Video Ministries – Review of “The Coddling of the American Mind”

Many thanks to LCMC pastor Daniel Ostercamp for his video review of the book, “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure,” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.  A link to Daniel’s review can be found here.  A link to our YouTube channel, which contains over four dozen reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found here.    

Regarding the book, Daniel writes –

Successful societies find ways to teach their youth the timeless wisdom needed to build good lives.  In this thoughtful and accessible book, a free speech lawyer (Lukianoff) and a social psychologist (Haidt) demonstrate how a generation of Americans is being set up to fail.

Three “Great Untruths” have become part and parcel of our educational process.  Safetyism has replaced our innate need for challenge and stressors, the false advice to “always trust your feelings” has curved us ever more inward upon ourselves, and our political decisions have morphed from being based in our common humanity into a call to identify and eliminate our common enemies. 

“The Coddling of the American Mind” provides a warning of the end station of good intentions and a pathway to renew our commitment to knowledge and truth.

 




Untrustworthy Faith: Good As Your Word?

Is your word any good? Like the Old Westerns, “My word is My bond.” We like to think we are people of our word. We make a concerted effort to follow through and do what we said we’d do. We want to be seen as straight-shooting, trustworthy folks who keep their promises.

When someone doesn’t keep their word to us we get irritated, don’t we? Of course! With politicians, we just expect them to break their promises. We are disappointed when companies break their policies, their promises. We are hurt when someone breaks their word. Broken promises break our trust.

The Bible speaks about “giving your word” as making an oath. Like the president and other officials take an oath, a promise, to faithfully execute the responsibilities of their office. An oath is a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one’s future action or behavior.

We know first, that sometimes making an oath can get you into trouble. Like when King Herod who swore an oath ended up cutting off the head of John the Baptist (Mt 14:6-10). Or the time Peter perjured himself, swearing an oath that he didn’t know Jesus (Mt 26:72).

But more realistically, we know we often break our promises. In today’s world, if something better comes along, people will do what they can to walk away from their prior commitment. We break our promises to friends, our children and our spouses. If we are painfully honest with ourselves, we admit that we are not always true to our word.

Because the LORD is a God of His Word, the church is a community where we make many promises. Every time you say the Apostle’s Creed you are making a promise that you believe in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit over every thing else. If you were married in the church you promised to make Christ an active part of strengthening your marriage. When a child is baptized, parents make promises to bring their children to worship regularly and raise their children as Christ followers. When we do Affirmation of Baptism on the Sunday of the LORD’s baptism. you make a public profession of your faith, a promise, that you intend to continue in the covenant God made with you in Holy Baptism (LBW, p.201). We make lots of promises in the church. When we do, we are not making promises to the Church, but to God.

And we know. We break our oaths to God. Although we expect God to be faithful to us, we make excuses for why we are not. We rationalize why it’s okay to break our oath, our covenant, with the LORD.

We should know that God holds us to our word:

“When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.” (Num 30:2, see also Deut 23:21, Ps 116:14)  

And again:

 When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow.” (Eccl 5:4, see also Ps 22:25, 50:14, 66:13.14, Ezek 16:59 and Matt 5:33-37)

Yet, God makes a way for us sinners who don’t keep our word, who don’t stay true to the Word. Even though we distrust and despise his WORD, the LORD is always faithful. Even if we are faithless, he remains true. (2 Tim 2:13) Our God is a God of His Word. “For no word from God will ever fail.” (Lk 1:37) The LORD swears an oath on His own glory to be our God and to be with us (Deut 29:12-13, Deut 31:23). So, the LORD sends His Word in the Flesh. The Word and Promise of God is incarnated in Christ who willing takes up the Cross. The Word in the Flesh takes on all our unfaithfulness upon the cross to give us God’s Word, give us God’s faithfulness.

God makes a way for us oath breakers so that by trusting in the Word Made Flesh we are made faith filled. As we trust in the Promise Giver and Promise Keeper, we are empowered to walk in his Word. We become the faithful in Christ.

