The temptation is to start with a complicated explanation of doctrine, or give a history lesson. Some people love to talk about such things, and we can work that in with people who do. But we can at least start with something more simple. It’s a temptation to focus on what we aren’t instead of what we are, to define our faith in terms of negatives instead of positives - and to launch into polemics against everybody else. I was thinking about how to explain Lutheranism in a way that won’t simply alienate everyone. I wrote the following little piece on my Substack, and shared it on social media, mainly for local people on my feed. I hope it will serve as a 30,000 foot flyover of who we are, and do so in a way where all Christians can find a touchstone of commonality with us, and maybe be intrigued enough to “Come and see!”

I’m sharing this just in case some of you have had similar thoughts.

Lutherans as Evangelical Catholics

"Come and see!"

Aug 14, 2026

I live and serve in Gretna, Louisiana: a delightful small city with lots of Christians. Our city is mostly Roman Catholic, with a number of Evangelical churches as well. Salem Lutheran Church, along with St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, has traditionally been a pillar of our historically German city. But we are the only Lutheran church in town, and a lot of our neighbors don’t really know much about us. And being involved in our community, I get asked about it a lot.

Maybe the easiest way to sum us up is that we are Evangelical and Catholic. We are “Evangelical Catholics.” So we share a lot with all of our Christian neighbors.

Evangelical

With our Evangelical brothers and sisters we share several things:

• The Bible - We hold the Bible to be God’s inspired Word, and it is our highest authority. We teach the Bible to both young and old, and Bible class is an important part of our life together.

• The Gospel - Central to our faith and life is the Gospel: the good news that Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from sin, death, and the devil. That’s why our churches were called “Evangelical” 500 years ago.

• Preaching - Because of the importance of the cross and the Scriptures, preaching is central to us and to our worship. Our sermons are grounded in the Bible, and our preachers are expected to study the Scriptures in the original languages.

• Music - We are sometimes called “the singing church,” with a long history of hymns that are sung by all Christians. We have an organ and hymnals. Our services themselves are sung by the pastor and the people.

Catholic

With our Catholic brothers and sisters we share several things:

• Liturgy - Our Sunday Divine Service is the Mass. As celebrant, I wear traditional priestly vestments. In our parish, we chant, genuflect, make the sign of the cross, ring bells, and on festive occasions, burn incense. Our Masses reflect the old Catholic form: we kneel at the communion rail, often communing on the tongue, with a traditional “east-facing” altar. We believe in reverence and dignity in worship.

• Sacraments - We teach that Holy Baptism regenerates and saves. We confess that Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. We believe in priestly Confession and Absolution. We believe in the divine Presence, that God uses physical means to manifest His true presence with us.

• Church History - We see ourselves in Catholic continuity with the apostles, with the early church, and with the medieval church. We confess the ecumenical creeds. We often quote the church fathers and hold the saints in high regard as models of the Christian life. We celebrate traditional feast days and the traditional calendar, including Lent, Eastertide, and Advent. Our readings follow the ancient one year lectionary. Our parish prays the daily monastic prayer office called Matins during the week and on Sunday morning.

Evangelical Catholic

Salem Lutheran Church is both Evangelical and Catholic. Our biblical, Christian worldview makes us conservative on issues of life and marriage and the role of authority. We are a member congregation of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. We are patriotic. We support our community. We believe in being good neighbors. Our parish is a friendly and familial community. We eat a lot of meals together, laugh together, work together, and take care of each other. Our children are active in both learning the Bible and in participating fully in our services.

The best way to see what we are about is to, in the words of our Lord, “Come and see!” (John 1:39). Salem Lutheran Church is at 418 4th Street (on the corner of Amelia Street), in Gretna.

• We pray Matins Monday through Friday at 10:00 am.

• Sunday Matins is at 8:30 am. Sunday Bible Class is at 9:00 am. Sunday Divine Service (Mass) is at 10:00 am.

• We also have a Wednesday evening Divine Service (Mass) at 7:30 pm.

For more information, call or text me, the Rev. Larry Beane, at 504-256-3440.

This creative consecration involving a filet mignon on the altar, and additions to the Words of Institution, was posted on YouTube by an LCMS congregation. Since it has been taken down, I am removing the dead-linked video and the reference to the name of the congregation. I have no oversight over this pastor and congregation, and whatever the DP does or doesn’t do is above my paygrade.

But it is within my paygrade to encourage LCMS pastors and congregations not to monkey with the consecration.

Preachers are to proclaim the Gospel in their own words - and to do so with fidelity to the text. Pastors often say ex corde prayers. But not even the most outlandish CoWo congregation practices ex corde readings of Scripture. They have enough respect for God’s Word not to monkey with it, add to it, subtract from it, or insert stories or analogies or explanations based on the food they like to eat or some such. I have never seen a CoWo congregation in which the pastor or the lay lector doesn’t just read the readings right out of the book. There is no sense that doing so is boring or placing limits upon the Holy Spirit.

But when it comes to the Word of Institution, CoWo celebrants sometimes do monkey with the words. They change this or that, or try to make it sound spontaneous. Why they do this with the Sacrament but not the Word is beyond me. It suggests that they hold the Word with more reverence than the Sacrament. And this is truly bizarre, given the origin of the Words of Institution: they are a conflation of the words and actions of Christ from the four Biblical texts in which the consecratory narrative is found.

I’m not writing for the sake of the pastor of this church. I have learned that there is a reason for the line in the movie The Matrix : “We have a rule. We never free a mind once it’s reached a certain age. It’s dangerous. The mind has trouble letting go.” Rather, I’m writing to pastors and laity who already have the blick and who are more able to consider why just sticking with the words in the book is best.

