In 1998, I moved with my wife and my 3 year old son to Pembroke Pines, Florida.  I was sent there to start a new congregation in an area of Broward County that was located between I-75 and the Florida Everglades. 

It was an exciting time, but also a little frightening.  Would I have what it takes to knock on 5000 doors?  Would I really be able to gather enough people to form a worshipping community within six months?  Would this group of people be able to grow enough in numbers and giving to officially organize as a congregation?   

The answer to each of those questions was yes!  We held our first worship six months after I arrived in Pembroke Pines.  There were over 100 people there on the first Sunday.  Two years later, we voted to become a congregation, with over 100 members.  Not only that, but our congregation was multi-cultural, reflecting the area in which we were located.  Finally, we had lots of children and families.  Each week, over a third of the congregation was under the age of 18.

Everything was going as planned except for one thing.  We had been unable to purchase property on which to build a place to worship, hold Sunday School, adult Bible studies, and have an office.  On three occasions, we almost made it, but something fell through.  To this day, 25 years later, that congregation still has to rent space every Sunday to hold worship and Sunday School.

Why was it so difficult?  There were several factors.  Broward County was running out of land.  The cities had reached the edge of the Everglades and could go no further. What land remained was at a premium.  In addition, all of the land that remained was covered in muck.  To develop a piece of property, you had to “de-muck”, which means to scrape off all of the muck until you reached limestone. Then you had to re-fill the land with suitable soil for building.  At the same time, you had to set aside a third or more of the property for wetlands mitigation.

However, that’s not the primary reason it was so hard for a congregation to buy property.  The real reason that it was difficult was that the local municipalities, along with the county government, did not want any more churches.  You heard that right.  Churches were not wanted because they didn’t add to the tax base.  Furthermore, I suspect they were seen to be sectarian and divisive in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious community.  All of the things normally done by churches and synagogues could be done just as well by the schools, libraries and public parks, it was thought.

Why do I drag up the past?  Because I thought at the time, and still think today, that what happened to my congregation 25 years ago may be a preview of what will happen to many congregations in the 21^st Century.  As church attendance drops, as more people identify as having no religious affiliation, and as the Church is seen more and more to be regressive and hateful, I expect government to seek to limit the freedom of the Church. One way to do that, among others, is through zoning and land use laws.  That’s what was used in Broward County.  Keep congregations from buying property and building facilities, and you limit their influence.

A further reason that I think this might be the future for many congregations is the growing denominational conflict which many of us have already experienced.  Over the past 25 years, Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists, among others, have learned again and again that they may have to choose between faithfulness to the Word of God and owning property.   Sometimes, when that happens, there are enough people who have been “de-churched” to form a worshipping community.  Often, however, all that remains are Christians who have no church.  I have spoken to faithful Lutherans, who on being de-churched cannot find an orthodox Lutheran congregation within a reasonable driving distance. 

Unless we have a model of how to “do Church” without property and buildings, many faithful Lutherans will remain de-churched.  When I first faced this problem 25 years ago, there wasn’t a model available to me for doing mission without property and a building.  I had to do the best I could. 

At the end of the 20^th Century, there were two primary models with which I was familiar.  The first was the pastor centered model.  The second was the program centered model.  Both of those depend on a congregation owning property and facilities.  In the pastor centered model, the congregation gathered each week for worship and fellowship.  The pastor did ministry to and for the members in the building owned by the congregation.  (Evangelism consisted of the pastor visiting individuals in the community.)

The program centered model also required property and facilities, but more than what was owned by a pastoral centered congregation.  It was through the varied programs that the congregation did ministry to its members and reached out to the unchurched.  The better the programs and the more varied, the more people could be reached.  More than one called pastor and multiple lay ministers were required to run the programs of the congregation.  In order for all of this to happen, however, adequate facilities were a must.

When I was a pastor developer, property was key to the viability of a new church.  Generally speaking, the pastor developer was expected to locate more than 5 acres for purchase.  That’s because the goal was for new congregations to grow beyond the pastor centered model to the program centered model.  You’ll need more than 5 acres to build the facilities to sustain a program centered congregation.  On more than one occasion, I heard of a mission congregation that was shut down because it couldn’t find enough land.  In spite of what was said about “the Church is not a building”, buildings were considered essential.

I fear that if the Lutheran Church in the 21^st Century follows that model, it will be difficult to plant enough new congregations to reach the thousands of un-churched Lutherans in North America.  Even less will it be adequate to do the kind of mission that is required in our post-Christian society.   What models do we have for starting new congregations today?  What models do we have for a time when there are not enough pastors?  Not enough land?  Not enough facilities?  Do we simply say, “Starting a new congregation here is not a viable option?” 

Of equal importance is the question of how to grow a congregation.  What alternatives are there to the traditional Sunday School model, with accompanying Children’s and Youth programs?  Can a program model of ministry be replaced by a disciple making model?  Are there creative ways to raise up pastors and lay ministers in places where a pastor can’t be afforded?  We need answers to those questions if we want to do mission in the 21^st Century. 

