new employee, or the person everyone loves to “hate,” or even a member of our own congregation. He is speaking about living your life in such a way that others notice that you are different, really different, not different like everyone else.
 

Jesus tells us that we are to lose our life in this world in order to save our life in heaven. It is a matter of investment. Do we invest all our time and energies in this world, or do we invest them in the world to come? Do we live as if we have plenty of time (like the rich man who built bigger and better barns and said to himself, “today, I will eat, drink and be merry and tomorrow I will worry about my soul” and that very night his soul was required of him), or do we live as if today might be our last day on this earth? If you knew that today would be your last day on earth, would you do anything different? Would you live any different? And if you would, then why are you not? After all you do not know when you will die. Your birth certificate does not have an expiration date on it. There are so many things vying for our attention in this world, important things no less, but the question we need to ask is this, “What is more important? Our 50, 60, 80 or 100 years in this world, or our forever eternity in heaven?”
 

You know, the devil is a smart guy. He does not tempt you to do something he knows you will not do. Not too long ago, the things of this world were scheduled around church activities. Today church activities are discounted to being just one of many options of which to be a part. Sunday morning rolls around and, to use the language of our world today, we have the “choice” of going to the beach, after all it is a beautiful day. Or we can go on a picnic. Or we can take our child to the school sponsored athletic event. Or we can sleep in. Or we can go shopping. Or we can go hunting, or golfing. Or, we can first go to church and be given the gifts the Lord has to give in the Divine Service, go to Bible Study and be in discussion and fellowship with other Christians, and then do these other things. What we choose to do we choose according to what is most important to us, our true priorities, our life in this world, or our life in the world to come. What we choose we choose according to the leading of the Holy Spirit or according to the leading of the devil. And yes, we acknowledge that we are all here this morning, but we have this struggle going on every week.
 

How do we lose our life in this world? We lose our life in this world by denying ourselves, taking up our crosses and following Jesus. And yes, this is a hard thing. Jesus did not say it would be easy. Denying oneself is never an easy thing. The question we might ask, instead of “Is this easy?” is “What is the result?” The result, according to Jesus, is life, even eternal life! Remember, the very reason Jesus came to earth was to deny Himself, take up His cross, suffer and die so that we might have forgiveness. With Jesus, even when we put other things in this world ahead of Him, there is still forgiveness, because that is what He came to earn for us.
 

We might boil our text down to this question, “What is the worth of a soul?” or “How much does life cost?” To Jesus, the worth of a soul is His own life. We are constantly reminded, as we should be, that the wages of sin is death, eternal death and hell. Our sins have earned and continue to earn the eternal death penalty of hell for us. And yet, that is not what we are given. By God’s grace, through faith in Jesus, we are given forgiveness and life, eternal life.

“What can a man give in exchange for his soul?” What is the value of our soul? We answer that question with the way we live our lives. Self-denial is not an easy thing. It does not come naturally. It is the difference between valuing the things of this world or the things of heaven. I am told that the way to catch a monkey is to find a hole in a tree. To drive nails into the hole so that you can put your hand in the hole, but if you make a fist you cannot pull it out because it will be caught by the nails. If you then place something shiny in the hole, a monkey will put in its hand, grab the shiny thing and will be caught. The monkey could easily escape if he would let go of the shiny thing and pull out his hand. But the monkey will not let go. Too often it would appear that we are like the monkey. We see the shiny things of this world. We take hold of them and we refuse to let them go. Whereas, if we would just let them go, we would be free. We tend to grab hold of the things of this world thinking that these things will give us freedom and happiness, but all the while they only bring us pain and suffering like the nails in the hole. When, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we let go of the things of this world we have true freedom and happiness.