The Verba as found in LSB pages 162, 179, 197, 209, and 217 are the same. Whether you speak them or chant them, you’re saying the same thing without mentioning knives and forks. The rubrics in LSB - though admittedly minimalistic - are the same: two signs of the cross to indicate which bread and which wine are being consecrated. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel with the consecration any more than there is reason to reinvent the wheel when the pastor (hopefully the pastor) reads the appointed Gospel for the day.

This is not the place for creativity. The black is to be read (or sung). The red is to be done. There is a reason why none of our hymnals have ever said: “Here the celebrant just makes up his own consecration.” Pastors, when you use the pronoun “My” in the consecration, you are not the antecedent: Jesus is. These are the words of Jesus. These are not your words. So read them straight and don’t monkey with them. Whatever you do will not be an improvement over Holy Scripture.

There is also a good reason why there isn’t a rubric in the hymnal telling the celebrant to put a dead animal on the altar. Think about those optics. It should go without saying that Christian altars are eucharistic, they are not intended for animal sacrifice, or even the hint of such a thing. And when Jesus speaks of the cup, there is good reason to actually put wine in it rather than just using it as a pretty prop. And when the priest’s host is used, there is a good reason for the celebrant to consume it, and not leave it broken on the altar and just walk away from it. There is also a good reason that for as long as we have been having eucharists, the celebrant had the elements on the table to consecrate, and then distribute from there - rather than having elements scattered willy-nilly all over the place. How can anybody be sure that his individually-held elements were consecrated at all? And if we simply assume for the sake of argument that they were, what happens to them after? The pastor cannot steward the mysteries in such a case. Could someone pocket the consecrated elements and save them for later? And what of the reliquiae? What happens to the blood of Christ remaining in these disparate cups? Hopefully, they were collected somehow and treated reverently, and not just shoved into pockets or dumped in the garbage.

We have been consecrating bread and wine according to the words and example of Jesus for nearly two millennia now. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

And I’m quite certain that this is the only pastor in the history of Christendom that has ever used a steak as a prop during the consecration, or inserted the words “fork” or “knife” in the Words of Institution. There is a good reason that our confessions are adamant that we Lutherans are not liturgical innovators, that we have retained the Mass, that we believe in decorum and reverence and dignity in our worship, as opposed to spectacles.

Since the video was taken down - and I’m more interested in using this as a cautionary tale rather than to call attention to this congregation and pastor (again, the DP will either do something about it, or he won’t. Not my district, not my circus) - what follows below is a transcript of how this consecration went. Let it be a warning against the temptation to correct or improve on what Jesus, the apostles, the Holy Spirit, and generations of pastors have bequeathed to us. If it ain’t broke…

And I’m disappointed that nobody picked up on the COW reference. All gallows humor aside, some commentators were whining about the re-creation of the Commission on Worship. The fact that there are so many liturgical monkeyshines - even regarding the Holy Sacrament itself - should convince everyone that we need the return of the COW.

The Eucharistic Prayer

The Improper Preface

The altar shall be set with an empty chalice, a paten, a priest’s host, a small host, a shot glass of wine, a filet mignon on a plate, a fork, and a knife. The celebrant says:

Probably my favorite thing to eat is filet mignon. I just love a great steak.

The celebrant picks up the steak. And waving it around, he says:

Nothing does it for me quite like it. It’s awesome.

The celebrant places the steak back on the altar and says:

But you know what I’ve noticed is that when I have eaten all day long a bunch of junk food and just kind of nourished myself in all the bad things, when something really good is presented, I find myself not all that hungry. I just kind of pick. I don’t really think I need this because I’m so full already of all the stuff I shouldn’t have eaten. But when it is served, and because I love it so much, I always want to eat it, no matter when or what. And so what I do is go to the table and I take a knife and a fork,

Here the celebrant takes up the knife and the fork, and says:

and I cut myself a piece, usually not raw.

Here the celebrant slices into the steak with the utensils. He continues:

It will be cooked. I have myself a bite.

The Uncomfortable Words

The celebrant brings the steak towards his mouth with the fork, but stops short of eating it. He places the knife and fork back on the altar, and motions to the steak with his hands and says:

This is much what communion is like. When you came in here this morning, you received this little chalice, and on one side was a little piece of bread, and the other is wine. And as a church, we take communion together as a family, all at the same time.

The celebrant picks up the fork, and continues:

And why I use this analogy is because what God gives us in this meal is something that satisfies and fulfills and offers spiritual nourishment unlike we’ve ever had. And God also gives us the means,

The celebrant picks up the knife, and continues:

the vehicles, if you will, to take this gift

The celebrant taps the knife and fork on the steak, and says:

and to feast in communion.

The celebrant removes the paten from the chalice, and says:

God takes a different means:

The celebrant removes the priest’s host from the paten, and says:

a piece of bread, a cup of wine.

The celebrant touches the empty chalice.

They’re the means by which we receive the feast. They are the knife and fork, if you will, that God uses to bring us the fullness of Himself in body and blood.

So this bread and this wine is not special at all. It’s just bread and wine. What makes it unique is it’s connected to the Lord, to the promise of God’s Word, that this is His body and blood. And so, what this knife and fork of bread and wine become is the vehicles, the means by which He feeds us the sustaining grace that is ours through Christ.

Now let me warn you: if all week long you’ve been tasting and filling yourself on a bunch of junk food, you’re not going to see the need for this meal. You’ll be like the Pharisee and think of all the good things you do. You’re not all that hungry for something you really need. But Jesus knows you and says you’ve been eating a lot of junk food this week. You put a lot of the promises of the world in you, thinking you were satisfied.

But there’s a meal that not only satisfies, but it gives grace and fills. You become more deeply spiritual through this means.

