Jeffray Greene’s recent devotional on Mark 12:1 was thoughtful and helpful. It reminded me that everything we have belongs to God and that we are called to be faithful stewards. That is true and important. But it also helped clarify where much modern theology, especially within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has begun to drift away from the heart of the Gospel.

In Mark 12:1–12, Jesus tells the parable of the vineyard. A man plants a vineyard, builds it up, and entrusts it to tenants. When he sends servants to collect fruit, they are beaten and killed. Finally, he sends his son, and they kill him as well. Jesus is not primarily teaching about wealth or fairness. He is teaching about rejection, specifically, the rejection of God’s messengers and ultimately His Son.

The focus of this passage is clear: God is the owner, we are stewards, and humanity has failed. The problem is not that people failed to distribute resources equally. The problem is sin, rebellion against God and rejection of Christ.

This is where we must be careful. Much modern “social justice” theology shifts the focus away from sin and Christ and toward human systems and historical grievances. It often teaches that we must repent not only for our own sins but also for the actions of past generations. It suggests that justice requires correcting the past through social or economic means.

But Scripture does not teach this.

The Bible is clear that each person is responsible for his own sin. In Ezekiel 18:20, we read: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.” This means guilt is not passed down through history in a political or social sense. We all share in original sin (Romans 5:12), but we are not held accountable for specific historical acts committed by others.

At the same time, Scripture also teaches that we are saved by grace alone. As it says in Ephesians 2:8–9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith… not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” This is the heart of Lutheran theology. We are not saved by what we do, whether that is moral effort, social activism, or attempts to correct past wrongs. We are saved by what Christ has done for us.

This is where the distinction between Law and Gospel becomes critical. The Law shows us our sin. It tells us what God requires and reveals that we fall short. As Romans 3:20 says, “Through the law comes knowledge of sin.” But the Law cannot save us. It can never be satisfied by our efforts.

This is what was rightly observed in the response to the devotional: no matter how much we do, it is never enough. We cannot give enough, repent enough, or fix enough to make ourselves right with God.

That is why we need the Gospel.

The Gospel is the good news that Christ has done what we could not do. He lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and rose again. His work is complete. As Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). There is nothing we can add to it.

This is also clearly taught in the Lutheran Confessions. The Augsburg Confession states in Article IV: “Men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith.” This is not just one teaching among many—it is the center of the Christian faith.

Good works do have a place. Lutherans affirm that faith produces good works. As Martin Luther wrote, “Faith is a living, busy, active thing.” But these works flow from faith. They do not create it, and they do not save us.

This brings us back to the issue with modern social justice theology. When the Church begins to emphasize social or historical repentance as necessary for righteousness, it risks turning good works into a new form of law. It places burdens on people that Scripture does not place. It binds consciences where God has left them free.

This does not mean that Christians should ignore injustice or fail to love their neighbors. On the contrary, we are called to serve others in love. But we do so as those who are already forgiven and free in Christ, not as those trying to earn forgiveness or correct history.

History itself is complex. Human beings have moved, settled, and fought over land for thousands of years. No group is without fault. But more importantly, Scripture does not call us to resolve all historical wrongs. It calls us to repent of our own sins and trust in Christ.

God is still at work in the world, even through flawed people and nations. As Romans 8:28 reminds us, “God works all things together for good for those who love Him.” This does not justify sin, but it does remind us that God’s purposes are greater than human history.

In the end, the Church must remain focused on its true mission: proclaiming Christ crucified and risen for the forgiveness of sins. When it shifts that focus to political or social agendas, it loses its center.

The answer is not found in human systems or ideologies. The answer is found in Christ alone. In Him, we have forgiveness, life, and salvation.

In Christ,

Paul Flemming

If you are at all plugged into what is going on outside of Lutheran circles, you have undoubtedly seen news related to the surge of thirty-five and under young people (particularly young men) who are coming back to church… or exploring the faith for the first time.

 But they are not just showing up at any church.  These young people have done their homework.  There is no societal or family expectation from their religiously milquetoast parents that they be in church, and a high percentage of their friends are involved in neo-paganism or the various identity categories that serve a religious function in the lives of their adherents.  No, they have come to the end of all that or else they have sensed as much as deducted that something is radically wrong with the world they inhabit. 

When they show up at the doorsteps of the church, they have already “deconstructed” the secular, progressive faith into which they were catechized by both their education and the liturgical cycle of television, YouTube, and social media, for they have experienced its devastating fruits in either their own lives or the lives of those they love.  By the time they warm a pew for the first time, they may know more about the controversy regarding whether and when the exodus happened, the debates at the Council of Nicaea II, or the history of the Reformation than the pastor preaching to them remembers or maybe ever knew.

While they may know they need spiritual formation and are hungry for such, while the pastor or any experienced Christian may quickly discern how partial or narrow their autodidactic catechesis has been, they are mostly not showing up the way people showed up at church a generation ago did.  They are not seeking a vague “spirituality,” to “teach their kids morals,” or “doing what comes naturally” once the halcyon days of their twenties are over and it is time to “settle down.”  They have gagged on the modernist Kool-Aid and are seeking an emetic to get the toxins out of their system.

So, they are seeking out orthodoxy and orthopraxy. To the consternation and frustration of theological progressives everywhere, these people are seeking out Latin mass and Eastern Rite catholic parishes, vital Orthodox congregations, and traditionalist Protestant communities.  Popular YouTube theologian Jordan Cooper has done some reflecting on why such people seem more drawn to Anglicanism than Lutheranism,[1] but I think his reflections miss one key point; Lutheranism defines itself—at least in part—over and against the very thing these young people are looking for… tradition.

Because of our polemical family history (recounted each autumn as Reformation Sunday rolls around), we emphasize theological and Biblical argument rather than the reception of a precious, historical (and so immutable) heritage.