After reading two recent communications from ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, the only conclusion I can come to is this.  She just does not get it.

The first communication is dated September 3, 2021 and is entitled, “We Are the Body of Christ.”  A link to that communication can be found here. In that letter Bishop Eaton writes about the great, long-standing animosity between Jews and Gentiles, and about how in the early church, these two groups of people were able to be brought together.  She refers to the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 as well as to the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and to how “the dispute between the two groups was healed.”  She said that this healing “went to the very core of what it meant to be part of the church.”  She then said, “They were one body.  We are one body. . . . Yes, we have significant disagreement about very important issues, but our cultural and political differences cannot dissolve this bond.”  I was absolutely floored by what she wrote next.  “We can take heart from the example of the early church.  If, by the Spirit’s power, they could set aside their differences – which were far greater than any of ours – then we, too, by the power of the Sprit, can live into the unity that already exists in Christ.”

She just does not get it.  The differences between confessional Lutherans today who hold to the authority of the Bible and who believe that the Lutheran Confessions are a reliable interpretation of the Bible and those who would call themselves the “progressives” are not far less than, instead they are far greater than the differences between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.  For example –

No one in the early church led the young people of that church in denouncing the views of the more traditional folks as a lie from Satan that needs to be renounced – unlike what happened at the 2018 ELCA youth gathering. 

The apostles did not ignore, dismiss, minimize, or marginalize the Hellenists when they expressed their concern that their widows were being neglected (Acts 6).  Instead, they appointed seven deacons to resolve the matter.  In contrast, those with traditional views are usually totally ignored when they express their concerns to those in positions of power.    

Heresies in the early church were dealt with (for example, see Colossians 2) rather than just accepted or even celebrated as culturally sensitive ways to contextualize the Gospel.

After the early church made their decision in Acts 15 as to how uncircumcised Gentiles could be a part of the church, they did not then a few years later claim to have decided something else.  Their honesty and integrity in holding to what they had decided stands in sharp contrast with the way in which the ELCA has expanded and re-interpreted what was actually voted on and approved in 2009 so that they are now able to embrace the full LGBTQIA+ agenda. 

The apostles did not break promises and ignore commitments as the ELCA has done by its not giving a place of honor and respect to traditional views and those who hold them.  I have heard of white male seminarians with traditional views being told to put tape over their mouths and not speak.  I also know of people whose ordination candidacy process was cancelled or who were denied entrance into the candidacy process because of their traditional views.   

Yes, Bishop Eaton just does not get it.  The differences between confessional Lutherans and those who would call themselves the “progressives” are not far less than, instead they are far greater than the differences between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.

Even more out of touch with reality is what Bishop Eaton wrote in the second communication, which is dated October 20, 2021, and is entitled, “A pastoral letter from the ELCA presiding bishop regarding the actions of the Reformed Church in America General Synod 2021.”  A link to that communication can be found here.  In that letter she told about one of the ELCA’s full communion partners, which had recently met in General Synod.  The final Vision 2020 Report was presented to the assembly, with its recommendations for the future of the denomination “with regard to staying together . . . and grace-filled separation.”  Bishop Eaton commended that church body for “adopting regulations to provide an unobstructed pathway for those local churches that will depart the denomination.”  She praised their actions, which she says “reflect the RCA’s commitment to walking together, respecting differences, and affirming common mission and ministry.”  She described the spirit of the synod as “conciliatory and hope-filled, as delegates shared their disagreements in the bond of peace.” 

What she then says in the next paragraph is totally out of touch with reality.  She talked about how the ELCA has “traveled this same road.”  She uses language from the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” when she says, “It is possible, by the grace of God, to be a church that makes an active choice to live with the disagreement among us, and ‘to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral care, and respect.”  How out of touch can you get?  There may have been those who – back in 2009 – were deceived into buying that line so that they were willing to vote in favor of the human sexuality social statement and the changes in ministry policies.  But I do not know anyone today who continues to believe that the ELCA has any plans to “honor bound conscience.”

I know that there are ELCA bishops and synod councils who have been gracious in their dealings with congregations who were voting to disaffiliate from the ELCA.   But I have also heard many stories of bullying, intimidating, threats to take property, and efforts to get as many dollars as possible from congregations who wish to leave.  I know of retired ELCA pastors who were told by their synods that they would be removed from the ELCA clergy roster if they did not leave a congregation that has voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA.  I know of a seminarian who was no longer welcome at an ELCA seminary once the congregation that she was affiliated with began the process of leaving the ELCA. 

Too many ELCA congregations have not experienced a “grace-filled separation.”  Too many ELCA congregations did not find “an unobstructed pathway” when they began the process of voting to leave the ELCA. I am certain that what Bishop Eaton wrote in her October 20 communication is something that she wishes were true and that she desires to be true.  But why does she not know that it is not true?  Does she really think that people will believe what she wrote?