The Words of Our Lord - Kinda Sorta

On that night when communion was first celebrated, Jesus celebrated it with the disciples. On that table would have been a number of different chalices, cups. Each one had a very unique meaning, and they would read parts of Scripture and talk about that particular cup, and this one.

And there was this cup in the middle, and no one ever touched it because it was the cup of promise that whoever would take from this cup one day would be the promised Messiah, and that’s how He would identify Himself was through drinking from this cup. And so that night, everyone is going through the ritual of the Passover, and the Bible then says, “Our Lord Jesus Christ on that night, He took bread, and when He broke it,

The celebrant breaks the priest’s host in two, holding out his arms, and continues:

He gave it to the disciples, and He said, ‘Take and eat. This is My body given for you. Do this to remember Me.’” So pick up your fork, the bread, and receive the body of Christ.

Here the celebrant communes on the wafer, and not on the pieces of the priest’s host, and continues:

And then Jesus reaches for that cup, the cup of redemption, which would identify Him as the promised Messiah,

The celebrant holds up the empty chalice and continues:

and He says: “Drink of it, all of you. For this cup is the New Covenant in My blood, poured out for you, for the forgiveness of all your sins.

The celebrant replaces the empty chalice on the altar, and continues:

As often as you drink this, remember Me.” So pick up the knife. This is the blood of Jesus given for you.

The celebrant communes from the small shot glass.

The Merciful Ending

The celebrant invites the congregation to pray, saying:

“Let’s pray. Father we pray that through this meal we become satisfied. We feel comforted and assured that Your grace is always sufficient, that no matter what, Lord, that You will be enough. No matter the junk food we’ve eaten all week, no matter how far we’ve run, no matter how much we’ve hid, Lord, You’ll find us at this table, and You feed us and you fulfill us and wrap Your arms of grace around us and remind us that we are Your dearly loved children. So Father we thank you again for feeding us at Your table. We pray this in the name of Christ. Amen.

Here the celebrant departs, leaving on the altar the empty chalice, the two consecrated halves of the priest host, the small cup with the reliquiae, the steak, and the fork and knife.

How many times have you heard this sentence: “We should not argue over adiaphora”? However, that’s exactly what we should be arguing over. For if we’re arguing over things that are not adiaphora, we have bigger problems. For example, arguing over the Trinity, or the Two Natures of Christ, the literal resurrection, the atonement - these are dogmas, not things that are “neither required nor prohibited by Scripture.”

So yes, let’s argue about adiaphora. For that is how iron sharpens iron. That is how men discuss things. And since the male-only pastorate is not an adiaphoron, it is also not an adiaphoron that our pastors should be masculine. We don’t facilitate conversations about our feelings over a Cosmo and a box of chocolates. We discuss, debate, and argue. And since the specific range of adiaphora is literally infinite - it stands to reason that some adiaphora are better than others. It also stands to reason that some adiaphora are really bad ideas.

As Pastor Karl Hess has argued, Equality is the god of the American interim. And as Dr. Gene Edward Veith entitled one of his books, we live in postmodern times. And as for the church’s worship, we are pressured, in the name of Adiaphora (which could almost be a god of the Stoics), to accept anything and everything in worship as adiaphora. And by adiaphora, they mean “anything goes.” Nothing is out of bounds, because there are no boundaries. For saying that one worship practice is superior to another is to offend the postmodern god of the American Interim. And we simply can’t have that!

I have heard a lot of this sentiment lately: “Worship style doesn’t matter.” But adiaphora doesn’t translate to “doesn’t matter.” Scripture doesn’t specify whether the Words of Institution are to be chanted or spoken. Nor does scripture say that they cannot be belched. Since belching the Words of Institution is a practice that is neither commanded nor prohibited by Scripture, and since everyone’s “context” is different, who am I to say that chanting the verba is any better, or any worse, than belching them? Who knows? A completely burped service might attract a whole new demographic to the body of Christ. And just maybe there is a wad of foundation grant money just lying around somewhere waiting to be snorted up like a line of coke through a Benjamin in a bad 1970s cop film for such an entrepreneurial endeavor. Catch the vision: An Exciting New Way To Do Church.

Before someone takes the idea and runs with it, I’ve already worked out the copyright with the aquilae legis over at CPH. So don’t. This is obviously an argumentum ad absurdum.

A lot of the guys who say we should not argue over adiaphora attend a conference called “Best Practices.” Unless they are looking at different doctrine to consider, this implies that some adiaphora are indeed better than others, not all adiaphora are created equal, or with a nod to George Orwell, “Some adiaphora are more equal than other adiaphora.”

And to throw a wrench into the whole works, the darling passage from the Book of Concord that the anti-liturgical faction of the LCMS likes to point to, FC SD 10, actually does put an asterisk on the definition of adiaphoron: “When there are useless, foolish displays [Latin: inutiles nugas et puerilia spectacula, German: unnütze, närrische Spektakel [Schauspiele]] that are not profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference” (FC SD 10:7).

Therefore, even though belching the Words of Institution isn’t in the Bible, it is an example of the kind of Scheißspiel that fails the adiaphora test. So what about handing out slices of pizza by a peripatetic preacher playing standup comedian during a sermon in a seminary chapel? Such practices are an argument that the mournful chanting of the Kyrie should not be considered an adiaphoron.