This need not be so.  I am not here proposing that we should downplay our history or heritage, but rather that we should tell the whole story.  The Reformation may have settled upon the material principle of the Reformation as justification by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide) and the formal principle of the Reformation as revelation through Scripture alone (sola Scriptura), but the hermeneutic principle that brought the Reformers to these conclusions was ad fontes—back to the sources.  The Lutheran Reformation in particular was an attempt to recover what had been lost, restore what had become corrupt, and expose again the foundation upon which all later Christian theology was built.  It does not take much time with the Church Fathers to discover that as they debated the doctrines that would later be deemed the dogmas of the faith, they used the canonical Scriptures to justify their positions.  That must mean that the Scriptures were more fundamentally authoritative than the theologians (however exalted intellectually or hierarchically) who interpreted them… Sola Scriptura.

As Martin Chemnitz pointed out beautifully, the Lutheran Reformation was not ultimately about rejectionof tradition, but rejection of authority that made claims contrary to the canonical Scriptures that were in reality the beating heart of the Christian tradition.

“How may I inherit eternal life?” asked the young rich man of Jesus.  As modern scholarship has clearly shown, the Jews of Jesus’s day did not feel burdened by the Law, not desperate to “earn their salvation” by their obedience to it—that was the peculiar pathology of the Roman Catholicism Luther later encountered.  No, the Jews of Jesus’s time viewed the salvation of the Lord and the means by which they received it (by definition, means of grace) as a precious inheritance to be received from God through their forebears.

Wise Christians should do the same.  A principle of the medieval theology from which Lutheranism sprang was that we—whoever and whenever “we” happen to be—are “dwarves standing upon the shoulders of giants.”  While certainly they were sinners who got some things wrong and whose ideas would consequentially need to be corrected by consulting “the sources” of the Christian tradition (preeminently the Scriptures) just as our descendants will need to correct us, what they passed faithfully far surpassed the mistakes they made. 

While he ended his life in Orthodoxy, Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan was a Lutheran when he penned his most famous line; “Tradition is the living faith of the dead.  Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”  Lutherans should embrace the tradition of which we are a part and honor the theology—and practices—of our forebears in more than words, by inhabiting them, practicing them, and making them our own.

There is more to be said about how traditional congregations (and the kind of people who probably read the Lutheran CORE newsletter) can lean into the evangelism opportunities of this historical moment by “living out loud” as who they actually are, but for now, the chief thing is to remember that at its heart, the Lutheran Reformation is not against the Christian tradition, but receives it as the Lord’s inheritance to His people.

[1] https://youtu.be/iRXi6rQxTtQ?si=Bpm8A7543EAmuhre

One thing we can know for sure – no matter how far the ELCA goes, it will not stay there.  It will only get worse. 

HERE is a link to a list of articles that we have written regarding the ELCA covering the period of time between the 2022 and 2025 Churchwide Assemblies along with a summary of the major points from each of these articles. 

We begin with a Review and Evaluation of the 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  This is the gathering that called for the creation of a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and a reconsideration of the 2009 human sexuality social statement, including the whole issue of bound conscience.  We then have two articles regarding the formation of the Commission entitled, “Once You Know the Makeup You Know the Outcome.”

Next we have links to several articles regarding recommendations that came to the 2025 Assembly as a result of actions taken by the 2022 Assembly –

An Analysis of the First Set of Recommendations from the Human Sexuality Social Statement Reconsiderations Task Force

An Analysis of Constitutional Amendments that came from the Church Council to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly

Videos from the Lutheran Congregational Support Network showing the ELCA’s Quest for Greater Control

An Analysis of Recommendations 1 and 7 from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

We then conclude with a Review and Analysis of the 2025 Churchwide Assembly and information showing how the organizers of the triennial ELCA youth gatherings are working relentlessly to groom ELCA youth in LGBTQIA+, transgender, and non-binary ideology.

The ELCA Constitution requires the Church Council to inform synods of recommendations it will be bringing to the Churchwide Assembly six months prior to the Assembly.  So I do not know how much we will know about the 2028 Assembly before early 2028.  During the three years prior to the 2025 Assembly I was struck with how little we were informed regarding the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  They were amazingly non-communicative and non-specific in the written summaries of their meetings.  So I am not hopeful regarding how much we will know about what will be coming to the 2028 Assembly until six months before the Assembly. 

The 2025 Assembly did not go as far as many feared it might go in terms of remaking the ELCA.  The 2028 Assembly might be the time when that happens.  As we become aware of anything specific, we will keep you informed. 

Will the provision for bound conscience be eliminated?  Will the ELCA say that there is no place for traditional views on marriage and human sexuality and those who hold them?

What will be the recommendation of the Secretary of the ELCA regarding the motion for a revised process for the fast-tracking of constitutional amendments that come from the floor?

Will those who are determined to make DEIA mandatory for congregations prevail? 

What will be the shape of and what will come from the “mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives” that are being developed to make dismantling racism central in all parts of the ELCA?

Will the authority of the Bible, the Great Commission, and the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins through faith in the risen Christ have any place in the ELCA?  

We will keep you posted. 

“Your Devotional Journey Through Scripture: A Daily Discipleship Resource”

by Pastor Don Brandt

Many thanks to Doug Schoelles, NALC pastor and member of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his video review of Don Brandt’s new book.  A link to Doug’s video can be found HERE.  A link to our You Tube channel, which contains sixty-seven reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE. 

Doug writes –

I applaud Pastor Don Brandt for addressing a fundamental practice of growing in our faith: How do we study the Bible?  As Lutherans with our mantra of Sola Scriptura we believe the Word of God is for all people. We also believe that God’s Word has something to say to every Christian every day.