May the LORD’s unfailing love, your salvation, come to you, according to His promise. (Ps 119:41)

Your servant in the Gospel,

Pastor Douglas

 




Vision Casting for Church Leaders

Editor’s Note: Click here to register for Lutheran CORE’s next free webinar, Vision Casting for Church Leaders, led by the author.

During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.  Acts 16:9-10

An extraordinary vision launched St. Paul into new territory, setting the stage for a world history changing ministry despite all the challenges that would follow.  Every movement in Christian history has followed the same pattern including the path taken by our own Martin Luther.  God shows a way forward and believers do something about it. “What is God saying to me and how will I respond?” becomes the basis for a different trajectory because the inverse is also true: “Where there is no vision, the people perish” Proverbs 29:18.  Vision is the place where tomorrow is shaped. Vision draws in excitement, motivates believers, and determines what may be accomplished. Vision inspires creativity and is a catalyst for innovation. Vision points to a future possibility. And then comes Monday morning and we’re already exhausted.

Our mutual challenge is this; statistically, according to a research study by George Barna, four percent of pastors have a Vision for their communities. I would suggest the other ninety-six percent of us also have a Vision, but it’s a Vision maybe not as clearly articulated to inspire motivation in a congregation.  Personally, I think Barna asked the wrong questions. In a lengthier tome we could dig into the results of spiritual gift inventories and note how few of us have Apostle as our primary gift set (they love taking new territory and Vision seems to leak out of their pores) and how/why the bulk of us test out as Pastors/Teachers. No surprise, yes?  We are emotionally and spiritually committed to the people who called us. That’s what it means to be called – caring for those who invited us into that role of leadership and understand our roles as pastoring and teaching. 

Living with integrity requires an openness to lean into the negative, see past the frustration and ask, “Why is this my reality?”  That is the pivot point for all manner of Holy Discontents. Then what? This is not throwing shade at the theological systems which formed us, but were we taught next steps? I know I wasn’t, at least not initially, and I don’t claim to be an expert in how to teach others to discover their own, but I have learned a few things over the years about how to hear and effectively cast one.  Much of that came from the Beeson Institute for Church Leadership, sadly a three-year program no longer available at Asbury Seminary and I thank Dr. Dale Galloway for having the vision to have launched it.

Why doesn’t my church look like my kids’ friends?

Brian Hughes

What does an implemented Vision look like?  One example: It happened in Orinda, California and the congregation I was serving.  Both of our kids were in school in Moraga, CA.  Their friends would come over for play dates or we’d drop them off to visit.  One Saturday I noticed our backyard looked like a tiny version of the UN. There were kids from nearly every ethnic background running around and happily laughing and then it hit me – why doesn’t my congregation look like my kids’ friends? So it began.  In Orinda we welcomed a Korean ministry among us which eventually led to their pastor teaching at Luther Seminary. That vision never left and when the family ended up in Columbia, Maryland the same Vision continued.  I felt a call to that community precisely because it was so ethnically diverse and we ended up with nine services a weekend in five languages with the Ocansey Royal Family of Ada, Ghana blessing me to become an honorary chief and my wife an honorary queen mother.  A simple challenge that I heard from Christ, “Why doesn’t my church look like my kids’ friends?” 

What’s God saying to you? And if you want to do something about it, how will you cast the Vision for it?

Please register and join us online on Wednesday, February 19th for our vision casting webinar.




March for Life and Y4Life Conference in January!

The NALC Life Ministries team is once again preparing for the March for Life in Washington D.C. this January, but our plan is a little different. Instead of holding a life conference, NALC Life has decided to team up with Lutherans for Life (LFL) and participate in their events at the March! Their youth conference, Y4Life, will be held at the Hilton Arlington Landing Hotel (2399 Richmond Highway, Arlington, VA 22202) from Thursday, January 23rd, 2025 through Saturday, January 25th, 2025 and it has over 400 kids already registered (register at https://y4life.org/event/y4life-in-washington-d-c-january-23-25-2025/ ). We encourage all our NALC youth to participate in this free conference.