But since the Bible doesn’t ever mention pizza, this must be an adiaphoron, right? If this doesn’t constitute a närrische Spektakel [Schauspiele] or a puerilia spectacula, I’m not sure what would qualify. Moreover, I argue that profaning sacred spaces is never an adiaphoron. Desecration is really not a component of Christian liberty, in my opinion. Could you imagine someone pulling such a stunt in the sanctuarium of the tabernacle or temple? How about at the altar of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher? Well, if not, then why would someone do that in the proximity to the rest of the holy altars where the Lord’s body and blood are consecrated (if you believe that sort of thing, as my wife is wont to say)? Why shouldn’t the pastor practice his putting on the carpet of the sanctuarium, as I saw once right next to an LCMS altar (Lord, have mercy!). The old saying, “Nothing is sacred” comes to mind. How can someone not be scandalized to see sacred space desecrated? How can someone not fear God’s wrath for treating the holy (sanctus) like the common (profanus)?

How sad that Christians are put to shame by Muslims and Buddhists, who would never do the things in their houses of worship that some Christians (including some Lutherans) do. Why? Well, though they are misguided, they actually believe their religion. Their serious belief is confessed by their serious actions. Their serious actions reflect and confess their serious belief. Although they are wrong, they worship the way they confess. Their orandi reflects their credendi. We can’t fault them for their consistency. Imagine what it must look like for them to see a Christian preacher at a Christian worship service dressed in a cow costume with dangling udders (at least that one was not LCMS, not this time, not today, Satan. Deo gratias!).

So let’s argue about adiaphora. For if we stifle those discussions, we will eventually be arguing about things that are not adiaphora. For our orandi will shape our credendi, whether we like it or not.

Thank you to the Rev. Dr. Matthew Richard for yesterday’s piece on adiaphora. Here is a link to past Gottesblog posts regarding adiaphora.

By Peter Scaer

Note: An LCMS podcaster recently claimed that the communion practice in his large church was the same as that of the synod convention. However, the synod convention Divine Service did not open the altar to those who were not in communion with the LCMS. Indeed, the establishment of communion (altar and pulpit fellowship) between the LCMS and other church bodies is always a cause of great joy in synod conventions, complete with the singing of the Doxology. But what does full communion between church bodies mean, if anyone is welcome to commune at our altars anyway, so long as they are baptized, believe Jesus is present, and are sorry for their sins? This makes no sense at all. What follows is a social media post by the Rev. Dr. Peter Scaer, published with permission. — Ed.

The convention did not practice close/open communion, or anything like it. Admittedly, in a large church, it’s hard to keep track of everyone. But the idea is simple enough. Communion is open for all who are members in good standing of an LCMS congregation, or in a body with which we are in fellowship. This is not all that difficult to understand, but those who teach differently make matters more difficult, and perhaps unwittingly sow division.

It is not enough to have a short address, asking whether people believe in the real body and blood, and whether they confess Jesus as Savior, whether they are sorry for their sins, and so forth. If a person believes as we do, he should be invited into catechesis, into preparation for membership. To that teaching, all are invited. But asking a few questions beforehand doesn’t cut it. The heart that is set on the true body and blood cannot then approach an altar where it is treated as a symbol. The confession speaks of Christ as conceived by the Holy Spirit cannot also receive communion with a church that is ok with abortion and gay ‘marriage.’

Communion is not dating, but is akin to a marriage. And so our confirmands pledge to keep the faith even unto death. For the one who makes such a pledge, it would be unthinkable to join in communion where the truth is denied. Closed communion may be a barrier, but so also is it an opportunity. Does it matter that a Presbyterian might come to our altar, as if there is no difference? Should he not denounce the idea that Christ died for some, but not for all? Is it ok for a Roman Catholic to come to our altar (perhaps much less likely)? Should he not denounce the practice of masses for the dead, as if Christ's atoning work were not enough? If the bread is for God’s children, then should not those who receive it also confess the truth of God’s work in Baptism, that it is He who makes us His children, He who gives us new life and forgiveness?

And so on, and so on, and so on. This is not hard stuff. But when leaders of the church do not understand, they make it all very difficult for pastors who wish to be faithful. When those who should know press for something else, they put doubt and suspicion into the minds of the people, who are led to turn against pastors who are simply tending the flock as our Lord has instructed. I suppose, I was naïve in thinking that the practice of close communion (defined by asking a set of questions before the service — that sort of thing) was not so great a deal. But then I hear story after story of people who are led to anger at a faithful pastor, simply because he is striving to be faithful. And when the doctrine of closed communion is undermined by those who are prominent, great and unnecessary confusion ensues. The flock is left confused, and the faithful pastor is suddenly the bad guy, branded a meanie, simply for doing what's right.

A common mistake in Christian discussions about adiaphora is to assume that “neither commanded nor forbidden” means “anything goes.”

Let me explain: the word adiaphora comes from the Greek and means “indifferent.” In other words, adiaphora often refers to ceremonies and ecclesiastical practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word but have been introduced into the church.

So, where is the problem?

The problem comes when something that is called “indifferent” is treated as though it is free from the discernment of Christian doctrine. For example, a church practice may not be commanded or forbidden in the Bible, but make no mistake, it does not exist in a theological vacuum. Adiaphora is not like yellow police tape, saying to doctrine, “DO NOT CROSS!”

Mark this: Once doctrinal discernment is pushed out of an adiaphora conversation, something else will take its place: personal preference, nostalgia, private agendas, pragmatism, or contemporary cultural assumptions (to name a few). Then, without the wisdom of good doctrine, power steps in to enforce a preference, agenda, nostalgia, or a pragmatic and cultural assumption. Tragically, the question is no longer, “What best serves the Gospel?” Instead, the questions become: “Who has the most influence?” “Who complains the loudest?” or “Who is most determined to get his way?” and “Who has the votes?” In this way, preference supplies the content, and power supplies the enforcement.

But just because something is neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture does not mean it is beyond doctrinal discernment or Christian wisdom. Adiaphora is not simply up for grabs to the highest bidder, the majority vote, or the loudest voice. You see, the church has historically had ways of evaluating and governing adiaphora according to at least four questions:

1. Does the adiaphoron promote and support the Gospel, or does it distract from it? Is the adiaphoron Evangelical (Gospel-centered) in its nature, or is it something else? 