But we know that building a consistent devotional pattern is difficult. We get distracted by the mundane, our busyness, and shiny electronic things. I commend Pastor Brandt for laying out a pattern to help people to begin to immerse themselves daily in the Word. Your Devotional Journey is a practical book to help a beginner become a pupil of scripture. The pattern that he gives is relatively simple. He gives advice on how to set yourself up for your quiet time in the Word. I do think he should have given a bigger emphasis to praying for the Holy Spirit to teach us. Only by the gift of the Spirit will the Word be revealed to us and our understanding be grounded in God.

• Read the day’s Bible passage.

Pastor Brandt has selected passages of three to twelve verses from throughout the Bible. I would even suggest they read the passage twice. The work he has done to select passages helps the pupil of the scripture to focus initially on important scripture passages. He has twice as many New Testament lessons as Old Testament passages. Again, this is a beginner’s book. A pupil of the scripture should cover all the scripture, Old and New Testament, over their years and decades.

• Copy 1 to 3 verses of the passage.

We are encouraged to hide the Word in our hearts (Ps 119:11). One of the best ways to learn and memorize scripture is to copy it. Pastor Brandt asks the pupil to write down – copy – 1 to 3 verses of that passage to their prayer journal. This is a good practice. Another practice that could be encouraged is writing down key words or repeated words.

• Read Pastor Brandt’s brief reflection on the passage.

The work he has done to give direction to the pupil of the Word by way of his written reflection and questions is very helpful. Reflection questions are helpful to guide meditation, going deeper, making personal. His reflections focus on the bondage of sin, the character and works of God, and applying the New Life in Christ.

• Write your personal reflections on the passage.

We have read the scripture and even copied, so now what? How does the Word of God apply to my life? The act of writing down our meditation on the Word should lead us to listen for what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. How is the LORD applying this scripture passage to me, to my life, to my sin and to my need for salvation? So, again I applaud Pastor Brandt for encouraging this step.

• Write a prayer of gratitude to God based on the scripture passage.

I was pleasantly surprised that his concluding devotional act was to reflect and write down a “thanksgiving to God.”  Not just what you are thankful for, but to thank God for his work and word in your life. When we ponder the character and works of the LORD that bless our lives, then we will find our unshakeable joy in the LORD (Isa 58:14). This emphasis on gratitude can help the pupil of the scriptures to develop a hunger and thirst for God’s Word because they find something delicious to consume each time.

I commend Pastor Don Brandt’s “Your Devotional Journey Through Scripture” as a practicum that can help Christians to begin and establish a daily time in God’s Word.

We have reached a new milestone when it comes to the median age of currently-serving Protestant pastors.  It is now sixty.  (I deliberately spelled out “sixty” in case any of you would have thought the number “60” was a typo.)  This is the current estimate from author Thom Rainer, founder of Church Answers, an organization focusing on congregational revitalization and outreach.  “Sixty.”  Reflect on that for a moment.  I consider this something of a milestone; and not in a good way.

I realize that my repeated articles regarding the clergy shortage are beginning to sound like a “broken record”; at least to those of you who are old enough to remember what “records” are.  But I am becoming convinced that many denominational leaders, seminary staff, pastors nearing retirement, and congregational leaders are simply not paying attention when it comes to the gravity of this situation.  Or perhaps they do understand the severity of this crisis but are hesitant to acknowledge it publicly.  After all, none of us want to be labeled as “alarmists”.  And then there is always the possibility that the world is about to end, so why worry?  Anecdote: Survey results this last March of 3400 Americans indicate that one third of them believe the world will end in their lifetimes. The New York Times labels this a recent “mainstream apocalypse” world view.

Allow me to speculate on possible questions from those of you who might consider my concerns about the clergy supply situation “alarmist.”

1. “As a pastor who is still a few years from retirement, why should I be overly concerned regarding my congregation’s transition after I leave?”  Answer: Because odds are your congregation will not be able to replace you, and might need to consider “raising up” the next pastor from among your active church members.  And training, mentoring and educating (with online seminary courses) that prospective pastor will take years, not months.

2. “But why would it take years to replace me?”  Answer: Because the current median age of serving pastors is sixty; in case you already forgot.  And because twice as many Lutheran pastors retire each year as there are new seminary students graduating.  To put it bluntly, this crisis is something that is beyond what denominational leaders can manage on their own.  Not because they aren’t trying, but because this crisis is unprecedented.  Unprecedented in my lifetime, and even unprecedented going back a century or more.

3. “As congregational lay-leaders why can’t our church manage even a long-term interim on our own? After all, we might be relatively small and have an older membership, but we are a strong fellowship of believers; both in terms of our commitment and our financial support.”  Answer: Perhaps you can manage a two or three-year transitional interim, but what if it stretches to four or five years or more?  Consider this September/2025 quote from Karl Vaters, a pastor and author who focuses on the challenges faced by smaller churches: “Pastoral transitions are dangerous and traumatic times for churches…Other than the church planting phase, more churches close due to pastoral transition than for any other reason.”

One Current Example of a “Pastor-in-Training” Ministry Initiative

Here is one case of a church seeking to plan ahead when it comes to an upcoming pastoral transition.  Not coincidentally, I happen to be a member of this congregation.

The dual-rostered (LCMC/NALC) congregation I attend is Our Savior’s Lutheran in Salem, Oregon.