Our “What does this mean?” of our text for today is that Jesus came for us. He came to live for us, perfectly because we cannot be perfect. He came to obey all God’s laws perfectly for us because we cannot. He came to fulfill all God’s promises and prophecies concerning Himself as the Messiah. He came to take all our sins upon Himself. He came to give His life for ours. Jesus’ suffering and death earned forgiveness for us. God gives us all His good gifts and blessings by His grace, through faith in His Son, which He gives to us as well. And He stirs in us to live our lives in such a way, that with His help, they say, to God be the glory, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

You Have Great Faith - August 16, 2026 - Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 15) - Text: Matthew 15:21-28

Last week Jesus showed Himself to us again as truly human and truly divine, that is that He is true man and true God, or another way of saying this fact is that He is God in flesh. Last week we were again reminded of the importance of Jesus being God in flesh, that is, that Jesus is truly human so that He might be our substitute and that He is truly God so that He might be born sinless, perfect and holy and so that He might be able to overcome sin, death and the power of the devil. Our text for this week moves us past Jesus’ explanation to His disciples that what makes a person unclean is what is in a person’s heart, not what a person eats. Our text for this morning focuses our attention on the reason Jesus came to earth.
 

We have all been raised to believe that God answers prayer with “yes,” “no,” or “wait.” We have been told that when we pray we are to believe what we pray. And we have been taught by Jesus Himself to be persistent in our prayers. In our Bible reading for this morning it would appear that our learning is still missing one element, that element of, “What do we do when Jesus ignores our prayers and when He even suggests that we are not worthy to be listened to?” Well, that is how this lesson seems to play out.
 

Jesus had been discussing with His disciples what makes a person clean or unclean, that is, spiritually clean or spiritually unclean. It is not what you eat that makes you clean or unclean, because what you eat simply passes through your body. What makes you clean or unclean, in God’s eyes, is what comes out of your heart, either faith or unbelief. Moving on in our text, leaving from that place and that discussion, our text says that Jesus withdrew privately to go to a place near the region of Tyre and Sidon. Here, again, we see Jesus as a human in need of some time alone for rest and relaxation, for reflection and time for strengthening through prayer with His Father in heaven. As He comes near to this place, this Gentile town, He is met by a Canaanite woman. Matthew makes sure that we understand that this is not a Jewish woman, but a Gentile woman, a foreigner, because that fact is an important fact to know, because we know how Jews, good Jews, good practicing Jews, are not allowed to associate or even speak with foreigners. Anyway, this foreigner, and a woman at that, comes crying out, yelling and hollering to Jesus, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon” (v. 22). Her’s is not a cry for self pity or for self help. Her’s is a painful cry of a loving mother for her daughter.
 

We know what it is like when one of our children is sick and we pray and expect God to hear our prayers and to answer them. We do not come to Him expecting Him to turn away or even to turn a deaf ear. What kind of a God would we be worshiping if we believed He would turn away? Yes, Jesus is Jewish and the woman in our lesson is a Gentile or we might imagine even worse, a Samaritan, but we would certainly think that Jesus, who is God, who is love, who came to save the world, would make an exception and have mercy on her. Certainly, if anyone would listen to her and help her it would be Jesus, at least that is what we think and I believe what she thinks. But . . .  “[Jesus] did not answer a word” (v. 23a). Can you believe it? Jesus, loving God, loving Savior, cold heartedly does not answer her, not even a word. It just does not make sense, not to us and not to this Canaanite woman. And it was not just Jesus alone who turned away from her, it was His disciples as well, but we might expect that from His disciples. Remember these are the same disciples who turned children away from Jesus as well. However, this woman would not take “no” for an answer and instead continued to hound Jesus and His disciples. “[So] his disciples came and begged him saying, ‘Send her away, for she is crying out after us’” (v. 23b). It is really rather embarrassing.
 

I do not know about you, but I never really looked at this text in this way. It does not look so good for Jesus. We are raised to see Him as kind and loving. We are told that He is our best friend. We are told that He always answers our prayers. We are told that He came to save all people, but here we have it, right here in the pages of the Bible, right here in black and white. Jesus is refusing service, even refusing to speak to this foreigner. Certainly we must be mistaken. Certainly He has to listen and answer her.
 

And yet, we seem to be confirmed in our suspicions, that Jesus is cold hearted when “He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’” (v. 24).
 

Well what does that mean? I thought Jesus was sent to save all people of all places of all times. What does He mean, “only”? What does He mean, “lost sheep”? What does He mean, “Israel”? Can things get any worse? Today we would approach Jesus and we might cry out, “But I am an American. I am a Texan. I am entitled to Your hearing me.” Or even, “But I am a Lutheran.” “You have to listen to me.”
 