2. Does the adiaphoron respect the historic Christian church and the practices received across the millennia? Does it give a tip of the hat to the ancient fathers of the church and, in particular, the Nicene Faith they confessed? 

3. Is it appropriate to the context, and does it serve the actual needs of the church for clarity, good order, and the edification of the congregation?

4. Are those involved handling the matter collegially—with kindness, grace, and a willingness to seek peace?

In summary, adiaphora does not give place to an antinomian spirit; it is not ruled by preference and power. Rather, adiaphora is governed by the Gospel, informed by sound doctrine, exercised with collegiality, respectful of our historic practice, and directed toward the edification of Christ’s Church. Adiaphora is not the end of a theological conversation (a trump card) but the beginning of a doctrinally rich and wise discussion.

By Mark Surburg

Note: this was posted to social media, and shared with permission. — Ed.

I lived "Low Church Missouri." It was "non-communion Sundays" and pastors never explaining what anything meant. We didn't know that Lutherans were catholic and instead were fearful of doing anything that looked like it. No one knew that the sign of the cross was in the Small Catechism as a remembrance of baptism, much less did it. It was a banal existence that did not reflect what the Book of Concord confesses, and therefore did not support Lutheran theology. Thankfully, my children have known something that is evangelical and catholic. They know a richness of practice that they embrace because they are Lutheran.

This was published March 13, 2012 — Ed.

While I certainly and wholeheartedly agree with Petersen's description of the role of Gottesdienst in the LCMS, I'm going to add two cents more.

Ever since the inception of Gottesdienst, I have considered the question of its role.  In 1992, Jonathan Shaw and Richard Watters, and perhaps Doug Spittel and John Fenton (those two might not have been in on the ground floor, I forget offhand) launched this journal, asking Tom Von Hagel to be editor.  They asked me to write an article for the first issue, on the historic lectionary.  For the first couple years, it was something like eight pages long, and its purpose was to promote the historic liturgy of the Church, and in part to proclaim the Gospel by doing so and while doing so (sermons were in the mix from the start).

Then in 1995, the journal was about to fold, because Von Hagel was interested in other pursuits, and no one seemed to have the time to make it go. 

Continue reading…

Firstly, the lens of nostalgia often presents a distorted view of the good old days. This is evident when Biermann speaks of the church of his childhood when “you didn’t worry about doing things right. You just did things that were given to you to do and you worshiped God and received his gifts.” Except that most of the time, the poor practice of the day meant that God’s people, for no good reason at all, were not receiving one of the chief gifts of Christ: His holy Supper. As Biermann relates, “Most Sundays we used page 5, which was the liturgy without communion. It was essentially the Divine Service with the Lord’s Supper whacked off.”

Biermann speaks of the importance of receiving God’s good gifts three times in the video, yet he looks back favorably on a time when communion on a typical Sunday was not the norm. Such a practice aligns very poorly with our Confessions, where it is stated that the Lord’s Supper is celebrated in our churches on “every Lord’s Day and on other festivals.” How then can Biermann go on to say, “We’re upholding our common confession in the Book of Concord”? And how is this “doing it in ways that enhance and teach everybody and help them to grow into the fullness of God’s reality”?

Biermann continues that “there have been lots of ways of being faithful and conservative and true to our confession within Missouri, especially when it comes to worship.” Perhaps this is true, but going without the Lord’s Supper was not one of these faithful ways. We should call that practice what it was: an intrusion of Pietism and its anti-sacramental theology into our churches. It was a corruption of our confession coupled with the adoption of an extremely poor and spiritually damaging practice.

Secondly, Biermann urges us to “pay attention to why we’re doing what we’re doing, and not [get] hung up on the wrong things for the wrong reasons, like simply trying to follow the rules.” But when discussing the reasons that Low Church Missouri did things, Biermann admits that a given practice of the day, whether omitting communion, not chanting, using things not in the hymnal without hesitation, or wearing a Geneva gown, “just simply was the thing you did. It was the given. That’s kind of the hallmark maybe of Low Church Missouri. They didn’t have a big agenda. They weren’t crusaders for any particular cause or against any particular cause. They weren’t anti anything.”

In other words, the church of Biermann’s youth did exactly what he seems to accuse others of doing today, observing ceremonies and rites with no thought about their purpose or meaning. How does going without the Sacrament, contrary to our Confessions, help the congregation to receive the gifts of Christ? Nobody thought to ask that. What message is conveyed when the pastor dons the garb of a Calvinist preacher instead of traditional Lutheran vestments? Nobody considered whether such a practice might soften our people to the dangers of Reformed theology. What was the harm in departing from the hymnal for LWML Sunday, or youth Sunday, or any other Sunday, for that matter? Nobody, as Biermann says, “thought twice about it.” And that is exactly the problem with the Low Church Missouri of our grandparents. Nobody (speaking broadly, to be sure) thought or taught about why we did what we did. An agenda “never crossed anybody’s mind.” We worshipped the way we worshipped because “it just simply was the thing you did.”

Finally, Biermann makes use of the term adiaphora. “Worship is always an adiaphora [sic].” This statement is followed by a thinly veiled accusation against those who are not “Low Church Missouri”, suggesting that one who worships in this way is “trying to make big impressions,” and “getting hung up on the wrong things for the wrong reasons, like simply trying to follow the rules or show somebody how pious I can be or give my confessional credentials by the sort of vestments I wear.” Biermann also speaks of the “virtue signaling that goes on through vestment choices or even worship style choices.”