Our Savior’s (OSLC) is currently served by one full-time, lead pastor: Tom Hux.  Pastor Hux has announced his plan to retire in four years; at the age of 65.  Just this last April (2026) OSLC formally voted (overwhelmingly) to hire an active member—Greg—to join our congregation’s full-time ministry staff as a lay minister.  His job description is to work three-quarters time to assist Pastor Hux in the area of pastoral care, teaching, worship leadership, and occasional preaching.  However, one quarter of Greg’s full-time position will be devoted to his taking online seminary courses; with the goal of eventually earning a Master of Divinity degree.  The congregation’s hope and expectation is that, once he graduates with his Master of Divinity degree, Greg will then be formally called to serve OSLC as an ordained pastor

So what led OSLC to this point?  These seven developments:

a) In June of 2023 OSLC’s full-time Associate Pastor resigned after serving five years.  This was the beginning of OSLC’s pastoral vacancy.

b) In March of 2024 a call committee was organized to launch a search for a new ordained pastor to serve with Pastor Hux.

c) After a two-year unsuccessful search process, the call committee endorsed—unanimously—a proposal to begin a “pastor-in-training” strategy in an effort to identify and enlist an active lay leader to join OSLC’s ministry staff and—simultaneously—begin an online seminary education.

d) At a special congregational meeting in the fall of 2025 the decision was made to support the formation of a “Pastor-in-Training” team to begin working on pursuing this new ministry strategy.  At this point the call committee would still continue to meet, and OSLC continued to list its pastoral vacancy.

f) In March of this year (2026) a second, special congregational meeting was announced and scheduled (for April 12^th) to vote on hiring our recruit Greg, an active member, as our new lay minister and pastor-in-training.  This upcoming congregational meeting would also be when the call committee—at least temporarily—would disband, and when OSLC’s pastoral vacancy would no longer be posted.

g) One month prior to this upcoming special congregational meeting a Sunday forum was held to introduce Greg to the membership; and to explain the agenda for the congregational meeting. Over 150 members attended this forum.

h) The official congregational meeting (and vote) was held on April 12^th of this year.  Greg spoke to those in attendance prior to the motion and vote.  The vote outcome—by written ballot—was just over 98% in favor of hiring Greg as part of our “pastor-in-training” strategy.

This is, of course, just one congregation’s “journey”; a journey that will be playing out over the next few years.  However, I share these details to make a point: Given the current clergy shortage, churches need to be—more than ever—engaged in advanced planning related to their pastoral transitions.  For Lutheran congregations this is in part about taking the New Testament (and Martin Luther) seriously when it comes to the “priesthood” we all—clergy and laity alike—share as Christ followers.  This clergy shortage will not, in my opinion, be “fixed” in the foreseeable future.  As a result, many congregations will need to organize to be effectively lay-led for the years it will take while one of their active members is educated (online), trained, and mentored for ordained ministry.  This is especially true for smaller churches; but will also be the future faced by many mid-sized and larger congregations.

However, on a less-bleak “note”: We want to keep some historical perspective here.  The first and second century church not only survived but thrived in a Roman Empire that was not only pagan, but  was openly persecuting the Body of Christ.  And that persecution began, needless to say, long before there were seminary-trained clergy available for call.  So we must not forget that, for most of today’s churches, their strength and institutional viability has been built on the commitment of their active members even more than their serving pastors.  And let’s never forget that the local church, when well-led, and guided by the Holy Spirit, is still an incredibly effective means of witnessing to the love and mercy of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the details of how a congregation faces the challenge of a major pastoral transition can be incredibly complex.  There’s nothing “easy” about this.  As a result, the best way to address this challenge always needs to be a strategy customized for the unique characteristics, strengths and mission of each individual congregation.  But perhaps you’re not even sure how to begin when it comes to facing this challenge; whether your time of transition is already happening, or it will be sometime within the next few years.  If that describes what your church is facing, Lutheran CORE’s Congregations in Transition and Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative ministries are available to assist you.

One last thought for you to reflect on: Whenever congregations are about to face a major leadership transition, it is essential that church lay leaders and pastors plan in advance to address this challenge.  Let me be of assistance.  Details for both the CiT and CLI ministries are available on the Lutheran CORE website. 

If you have any questions you can always email me at pastordonbrandt@gmail.com.

In his article in the February issue of First Things, “The Rise and Fall of Gay Activism,” Scott Yenor details the various waves of the gay liberation movement that, beginning around the time I was born, as an outgrowth of the sexual revolution both created and defined what has been the defining pastoral and theological issue for my generation of pastors.  Yenor’s article is a deep-dive on the subject, detailing the thinking and strategies that took same-sex relationships from forbidden, to fringe, to fraught, to front-and-center.  Same-sex attraction has in both the popular and scholarly imagination, gone from disordered to desirable in the space of living memory.  Indeed, among many young people it is seen as in many ways more desirable than heterosexual attraction, as it does not carry with it two great risks; the risk of navigating the natural divide between male and female ways of encountering and engaging reality and the risk of the life-changing effects of pregnancy and parenthood, which necessarily involves the curtailing of one’s own desires for the sake of the children.

“The love that dare not speak its name” is not only shouting it from every height and corner of the culture, but all who do not add their enthusiastic endorsement are publicly regarded with the scorn and opprobrium once reserved for Nazis and the KKK.  When I reposted a link to former New Atheist Aayan Hirsi-Ali’s now-viral essay “Why I Am Now a Christian,” all a high school friend, once a devout Roman Catholic, could reply in response was, “But Christianity still has no place for gay people.”

It was not worth responding to her that Christianity has all the room in the world for people who think of themselves as gay, it just has no ability nor authority to condone or bless same-sex sexual behavior… just as it has no room to do so for much (most?) of the behavior engaged in by heterosexual couples since the sexual revolution.  It was not worth saying that the church is full of sinners who struggle to live out, live up to, and live into the fullness of God’s revealed intentions for not just sex, but the whole panoply of human behaviors.

There was no point in responding because social media is not a place to do pastoral counseling or theology, but rather to engage in rhetorical pugilism and gather an observing crowd whose primary purpose is not to thoughtfully listen and reconsider their own position, but to cheer for the point of view they already espouse. 