On Friday, January 24th we will be once again participating in the March for Life under the NALC banner, and I hope you can join us at 12th and Madison Sts., N.W at noon as we march to the U.S. Capitol. Before the march there is a prayer service at DAR Constitution Hall 1776 D St. NW (18th and D St.) Washington, DC 20006 starting at 8:30am. All our NALC members are invited to attend this service and our clergy are invited to participate (stoles are white). If you have any problems at the march, please contact Pastor Dennis Di Mauro at (703) 568-3346. Pastor Di Mauro can also host you in his home if you would like to stay overnight in DC. We can’t wait to see you in our nation’s capital this January!!

 




How Can We Be Sure of Our Salvation?

Many thanks to Dr. Mark Mattes of Grand View University, Des Moines, Iowa, for the video recordings of the lectures he recently gave on how we can be sure of our salvation.  These lectures were given at Lutheran Church of the Master in Corona del Mar, California, where Russell Lackey serves as pastor.  Until recently Russell was campus pastor at Grand View.    

Mark Mattes has been a Lutheran pastor for 38 years.  He served congregations in Illinois and Wisconsin and has taught theology at Grand View University for over 29 years.  He has authored and edited numerous books in theology and has lectured both across the country and in various parts of the world.

Concerning the theological and spiritual significance of his presentation, Mark wrote, “Many Christians look not just to Christ for the assurance of their salvation but also to changed behaviors, such as a greater engagement with prayer, Bible study, and witnessing.  They have a ‘checklist’ for evidence of conversion and ask you to mark off your progress in spiritual growth.”

In this presentation Mark shows us that this approach is simply not scriptural.  “The Bible tells us that Jesus alone is sufficient for our salvation.  If we look to changes in our lives and not to Christ alone, we jeopardize our assurance of salvation.  Anxiety, not security, is found when we look to the quality of our faith or righteousness for comfort.  Growing in devotional practices is a good thing but it does not guarantee our salvation. Nothing other than Jesus can secure those consciences anxious about God’s judgment.”

After watching these videos and reading his book on the same subject, “Ditching the Checklist,” I told Mark, “What you are saying I wish I had heard sixty years ago.  It would have saved me so much stress and anxiety.”

Here are links to his two You Tube videos.




Reconsiderations: More Than “Simply Editorial”

The 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly passed two resolutions that called for reconsideration of the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

  • Reconsideration #1: A review of specific text references that “would consider the import that marriage legally is now a covenant between individuals;” review specific wording “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples;” and “consider references to diversity of family configurations.”
  • Reconsideration #2: A fresh consideration of the “church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience” found on pages 19-21 of “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

The task force that has been appointed to work on these reconsiderations will have recommendations for the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1.  They describe these recommendations as “simply editorial.”  After the 2025 Assembly the task force will begin work on Reconsideration # 2.  This work will include recommendations which have been described as substantive.

The task force has released draft edits related to the first reconsideration, and the public comment period on these draft edits is open until January 31.  The following resources can be found on www.elca.org/Reconsiderations.

  • A copy of the entire social statement with draft edits underlined and highlighted
  • A document with Explanations of the Draft Edits, which helps connect each draft edit to the authorization from the 2022 Churchwide Assembly
  • A conversation guide for groups
  • A survey for people to submit their feedback on the draft edits

The task force has also updated the FAQs on the webpage.  Most of the resources are available in Spanish and large-print.

The task force will review the feedback at its next meeting in mid-February.  You can email comments or questions directly to the task force at [email protected], but they would prefer that people fill out the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8PMDXQM.

I am very grateful for the two opportunities I was given to have conversation via zoom with the two churchwide staff members who are working with the task force.  I found them very easy to talk with and very respectful of my views and concerns.  When I was asked what hopes I had for the process, I told them that I have no hopes for the process.  Rather it is obvious that from the beginning there have been powerful and preferred voices who have been working relentlessly to eliminate the provision for bound conscience and that if they do not succeed this time they will not stop until they eventually succeed.  Also I believe that when the ELCA does finally eliminate the provision for bound conscience, it will be committing a massive breach of trust. 

Please join with me in praying for the friend of Lutheran CORE who is a member of the task force.  Pray that he will be bold in his witness and clear, articulate, effective, and compelling in his contributions to the discussion.