Adiaphora is commonly used as an “I can do whatever I want” card within the Missouri Synod. In truth, it should usually mean the opposite. If the whole synod walks away from the Word of God, then, of course, I am bound by Scripture to swim against the current. But in matters of adiaphora, I should not do so. Adiaphora does not mean that I am free to ignore all theological considerations and do every idea (all amazing, to be sure) that pops into my head. Instead, when Scripture leaves a matter free, I am compelled to seek good order, Christian unity, and a strong confession of the Gospel.

The answer, then, is not to romanticize either Low Church Missouri or its opposite. Nor is it to pretend that every vestment, hymn, ceremony, or liturgical practice is commanded by God—though I have never met a high church pastor who makes that claim. The answer is to approach these matters with the theological seriousness that, according to Biermann, was lacking in the church of his youth. The problem with Low Church Missouri was not simply that it was “low.” The problem was that, too often, nobody had stopped to think about why things were being done. If Dr. Biermann’s video helps us to recognize this danger by way of example, then he has done the church a great service. Nothing we do in worship, whether commanded, forbidden, or neither, is without significance. Every rite and ceremony matters. Every practice has a purpose. Such things serve either to obscure or to illuminate Christ and His saving gospel.

The title of Arthur Just’s recently released memoir is as intriguing as the memoir itself. Ever to Emmaus: A Theological Memoir (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2026. 274 pages) is Dr. Just’s autobiography, told in terms of how he sees his own life’s experiences as if participating as a fellow traveler with the two disciples on the Emmaus Road on Easter Sunday (Our chief blogger Larry Beane briefly called attention to the book in his July post alerting people to Just’s interview with Brian Stecker at On the Line).

The Lucan account of the Emmaus disciples provides the framework for the entire memoir, and indeed, of Just’s own pilgrimage through life. In the account, the two disciples were met by the resurrected Jesus as they walked, but “their eyes were held back so as not to recognize him” (Luke 24:16) until, after they had compelled Him to abide with them as they arrived at Emmaus, He took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them. At this point “their eyes were opened and they recognized him” (Luke 24:31), whereupon they exclaimed, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32), and hurried back to Jerusalem to recount this event to the other disciples still gathered there, telling them “how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35).  Just places himself in that Gospel, seeing his own life’s unfolding as if he were one of those on the road to Emmaus, and in fact he knows that this is an exemplary way for a preacher to consider the Gospel pericope on which he expounds: to plant, as it were, the hearers themselves in the Gospel they have heard. The Emmaus Road pericope in particular is for Just a critical place for doing this, as the unfolding of those events provides a pattern for Christians on their pilgrimage through life. So Just recounts various times in his own life when his own eyes had been held back from understanding Jesus, until they were opened to see Him, through the mentoring of professors who were instrumental in Just’s formative theological years. At the end of the story is the breaking of the bread, which, in his own case, is the gaining of a deep appreciation of the central place the liturgy, hearing the Word of God, and receiving the Sacrament must have in Christian life, for it is here, above all, that we ‘see’ and recognize Jesus.

But Just also saw this pattern repeat itself throughout his years as a professor at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, and also in Russia, in Spain, and in the Dominican Republic, as he saw his students’ eyes being opened to see Jesus through his own mentoring, and as they, too, gained an appreciation for the liturgy, and thus for the Word and the Sacrament. We get a glimpse of what he taught in this memoir, as he provides insightful commentary on various key passages and themes of the New Testament.

And the point, I think, of the writing of this memoir, is that readers of it may also join this myriad of pilgrims on their various Emmaus roads, as their eyes, too, are opened and they recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread.

Here is a list of things. They are not random. See if you can identify what binds these things together:

The Union Jack, King Arthur, Monty Python, tea, Magna Carta, fish and chips, Shakespeare, the Beatles, Big Ben, 10 Downing Street, St. George’s Cross, and the anthem “God Save the King.”

These people, places, and things identify a particular people. They are, of course, expressions of English identity. And, it is at the same time true that not every Englishman is a fan of Monty Python or the Beatles. Not everyone in England is a follower of cricket. Many English don’t like fish and chips, and prefer to drink coffee instead of tea. There are plenty who prefer manga to the Bard. All that said, these things are all identifiers of a certain overarching identity. They are constituent parts of English identity, both to the English, and to the outside world.

Of course, identity does evolve over time. The Beatles and Monty Python are both new in the long sweep of English artistic history, and old in the course of popular culture. Millennials and Gen Xers may consider the Spice Girls to be part of English identity, whereas boomers might not. Culture and identity are always in a state of flux. There is a natural ebb and flow of what is part of a people’s identity, and what isn’t. It does change slowly over time.

Indeed, fish and chips shops have largely been replaced by curry establishments. Posters that say: Keep Calm and Carry On have faded from the English landscape. The once ubiquitous red phone boxes still exist, but only here and there for the sake of nostalgia. Yet these things persist in collective memory. Immigration has brought change to the cultural landscape of England. In time, it is likely that Earl Grey or English Breakfast tea will be replaced by masala chai as an identifying mark of England. Perhaps the English bulldog will cease being part of the English imagination as more and more people in England see dogs as haram. Already the most popular boys’ name in London is Mohammad, and we see the king of England, who is the head of the Church (sic) of England, redefining the monarch’s role as the champion of non-Christian religions in the realm.

Sometimes identity shifts organically, and sometimes it is forced by those with an agenda.

Would you smell a rat if someone were to come along with a straight face and say that in the above list, none of those things are part of English identity, but only those things that are narrowly and minimalistically defined by law and official documents? In other words, in the above list, only the Union Jack, the monarchy, and Magna Carta qualify as English identity. Maybe “God Save the King,” if it is established by and act of Parliament. Shakespeare, the Beatles, fish and chips, Big Ben - none of these are part of English identity.