In such contexts, truth is not the point.  A generation ago, in a book that still stands without peer or persuasive reply, Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice demonstrated using historical-critical exegesis that orthodox, Biblically-based Christianity not only cannot endorse same-sex behavior, but that there were few moral perspectives in the Scripture more consistently attested to in both Testaments.

Christianity also cannot endorse the central claim of the sexual revolution, the claim that sexual orientation and expression is central to human identity and flourishing.  Biblical Christianity insists that true human flourishing can only be found when one identifies themselves as “in Christ,” and that the human soul is only finally and properly ordered when it regards “everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus [as] Lord’ and gladly suffers “the loss of all things and counts them as rubbish, in order that [it] may gain Christ.” (Phil 3:8) 

As a colleague once helpfully summarized, “The problem is not just what the Bible says about sex, it’s what ignoring that does to Biblical authority.”  Put plainly, what it does is gut Biblical authority.  This may be why on a recent podcast, an ELCA pastor who is a top-notch systematic theologian with a high regard for Biblical authority confessed their dismay at the confession of several ELCA seminarians that most of what they learned at seminary “bashed” the Bible, clearly seeking to undermine its witness in every way.

+ + +

My purpose in this article is not to re-adjudicate the theological disputes that have divided not just the Lutheran communion in this regard, but every Christian communion functioning in the West.  It is also not to outline tactics or strategies to win the erstwhile “culture war”—Yenor does that in his article, and besides, in my estimation, Christianity has been decisively on the back foot culturally since it accepted what social historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead termed “expressive divorce’ thirty years after the legalization of no-fault divorce.

My purpose is rather to point out that the Church needs to be not only teaching faithfully what Christian life entails, it must be preparing her members for the distrust, resistance, revulsion, and sometimes betrayal of those they love because of it, particularly in the area of sexual behavior.  I have had more than one person to whom I ministered and who at one time both embraced and professed the Christian faith reject that faith so that they could embrace a “sexual identity” or demonstrate public support for behaviors that are clearly at variance with the requirements of Biblical Christianity in the realms of sexual identity, sexual behavior, and the related area of the sanctity of human life.  Occasionally, such people have gone so far as to excoriate me publicly or cut off contact with me.

This hurts, and we do nobody any favors by pretending that it doesn’t.  In fact, we must prepare people as we teach them not only the negative demands of God’s Word regarding sexual issues, but also the exhortations of God to ongoing faithfulness and trust in that Word and the promises of God that He will both help us in that steadfastness and reward us for it in the fulness of time.

What this means is that the Church needs to be catechizing her congregants on how to be resilient, long-suffering, and loving toward those who reject them or their faith.  We must be teaching our people to have the trust and steadfastness of purpose that Monica, the mother of Augustine, showed for the twenty seven years that she prayed for her son’s conversion from sensualism and Manichaeanism.  Augustine ultimately became one of the greatest theologians in Church history, but he did not get there without the Lord working through his mother’s prayers.  We must teach our people to be a Monica for every Augustine in their lives… especially when they despair of that person ever changing.

What we can be sure of is this; learning to face persecution, pray unswervingly, and love those who scorn us is the very essence of becoming more Christ-like in our character.  As an Orthodox friend once said to me (Orthodoxy has a rather more fraught regard for Augustine’s theology than Lutheranism), “We are pretty sure Augustine was a saint… we are POSITIVE that his mother was!”

The church’s pastoral ministry has always been long-suffering when it comes to helping people live into the Christian standards of chastity outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage, and most pastors I knew prior to Obergefell and the concomitant liberalization of ecclesiastical disciplines that began to be officially enacted around that time were caring and deeply sensitive in their pastoral work with their LGB (T’s and Q’s were beyond the horizon as of then) members.  The Church can be infinitely patient with sinners, but it cannot redefine sin, for if we do, we end up proclaiming nothing but our faith in our own contemporary judgments—and such affirmations are deficient in their ability to console or  instruct when sin, death, and the devil inevitably come knocking, for they lack the substance of revealed truth, which is the heart of the Word of God.

For the sake of the wellbeing and comfort of both Her members and those who do not yet call Christ Lord, the Church needs to be preparing its members for misunderstanding, resentment, and even persecution from those who reject “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” especially the people closest to them and especially in regards to sexual issues.  To do less is spiritual malpractice… and it will mean the eventual caving of orthodoxy to the spirit of the age.

…was the last time in the Pulpit,
The last time serving Holy Communion,
The last time preaching the love of Christ,

Then I am humbled to have been
Called to serve Your People, Lord.
I count it all joy!

Thank you, Lord, for Your Holy Word.
I know you were there, Lord of Mercy,
In that Country Church.

You were there in the faith of the people.
In the music.  In the liturgy.  In Holy Communion.
All is good. I have been so blessed.

+

If now is the time to step back
to enjoy Your Stillness, O Lord,
To embrace Prayer as a Call to
Ministry in my Sunset years…

…To Pray for a Revival in Your Church
With tears of Gratitude in My Heart,
Thank You for the Years.

+

I pray for Wisdom, Lord.
I ask not to be that Old Pastor
Tripping and Falling 
On the Church Steps. Again. 

I ask for Clearness of Mind, 
Not to be irrelevant.
Mis-speaking the words, 
Repeating myself; Staying too long. 

If it is Your Will, let your servant gently
fade away as Your Light Shines On
Brighter and Brighter into the future. 

Lord, please bless the time remaining:
Bless My Family.  If now is the time
to step back, it was all worth it.  

With Gratitude in My Heart, 
All Glory be to the Triune God:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  
Amen and Amen.

In Ten Years? 