I encourage friends of Lutheran CORE who are still in the ELCA to participate in this feedback process.  There are basically two things that I have to say about changes being recommended as part of Reconsideration # 1.  I have sent this communication to the leaders of the task force as my response.

Comment # 1

The original 2009 social statement was 48 pages in length.  The document containing recommendations related to Reconsideration # 1 is 51 pages in length.  True, the recommended changes are clearly highlighted and the “Explanation of the Draft Edits” is only 11 pages in length.  But why are ELCA social statements always so long, convoluted, and complex?  How many people – what percentage of people – do they really think will thoroughly and carefully read, analyze, and evaluate all those pages?  It is easy to wonder whether the reason for so much verbiage is to include things in all those words and pages that people will not catch.

Comment # 2 

I do not believe that the task force is being accurate when it calls the recommended changes in Reconsideration # 1 “simply editorial.”  Nor was a January 7 communication from the Theological Ethics Staff of the Office of the Presiding Bishop accurate when it described them as “small word changes that update the text without changing its meaning.”        

To support that claim I would point to the resolution’s calling for changes “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  The key phrase is “gender non-conforming couples.”  The 2009 social statement affirmed publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships.  The new wording being recommended goes beyond that as it considers “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples” (page 19 of the “Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits”).  On the same page it speaks of “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.”  A footnote on that page defines “gender diverse” as encompassing “a wide diversity of identities and expressions in relationships between individuals, including gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender persons.”  That kind of change is far more than “simply editorial” and “small word changes” that do not change the meaning.    True, the recommended revised version still says, “The predominant historic Christian tradition has recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, reflecting Mark 10: 6–9” (page 15).  It also states, “The Lutheran Confessions assume and reflect this understanding of marriage” (pages 15-16).  But it is neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions that inform the recommended changes, but “public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  Those with traditional views knew that the ELCA would not stop with what was approved in 2009.  Nor will it stop with what is now being recommended in this revised social statement.         

 




Free Webinar on Church Conflict

At the church in southern California where I served as pastor for forty years we had a large Christian day school that went from preschool to eighth grade.  The Christmas programs put on by the students (preschool, K-3rd grade, 4th-8th grade) were always excellent and we knew that for many parents attending their child’s program would be the only time when they would hear the Christmas message. 

The reality was that rehearsals and preparations for the programs basically took over the sanctuary from late November through the middle of December.  All the chancel furniture was removed and one hundred forty chairs were set up in the chancel.  The chancel was set up for the rehearsals early Monday morning and it stayed that way throughout the week until Friday afternoon when the chairs were removed and the chancel furniture was put back for Sunday morning.  Normally it all worked out just fine.

But one year the ninety-nine-year-old mother of a prominent member died in early December.  My first thought was, “I am toast.  No matter what happens, I will not survive this one unscathed.”  If I tell the prominent member that the sanctuary is not available for her mother’s funeral, I am toast.  If I tell the day school teachers that they are going to have to remove all the chairs and put the chancel furniture back an extra time, I am toast.  I saw no way that this one was going to resolve easily and well.

But then the prominent member told me that she wanted to have a memorial service for her mother the following September on what would have been her mother’s 100th birthday.  I told her, “That is a wonderful idea!”  My heart said, “Thanks be to God!” 

But I have to admit that most of the conflict situations that I had to deal with during my forty years of pastoral ministry did not work out so well or so easily.  So I am very grateful to Lutheran CORE vice president and retired NALC pastor Brian Hughes for offering a free webinar entitled “Managing Church Conflicts without losing your passion, soul, or job” on Wednesday, November 20 from 11 AM – 12 noon Eastern Standard Time.  Here is a link where you can sign up for the free webinar. I have signed up, and I encourage you to do the same.  Brian writes regarding the webinar, “Pastors and other leaders are usually put in the crosshairs of church conflicts as ideas, needs, and personal desires jockey for position.  Join us as we examine stages of conflicts, types of conflicts, and how to bring down the temperature or, when required, press through to a new consensus.”

 




Is Even Greater Conflict on the Horizon?