We would conclude that such a person, and such institutions seeking to dogmatically redefine English identity, have some kind of agenda for change.

To take it in a bit of a different direction, there is not only national identity, but corporate and brand identity. For example, the Coca-Cola company has its distinctively shaped bottle, its specific font used in its branding, and the shortened form “Coke.” Does anyone seriously believe that these characteristics have nothing to do with Coca-Cola’s identity? If a faction in the company were opining vigorously that only Coca-Cola’s articles of incorporation and the official minutes of their board meetings are, by definition, Coca-Cola’s identity - we could safely assume that the motivation behind such an attempt to distance the company from its branding identity is to change its identity.

And maybe their motives are pure. Maybe the marketing gurus and the entrepreneurs within the company have determined that the old fashioned bottle and font are holding the company back, that like ballast being thrown overboard from a ship, these markers of identity should be jettisoned to reach new customers and markets. But, of course, identity is a powerful thing. To get rid of such things at Coca-Cola would require people to stop identifying with them. Hence, reframing the idea of Coca-Cola as being more about the corporation and its shareholders than its traditions and pubic perception.

The Rev. Heath Curtis, the district president of the Southern Illinois District, argues that one of the things that retain Lutherans generationally is a sense of identity. We have a distinct culture in the LCMS that is more than just the Bible and the Confessions. Of course, the Scriptures and the Book of Concord constitute the norms of our Lutheran confession, and they are certainly important aspects of our identity, but they are not the whole of it any more than English identity consists only in the legal acts of state.

In his book, The Small Town Lutheran Church & Pastor (which is valuable to more than just pastors and small churches), President Curtis argues that Lutheran identity is important to retention and discipleship. He writes:

So what makes for strong discipleship? We could approach that question by asking which religious groups do the best job in making lifelong disciples of their members. We have good data on this from the Pew Research Council. What religious groups have the highest numbers for retaining the folks they raise in their faith into adulthood? Hindus (84%), Jews (76%), Muslims (76%), Greek Orthodox (73%), Mormons (70%), Roman Catholics (68%). The number for the Missouri Synod is about 60%. This is a good starting point, and we can do better. 

I would contend that these retention statistics are largely about identity. How important is your religion to your self-identity? Lutherans have a lot of strengths here: the distinctives of Lutheran worship and hymns; a strong sense of belonging and community; multi-generational churches, schools, and colleges. But it’s also the little things, the cultural markers that remind me, “I am a Lutheran,” things like saying Come, Lord Jesus before supper and reading Portals of Prayer every day. 

Congregations that want to buck the societal trends of declining faith need to focus on discipleship, which means leaning in to our Lutheran identity.

And here is a clip from an On The Line interview in which President Curtis argues that recognizing and embracing Lutheran Identity is “missional” (as the cool kids say):

Identity binds people together.

Chicago Bears fans have an identity that expresses itself in the form of jerseys, the colors blue and orange, and the distinctive C logo from the team helmet. There are memories of Soldier Field, the stories of Coaches Halas and Ditka, and the narrative of the great players and championship years from the past. Reducing the identity of the Chicago Bears to a corporate contractual franchise within the legal entity known as the National Football League misses the whole point of what identity is.

As creatures in God’s created order, we all have identities: nationality, family, relationships that are involuntary, as well as identities over which we have more control. We have a Christian identity grounded in Baptism and the cross. We have a Lutheran identity anchored in Word and Sacrament - but also in our shared history, heritage, culture, liturgy, music, and ways that we relate to one another.

And what is at ground zero of this debate is the liturgy.

For how we worship is crucial to our identity, whether as Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, or Hindus. Based on our faith, we are bound together with those who believe as we do, and that naturally expresses itself in how we worship and in the customs that grow out of our deeply held religious beliefs. It would be strange indeed if all of these disparate groups worshipped the same way, or if Greek Orthodox worshiped like Baptists.

Lutherans can come together, whether at an International Lutheran Conference (ILC) meeting in Europe, South America, or Africa, and can find a home in the liturgy, in Word and Sacrament, in the ancient liturgical expressions that we kept intact at the time of the Reformation, and in our shared treasury of hymns. We can also gather as fellow members of the LCMS at a convention, seminary, conference, university, or seminar - and gather together for worship. At the Ministry to the Armed Forces annual training, LCMS chaplains can gather together from all over the country and join together to sing daily Matins, including hymns from our hymnal.

When our shared worship forms become shattered, we lose that unity just as much as if Chicago Bears fans were encouraged to just wear any color to the games, or the military were to abolish traditional customs and courtesies. When there is no more common language, common culture, common mores, shared folkways, and shared experiences, groups Balkanize and break apart, eventually atomizing into every man for himself. If the splintering reaches a breaking point, a critical mass, there will be no coming back from this. We may be there already.

The sharp lines we currently see in the “worship wars” are a case in point. There were no “worship wars” when we all used the same liturgy, hymns, and hymnal. When we all used the liturgy, we all knew the liturgy. Converts who did not know the liturgy learned the liturgy - and then they could worship at any confessional Lutheran church. Now converts (and those who visit other churches, or who move) have to learn an infinite number of non-liturgies, because every non-liturgical church does its own thing. The liturgy is the one way that disparate Lutherans can gather with each other and worship together. The liturgy builds bridges like the Holy Spirit at Pentecost ended the division of the chaos of disparate languages.