Who is going to be sitting in the pews in ten years’ time?  Ryan Burge, a Baptist pastor and professor, does statistical analysis about religion in America.¹ The research he does shows that 40% of Generation Z, ages 18 to 30, have no professed religious faith. “In 1972, about 2/3 of folks who were raised in a non-religious household switched to a religious affiliation in adulthood.”² Today nearly 80% of young adults who grew up in non-religious households remain without religious affiliation. This means that when the GenZ have kids they will be raising atheists. So a growing number of unbelievers will be raising more unbelievers which will decrease the number of Christians in our society.

On the other hand, as the older generations go onto the Church Triumphant this will also decrease the number of Christians in our society. The Church in the United States has been in a lull for about a decade where congregations are declining but still able to conduct their ministry. But this won’t be the case in another 10 years because very quickly many, many congregations will so diminish in size they will not have the numbers of people necessary to conduct evangelistic ministry. The language Ryan Burges uses to describe the inevitable decline of most Protestant denominations is “free fall”.³ Now, St. John’s has been blessed so we have a better distribution of ages than many congregations. But still . . . .

Who Sets the Agenda?

The question for your church and many other congregations is, “Do we feel compelled enough for our continued existence and for the sake of the Gospel to get out of our comfort zone to reach the unchurched?” 

Admittedly, the selfish motivation of reaching new people for the purpose of a congregation’s continued existence is not particularly inspired and actually comes across as manipulative. But maybe, the fear of our decline might cause us to look Jesus’ way.

Jesus would tell us that a more compelling motivation for reaching new people and raising up disciples is that Jesus is for sinners. In other words, the whole purpose of Jesus’ ministry is to reach and save sinners.⁴ The supply of those never runs out.

The first challenge for every congregation is who owns the church and gets to set the direction of the church. Congregations fight about this all the time. The strange truth, however, is that this question has been settled. Jesus asserts over and over again that he is Lord and sets the agenda.

He tells Peter that He Jesus will build the church and that the church will be able to take down demonic barriers.⁵ Paul repeatedly reminds us that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.⁶  Until one of us dies on the cross and is raised from the dead, the church is bought and paid for by Christ. Even more, Christ and His Spirit sustain the Church. So we can claim no ownership.

Rather we are servants of the most high Lord. Jesus doesn’t ask nicely if we want to do his work. He commands. “Follow me.” “I will make you fish for people.” “Go and make disciples.”  Jesus doesn’t ask “please?”  He is Lord of the Church and he commands us. “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.”⁷

“I Am Going to Send You”

We do not have to worry though because Jesus our Lord doesn’t send us empty handed or even to rely upon ourselves. Consider this passage from Luke 24.

⁴⁴ He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” ⁴⁵ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.⁴⁶ He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,⁴⁷ and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.⁴⁸ You are witnesses of these things. ⁴⁹ I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” ⁵⁰ When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. ⁵¹ While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. ⁵² Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.⁵³ And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.⁸

We learn:

• That Jesus is the fulfillment of all of God’s promises and that God continues to fulfill the promises in Christ in and through His Church.
• That the LORD opens up our minds so we may understand the Scriptures and faith be born in us. This should encourage us to pray the LORD will open the minds of new people to see Christ is their Savior through the Word.
• That God works in people through the proclamation of the Word to produce repentance and gives the forgiveness of sins that implants new life.
• That Jesus commands his disciples to spread this gospel to all people, not just where they are comfortable, like in Jerusalem.
• That He has clothed his Church with power from on High as the Father promised. We have received the Holy Spirit to carry out this mission.
• That the Ascended Lord blesses his Church as he reigns in heaven over all of creation.
• That we his earthly Church are to worship and praise God with great joy.

The challenge for us is to take Christ Jesus at his word. To follow and obey him. To rely on His Word and His Spirit to do this mission. To see the Ascended Lord as our savior and master. To devote our lives to joyfully worship and praise God with our every breath.

Jesus has promised if we will live according to his Word, he will grow his church. If we will live joyfully worshipping and relying on the LORD we will have something to share with this sin-soaked society.

May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you all a spirit of unity with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom. 15:5-6)

Your servant in the Gospel, Pastor Douglas

Citations:
¹ https://substack.com/@ryanburge
²  Burge, Ryan, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1F6QCKT6CD/
³  Burge, Ryan, “When Are Half Your Members Going to be Dead?: The tipping point for many denominations is not that far away.” https://substack.com/home/post/p-180956489
⁴ Mark 2:17, John 3:17, 1 Tim 1:15
⁵ Matt 16:18
⁶ Eph 5:23-26, Eph 4:15, Col 1:18, Eph 1:22, Col 2:16-23
⁷ John 20:21
⁸ Luke 24:44–53

While I have written about the clergy shortage in the past, my concern continues to grow for churches who are, or soon will be, dealing with a pastoral vacancy.  Keep in mind that this concern of mine isn’t just about the current shortage of pastors available for call.  In fact, if I could be convinced that this “shortage” has plateaued and will be corrected within the next few years, I would relax and stop obsessing.

However, this clergy supply crisis has not plateaued and in fact continues to grow more severe. For example, consider the two largest Lutheran denominations in North America and what they are facing when it comes to the shortage of pastors.  I am referring to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS).  An ELCA internal study released in early 2025 stated that each year twice as many ELCA pastors retire as there are seminarians graduating.  (And keep in mind that the ELCA still has seven seminaries!)  Moreover, Portico Benefit Services, the ELCA’s retirement fund, estimated in 2025 that forty percent of ELCA pastors would be retiring within five years.  The LCMS, the second largest Lutheran denomination in North America, reported that, as of 2019, they had approximately 6,000 serving pastors.  Their forecast, based on trends in 2019, was that by 2034 they would only have about 3,000 serving pastors.  That’s right: a 50 percent decrease.