Structural and governance changes will most certainly come about from the work of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  An all-encompassing redefinition of mission and ministry will most certainly result from the recommendations, expectations, requirements or whatever that will be laid upon congregations because of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  The provision for bound conscience will very possibly be eliminated as part of the review and re-evaluation of the 2009 human sexuality social statement.  As I keep up on the latest of what may be coming for unsuspecting ELCA congregations, I realize that conflict within congregations might only become more severe leading up to and after the next ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August 2025. 

In June of 2013 – just a little over a year before I retired – the synod in which I was rostered, Southwest California, elected the ELCA’s first openly gay synodical bishop.  That election threw the congregation where I had already been serving for thirty-nine years into total turmoil and conflict, and that was a conflict that continued throughout and beyond my final twelve months there.  And I found that since I had already announced my retirement because I would be leaving after forty years there, I was totally unable to provide leadership, guidance, and stability in the situation.  That was a situation that the congregation would have to work through without me.  I was not in a position to help them in any way during my final year there.

Friends of Lutheran CORE who are a part of ELCA congregations will find themselves in many different kinds of situations in regard to the upcoming changes in the ELCA.  Do any of the following describe your situation?

  • In some ELCA congregations there will be strong agreement among the pastor, leaders, and members that the time to leave the ELCA is now and action needs to be taken as soon as possible in case the coming changes in structure and governance make it even more difficult if not impossible even for former ALC congregations to leave with their property.

  • In some congregations there is no way that a motion to disaffiliate from the ELCA will prevail.  Even if a majority are in favor of leaving, they will not be able to achieve two separate votes with at least two-thirds of those voting approving a motion to disaffiliate. 

  • In some congregations the pastor has kept information regarding what is actually happening in the ELCA from the people.

  • Some friends of Lutheran CORE are the only one in their congregation (or one of very few in their congregation) that is aware and concerned.  They have faithfully sought to inform others, but their efforts fall on deaf ears. 

  • Some former LCA congregations and mission congregations started by the ELCA believe that they would never receive permission from their synod council to leave with their property and/or would not be able to pay back to the synod the mission start funds expended by the synod that the synod would demand be repaid.

  • Some congregations are too diminished and/or the membership does not have the energy left to deal with the issue.  If they are aware of S13.24, they are just hoping that the synod will not use that provision in the model constitution for synods against them to justify the synod’s moving in, taking over, and possibly closing the congregation.

  • I know of a vibrant, Biblically faithful, Spanish language ministry where the synod owns the building and most of the salary of the pastor is paid by the synod and churchwide.

There are Biblically faithful, confessional pastors in the ELCA who do not believe that the right approach for their congregation would be to seek to disaffiliate from the ELCA.  There are many reasons for this.  Some feel that a motion to disaffiliate would not prevail.  Some fear that it would only be disruptive in the life of the congregation.  Some believe that they can keep the changes coming in the ELCA from impacting their congregations.  We need to be praying for these ELCA pastors and their congregations.  

We are very grateful for the friends of Lutheran CORE who are members of other Lutheran church bodies who are concerned about and regularly pray for their fellow Christians still in the ELCA. 

With the changes that are certainly coming and the wide variety of situations that friends of Lutheran CORE find themselves in, Brian Hughes is planning a series of webinars for upcoming months.  The themes for the webinars will follow the life of Moses and his leading the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt through the wilderness into the Promised Land.  Here are the planned topics.

November – Conflict Management

Groaning under Egyptian captivity; understanding what is coming in the ELCA and the stages and types of church conflict that might engender and how to navigate them without burning out

February – Vision Casting

The hope of the Promised Land; effective ways of pointing to a preferred future

March – Grief and Change

Loss and renewal in the wilderness; understanding the process of transition and how to maintain momentum and forward direction

April – Organizational Structure and Succession Planning

New rules for a new reality; constitution and bylaws for the mission field

Stay tuned.

 




Video Ministry – “Understanding Evil From a Christian Perspective”

Many thanks to Ken Coughlan for giving us a video review of his recent book, “Understanding Evil from a Christian Perspective.”  Ken is a Christian apologist and religion teacher at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Glen Burnie, Maryland.  He earned his JD from the College of William & Mary and after practicing law for over two decades, graduated with honors from Luther Rice College and Seminary with an MA in apologetics.  He is a frequent speaker, preacher, and teacher on a wide variety of apologetic topics.