It is obvious that the woman either did not believe Jesus, that He was cold hearted and uncaring, or she did not believe the words He spoke, or maybe she had a different understanding than we seem to be getting from the reading. We are told that she came and knelt before him. Actually she fell prostrate, that is she fell with her face to the ground, in the dirt, before Him, a true act of submission and she said, “Lord, help me!” She recognized her unworthiness, that she was not worthy to have Him listen to her or answer her prayer, yet, she comes to Him anyway. And this time she finally gets a reaction. This time Jesus turns and speaks to her, but He still seems to be pretty cold hearted. He says, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (v. 26).
 

Let me say that it is true, Jesus did come only for the lost sheep of Israel. That was His primary purpose, His first reason for coming to earth, to save the lost sheep of Israel. But now it seems worse. Jesus stoops to calling her a dog. She is one who falls into the spiritually unclean group. It is as if everything is against her. Well, maybe we can pull some shred of decency out of this text because the type of dog of which Jesus was speaking was at least a house pet. So the woman has now moved from being ignored to being a house pet.
 

And just as you and I would not give up when praying for our sick child, so she does not give up. She searches for and finds some bit of hope in Jesus’ words. She clings to that hope and turns His words back to Him. “She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ Then Jesus answered her, ‘O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.’ And her daughter was healed instantly” (v. 27, 28a).
 

This word of Scripture falls between Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand and His feeding of the four thousand. The feeding of the five thousand with the twelve baskets left over is considered God’s providing for the children of Israel, the twelve tribes. The feeding of the four thousand and the seven baskets of leftovers is considered God’s providing for the Gentiles. And in between these two miraculous feedings we have this account with this Gentile woman. This Canaanite woman is not a part of the lost sheep of Israel. She is merely a Gentile who happened to be at the right place at the right time, the place where Jesus is, the place where he brings faith and where faith brings life.
 

Faith is possible among others, even those we might not see or think. We cannot look into the hearts of others, only God can. Faith is not dependent on birth, on ethnic origin, on culture or even on us, but faith is possible only with Christ. Jesus is drawing the faith, which He has given to her, out in this woman. He alone draws faith, which He gives to us, out of us.
 

Jesus was sent only to save the lost sheep of Israel, that was His main goal and objective. The woman had no right to come begging for help. In a very real way, we are very much like the Gentile woman. We are sinful human beings, conceived and born in sin, daily sinning much, and we have no right coming to Jesus to ask for anything. Martin Luther goes so far as to say that we are sinful worms. And his dying words were, “We are beggars, it is true.” Thanks be to God that not only is He a just God who condemns sins, but He is also a merciful God, a God of love who sent His Son to save the world.
 

What does all this mean? Our Old Testament Lesson for today reminds us of the Lord’s promise to us foreigners, us Gentiles, that by faith in Jesus, we too will have a part in His kingdom. It is not something to which we are entitled, it is a gift from God. Isaiah reminds us that it is “the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel” (v. 8a) and He “declares, ‘I will gather yet others [to him] besides those already gathered” (v. 8b). In other words, Jesus did come to save all people, you and I included. What this means is that Jesus did come to save you and me.
 

In our Epistle lesson for today Paul shows us the ultimate conclusion of Jesus coming to earth, that is that Jesus, who came only for Israel, was rejected by Israel. Their rejection opened up the kingdom of heaven for all believers. Thus, by faith, the Gentile woman is a part of the lost sheep of Israel. Thus, by faith, we, you and I, are a part of the lost sheep of Israel. So it is by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, faith given to us through the means of grace, either at our Baptism as a baby or through the means of the Word of God as an adult, it is by this faith that we have a part in God’s kingdom. Jesus is not the bad guy He seems to be portrayed as in this reading. He did come to seek and to save the lost. He did come to give His life to save all people of all places of all times. He did come to give His life, to suffer the eternal death penalty of hell, the cost, the wage, the price for our sin, for us. He came to give us faith to believe in Him and to share in His glory in heaven. The Good News of our text is that we have great faith because Jesus gives us that great faith which clings to Him, who forgives us, who gives us life, even eternal life and He stirs in our hearts the joy to say, to God be the glory, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.