No doubt most of you reading this belong to either an NALC or LCMC congregation.  If that is the case perhaps you are thinking, “Wait a minute; since the above statistics and forecasts are for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, they certainly do not apply to NALC and LCMC congregations.”  Well if that’s indeed what you’re thinking, don’t fool yourself.  The current clergy-supply crisis is not only national; it’s cross-denominational.

This means that every year that passes we are dealing with an increasing number of call committees seeking a pastor from among a rapidly shrinking number of available clergy. 

As if this isn’t enough to contribute to my “obsession” over this “existential” congregational crisis, allow me to point out additional causes for my alarm: Even though national church bodies and seminaries are aware of this growing clergy-supply crisis, I’m not convinced they are able to do enough to effectively address it.  And if I’m right about this, it means that—in many if not most cases—congregations will need to “step up” and take the initiative to secure their long-term pastoral leadership.  And that will require “thinking outside the box”; especially when considering the manner in which U.S. Lutheran congregations, over the last 100 years, have traditionally filled their pastoral vacancies.

What’s needed in 2026 and beyond will be many congregations taking full ownership of the pastoral supply process by enlisting and “calling” their future pastoral leaders from among their own church members.  To explain this ministry strategy more fully, consider one possible scenario as it was implemented at the hypothetical Grace Lutheran Church located in the American Midwest.

Grace Lutheran’s Scenario

Grace Lutheran is located in an economically stable, small city in the upper Midwest.  The congregation was and is financially sound and has just over one hundred worshipers attending on a typical Sunday.  A few years ago, Grace Lutheran’s pastor, Pastor Olson (of course), announced publicly that he would be retiring within one to two years. This came as something of a surprise to many members since Pastor Olson is active, in good health, and had already served the congregation for twenty-two years.  In his announcement Pastor Olson explained that he was willing, if needed, to stay the entire two additional years, but was also ready to leave sooner if the congregation was able to find and call the “right” pastor—whether an interim pastor or their next long-term pastor.

The Council at Grace immediately “got to work” and became a kind of “transition team” to address their upcoming pastoral vacancy.  Then, within six months, the Council recruited a Call Committee and secured congregational approval for these new Committee members.

Due to the extreme shortage of available ordained Lutheran pastors, the Call Committee began to think, after nine months, that the “right” pastor might not be “out there”.  This was not only the case in regards to a candidate for their long-term “permanent” call; it was also true when it came to finding a short-term interim pastor.  As this search process dragged out to a full year, Call Committee and Council members begin to become disheartened and demoralized.  It wasn’t that they didn’t have any applicants for their position.  However, the few pastors that did apply were either unqualified for Grace Lutheran’s call, or they were interviewing with multiple call committees and ended up eventually withdrawing their names from consideration. The two-year deadline until Pastor Olson’s retirement began to “loom on the horizon.”

However, as an LCMC congregation, Grace Lutheran started to think “outside the box” when it came to the challenge of securing their future long-term pastoral leadership.  They became aware of two complimentary ministry strategies which helped bring clarity as to how to address this challenge. One ministry strategy was Lutheran CORE’s Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative (CLI), and the other was the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) “Contract Call” option.  The church Council, the Call Committee, and even Pastor Olson began to consider new and exciting possibilities for identifying, enlisting and “calling” their next pastor.

The LCMC “Contract Call” model was (and is) described on their national website.  It was part of the LCMC website’s “Call Packet” and was described in detail in the “Glossary/Definitions in the Call Process” section on pages 19 and 20.

Portions of this “definition” included the following: “Congregations may call an individual to serve in their congregation with a contract call.  LCMC respects the freedom of each congregation to call pastors they discern are most appropriate for their ministry.  A congregation may enter into a contract call arrangement with any person who will subscribe to LCMC’s Statement of Faith and Pastoral Admonition, including the characteristic practices of the sacraments in the Lutheran tradition…Contract call pastors are strongly encouraged to be in an ongoing mentoring relationship with a certified LCMC pastor and to receive basic training for pastoral ministry and Lutheran theology…LCMC encourages all pastors to continue their education and specifically encourages contract call pastors to continue education with consideration of certification.” (And possibly pursuing a Master of Divinity degree.)

The second “ministry model” the Grace leaders discovered was the Lutheran CORE’s Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative (CLI).   CLI provided a step-by-step process to identify, enlist, train, educate and “call” one or more of their own lay leaders to begin a process of taking online seminary courses; and possibly working toward becoming an ordained Lutheran pastor. The “working toward” process would include serving in a part-time pastoral ministry role at Grace Lutheran while also beginning to take online seminary courses that could lead to a Master of Divinity degree.  The “steps” for this ministry model were (and are) found on the CLI slider on the Lutheran CORE website.  And the primary written resource on that slider was (and is) entitled, “How Your Congregation Can Identify, Enlist and Train Part-time Lay Ministers”.

As the Grace Lutheran Council and Call Committee members began to explore this new vision for securing their pastoral leadership, they also began studying New Testament passages that emphasized the (Lutheran) understanding of the “priesthood of (all) believers” as referenced in 1^st Peter chapter 2; and the ministry gifts of the Holy Spirit as described in 1^st Corinthians chapters 12 through 14, Ephesians chapter 4, and Romans chapter 12.

And all of this discussion and study was of course accompanied by prayer.  This was especially true when the discussion topic was, “who among our active members might God be calling to the pastoral ministry?”  In the context of these prayers and discussion two Grace Lutheran lay leaders came to mind; both with a long history as active Grace members.  In addition, these two members exhibited a deep personal faith, and had the requisite pastoral ministry gifts.  Finally, both candidates knew the majority of Grace Lutheran members on a first-name basis.  The decision was to extend this ministry “call” to both members; knowing that the congregation would be fortunate if even one accepted, and twice-blessed if both said yes.