A link to Ken’s video book review can be found here. A link to our YouTube channel, which contains over fifty reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found here.

Ken Coughlan introduces this book as a comprehensive explanation of how Christians understand evil.  What does it mean?  Can it exist alongside a loving God?  How did it enter the world?  Is God doing anything about it?  The book is written so that it will be accessible to the layperson without skimping on content.

 




Who Is Like the Lord Our God?

As a friendly commenter noted, my last article needed some serious editing. It is never good for me to find myself writing too close to a deadline; the result is always technically correct but dense, jargon-heavy prose that obscures what it seeks to clarify.  My apologies to all.

To restate succinctly what I was driving at in my last installment, in contrast to what any group might claim, we can tell what that group truly holds sacred on the one hand by what things, actions, and speech they extol and prescribe, and on the other, those at which they take offense.  Sacredness is defined for a group by what they revere and what they revile.  That which is prescribed constitutes the group’s dogmas or orthodoxy.  That which is proscribed or treated as blasphemous is like a photographic negative of the same thing, defining the sacred by contrasting it to its inverse, the profane.  This is a sociological and functional, not theological, definition of the sacred.

I ended my last article by saying, “Progressive Christianity quickly ceases to be formally Christian precisely because it holds different things to be sacred than does the Biblical, Apostolic faith … it represents a different religion, not a different way to be Christian.”

Though I differ with his work on many points, one thing that the enormously popular psychologist Jordan Peterson has helped me understand is that human thought is intrinsically and inescapably hierarchical.  Believing that we can actually think in a truly egalitarian manner is not merely logically, but neurologically incorrect; our brains could literally not handle the amount of incoming sensory data presented to it by the rest of our nervous system if it did not prioritize some information over others.  Thinking hierarchically is identical to thinking at all.

In a hierarchy, whatever occupies a higher position determines the relative value of everything beneath it.  Why in CPR training do they use the acronym “ABC”—airway, breathing, circulation—to anchor the care provider in the moment of crisis?  Because while the heart is needed to pump oxygen to the rest of the body, the lungs must be filled with oxygen before it can get to the heart, and the lungs can only be filled by artificial respiration if the airway is in turn clear.  The operation of that which is lower in the hierarchy is contingent upon the proper function of that which is higher.

What is true in an operational hierarchy is equally true in a conceptual hierarchy.  In fact, you can determine an idea’s place in a conceptual hierarchy precisely by identifying whether another idea is dependent upon or foundational to it.  Within a religious schema, this translates to what is holy, holier, or holiest.

While in seminary, one of my professors quoted one of his own graduate school mentors, lauding to us the sage wisdom that “your theology can never be any better than your anthropology.”  I made a phone call that afternoon to a mentor of my own, a double Ph.D. whose own generous but well-defined orthodoxy had catapulted him to a position of great responsibility in his own Christian tradition as an ecumenical theologian, to check whether my response was too reactionary.  “That,” he said, confirming my intuition in the carefully measured tone of voice I had come to associate with him at his scholarly best, “seems to me to be precisely backward.”

The sentiment commended by my professor placed humanity (or humanity’s assertions about God) above God’s revelatory self-disclosure.  In fact, its effect was to negate any possibility of the latter by placing humanity above God epistemologically.  This professor’s spouse, when presiding at the Eucharist during the final worship service I attended at that school, began the Lord’s Prayer with the unbiblical and self-congratulatory phrase, “Our father and mother in heaven.”  I refused to receive Communion that day not because her ego was out of control (the sins of the presider do not invalidate the grace of God) but because I was no longer sure it actually was the Eucharist, and that was because I was no longer sure the Christian God, the God that commanded His people to “have no other gods before Him,” was in fact being worshiped in that space.

If Christ is not “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), if it is not true that “if we have seen [Jesus], we have seen the Father” (John 14:9), and the Bible is not in fact a revelatory portrait of that Christ to us, something—in this case humanity—must replace the Triune God in the highest position within the religious hierarchy, whether historically Christian vocabulary is used to describe it or not.

By definition, that is some other religion than Christianity.