Grace Lutheran was indeed fortunate because both Natalie (an empty-nest mother) and John (an active, recently-retired teacher) accepted the “call” to become “contract pastors” at Grace Lutheran.  All that remained was to work out—with each of them—the details of their employment “contracts”; including the number of pastoral-ministry hours they would work in a typical week, the stipends they would be paid, and their specific responsibilities.  Also negotiated in these contracts was the expectation the congregation would have as to which online seminary courses they might take.  (Tuition for these courses would be paid by the congregation.)  Finally, Pastor Olson, still a few months from his retirement, agreed to be the mentoring pastor for both John and Natalie; at least until his official retirement.  After his retirement the Council would seek an LCMC pastor to mentor John and Natalie online.

————————————————————————————————————————-

     The hypothetical example of Grace Lutheran probably does not answer all of your questions.  Consequently, there are three things I want to point out:

1. Since this is a ministry model that assumes a congregation’s total ownership of the process, your church has the freedom to customize this strategy to address both your congregation’s specific expectations, and the needs and gifts of your future “contract pastor(s)”.  Needless to say, I can’t anticipate what those might be in the case of your congregation.

2. The above scenario pertains to an LCMC congregation.  If your church belongs to the North American Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, or the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, you would then need (obviously) to work within your denomination’s guidelines and expectations.

3. Finally, I am available—by email, phone or online—to answer any questions you might have which I do not address in this article.

Pastor Don Brandt
Lutheran CORE’s Congregational Lay-leadership Initiative (CLI)
pastordonbrandt@gmail.com
503-559-2034

In our January and February 2022 publications I wrote a two-part article which explored the question of how the LGBTQ+ agenda and community were able to be so successful in completely taking over the ELCA and in such a short time.  Here are links to that two-part article, which I entitled, “How Did It Happen?” – LINK and LINK.  

I described the strategies and principles of Community Organizing as outlined in a resource from ReconcilingWorks, “Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit” (BIC).  Here is a link to that Toolkit – Building an Inclusive Church – ReconcilingWorks.

On its website ReconcilingWorks describes its mission in this way.  “Since 1974, ReconcilingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation has advocated for the full welcome, inclusion, and equity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual/aromantic (LGBTQIA+) Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church, congregations, and community.”  

The Toolkit outlines steps to take to gain the support of Early Adopters, the Early Majority, and enough of the Late Majority in order to achieve the 75% approval vote that is required by ReconcilingWorks for an organization to become Reconciling in Christ (RIC).

I am a retired ELCA pastor, rostered in the Grand Canyon Synod.  I attended one of the recent Spring Conference Assemblies.  At the gathering it was mentioned that a motion will be coming to the 2027 Synod Assembly that the Synod become Reconciling in Christ and (typical of the ELCA) that there be a full year of study and discussion leading up to the vote.  It was also said that ReconcilingWorks is no longer a one-issue organization.  It is no longer focused solely on the welcome and inclusion of all forms of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.  It is also concerned for the full welcome and inclusion of people of all races as well as differently abled people.   

With their approach of building relationships and capitalizing on shared values, I immediately recognized Community Organizing.

I wrote to the Bishop of my Synod, stating that I found the presentation to be manipulative, questionable, unfair, and unjust.    

What is manipulative is adding the inclusion and welcome of people of all races and differently abled people to the meaning of being Reconciling in Christ.  I assume that is being done in order to “grease the skids” and gain support for a more wide-spread acceptance of the inclusion and welcome of people of all sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions. 

What is questionable is the statement that the focus of being Reconciling in Christ has been expanded from being merely LGBTQ+ welcoming and inclusive to also being welcoming and inclusive of people of all races and as well as differently abled people. 

The website of ReconcilingWorks does not speak so clearly of such an expansion of concern.  Here is a link to their website – Home – ReconcilingWorks. 

True, the description of “Our Vision” and “Our Values” in the purple rectangles on their Home Page does not restrict their attention solely to LGBTQ+ persons as the purple rectangle “Our Mission” does, but still it appears that the local, Grand Canyon Synod task force – I assume following the principles of Community Organizing as outlined in the Toolkit and in order to gain wider support – is misrepresenting what it means to be Reconciling in Christ by giving their own, expanded definition and version of Reconciling in Christ.   If the local task force has a definition and meaning of being Reconciling in Christ that is not the same as the definition and meaning of ReconcilingWorks as a whole, then the local task force should not use the term Reconciling in Christ.   

I clearly remember a few years ago the tensions between the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) LGBTQ+ community and the non-BIPOC LGBTQ+ community within Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries after the dust up in the ELCA’s Sierra Pacific Synod regarding former bishop Megan Rohrer (the ELCA’s first transgender bishop).  I would be surprised if there is now such peace and harmony between these two groups that the LGBTQ+ community is willing to share equally the spotlight with the BIPOC community.  

That is what is manipulative and questionable.  What is unfair and unjust is the way in which people who are welcoming of all races, are concerned for differently abled people, and hold traditional views on marriage and sexuality who therefore vote No on the resolution that the Grand Canyon Synod become Reconciling in Christ will then be made to appear as racist and uncaring.  People who hold traditional views on marriage and sexuality will be further isolated and stigmatized.  For example, the “Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit” calls those with traditional views Laggards. (Which does not sound inclusive to me.)  Once again, the truly marginalized in the ELCA will not be the LGBTQ+ community (who constantly claim that they are marginalized) but those who hold traditional views.

Either way – whether ReconcilingWorks as a whole is now expanding its focus to include people of all races and differently enabled people or the Grand Canyon Synod Task Force is coming up with its own version of what it means to be Reconciling in Christ – either way this is an example of the strategy of Community Organizing.  ReconcilingWorks – either as an entire organization or at the Grand Canyon Synod level – is setting people up so that if they are open and welcoming to all races and differently abled people, then they certainly will be just as open and welcoming to all forms of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.