Were non-liturgical worship to become the norm in our synod, there would be no norm at all. It would be the kind of chaos in the public worship life of the LCMS that Paul encountered at Corinth. The message of the LCMS would be: “If you want dignified, liturgical worship, don’t be a Lutheran.” And that would be the message from the very same people who would artificially define Lutheran identity as only the Bible and the Book of Concord while ignoring God’s worship preferences (Ex 26-31) and what our confessions say about worship (AC 24, Ap 24). The advocates of CoWo in the church - even those who have both kinds of services in their congregations - are as divisive as those in the secular world who demand that we sing two so-called national anthems before football games rather than unite behind the one that is authentically an expression of American identity. We see the results of this kind of divisive subversion in the kingdoms of both hands. The kind of polarization we see in society is what CoWo has done, and continues to do, in the church. Our God is a God of order, not of chaos. But CoWo is chaos.

It’s all so tiresome.

Lutheran identity - including, but not limited to, the Bible and the Book of Concord - brings us into a sense of salutary and organic unity with other Lutherans. This is the edifying nature of identity, whether a nation, a religious body, a club, a family, or a company. This is simply part of being authentically human. We ignore it, or bureaucratically define it away, to our own detriment, and at the expense of the Gospel and its witness before the world.

Here are some of our past articles on Lutheran identity.

By Christopher Jackson

In a healthy marriage, your wife desires you to desire her. Surprisingly, that simple observation opens the door to a neglected biblical principle, an error common in twentieth-century Lutheranism, and even a lesson for digital marketing in the Christian parish. 

(I promise this will hang together better than it seems at first glance!)

Recompense and the Christian Life

Temporal and eternal recompense for our conduct is a theme that resonates throughout the Scriptures. Taken as a whole, four themes emerge:

Theme 1: Our Conduct Brings Just Recompense

Our actions have both temporal and eternal consequences, both for ill as just punishment and for good as just reward. This principle is at the core of the biblical witness.

Punishment for Evil is Just and Natural

The primitive and solitary prohibition of Eden carried a consequence: 

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.’” (Genesis 2:16-17, ESV)

Punishment as a just and natural recompense for evil is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. Here is a small sample:

A father’s idolatrous iniquity will bring iniquity back on his children, to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 5:9).

Disobedience to God would bring curses upon the Israelites, including blight, famine, infertility, danger in travel, confusion in business affairs, disease, drought, defeat in war, feeblemindedness, insanity, open crime and corruption, marital infidelity, enslavement, political subjugation, ill-repute, infestation, indebtedness, besiegement, disbursement, and many other curses (Deuteronomy 28).

While it may seem like the punishment doesn’t fit the crime in these passages, remember that in the near context of both is the giving of life itself: Adam being shaped and formed in a process that began in the primordial sea, and Israel having been brought up out of the depths of the Red Sea unto a new life at Sinai. To rebel against God in sin, therefore, was a rejection of life and an embrace of death and destruction.

Sometimes, however, the connection between one’s sin and the recompense one receives is represented even more tightly: “The wicked man . . . makes a pit, digging it out, and he falls into the hole that he has made. His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends” (Psalm 7:14-16). Lazy hands produce poverty (Proverbs 10:4). Haman is hung upon his own gallows (Esther 7:9-10). Those who lack in generosity will have a lack of blessing (2 Corinthians 9:6).

Some prominent Twentieth Century Lutheran theologians drove a wedge between sin and punishment, rejecting claims which held up the justice of punishment for sin. We will examine their claims a little later. However, the biblical witness is clear.

Reward for Good Is Just and Natural

While God warns of just and natural consequences for evil, He promises blessing in turn for good.

Returning to Genesis, the warning of death through disobedience implies life for obedience, and a good and pleasant life at that in the Garden of Eden. That theme continues at Sinai. Obedience to God’s commandments would bring familial and agricultural fertility, abundant food, pleasant travels, victory in war, success in business ventures, international renown, fair weather, and national economic and political superiority (Deuteronomy 28).

The man who keeps the Law of God is firmly rooted, fruitful, and prosperous (Psalm 1:3-4), and the righteous shall eat the fruit of their deeds (Isaiah 3:10). “The work of a man’s hand comes back to him”  (Proverbs 12:14, ESV). Those who are generous will in turn generously receive (2 Corinthians 9:6).

Theme 2: Recompense May Come After the Grave

Often recompense for good or ill is realized in this world. If we conduct our business affairs diligently, honestly, and without greed in accord with the Seventh Commandment, people will generally trust us and do more business with us. On the other hand, if we develop a reputation for shoddy work, greedy prices and policies, and dishonesty, our business will generally suffer. If we honor the Fifth Commandment when it comes to our own bodies, exercising and watching our diets, typically we will enjoy better health than if we give ourselves over to gluttony and sloth.

However, recompense may tarry. While the Scriptures promise recompense, it can appear that the unrighteous are awarded while the good suffer. Certainly, at the cross evil men appeared victorious while the one man without sin seemed defeated.

At times this has roused doubts in the minds of the faithful. In the 73rd Psalm, Asaph recalls a crisis of faith that almost led to his despair and apostasy, aroused by envy of men impoverished in morality yet enriched in mammon

Jeremiah questions God on this point: “Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? You plant them, and they take root; they grow and produce fruit; you are near in their mouth and far from their heart” (Jeremiah 12:1–2, ESV). To put it another way: “God, you promised that the righteous would prosper as firmly rooted and fruitful trees (Psalm 1). And yet not they but the wicked do so.”

As Christianity spread within the Roman empire, the promise of just recompense for righteousness seemed unattainable to an entire category of people: the believing slave. The very nature of slavery meant that all the benefits of your labor belong to another.

Paul’s answer to that conundrum is the promise of heavenly reward: “Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ” (Colossians 3:22–24, ESV).

Paul also discourages slaves from wrongdoing by warning them that God will not fail to “pay back” for wrong done (Colossians 3:25).

The Bible hits that theme consistently. Asaph perceives that while the wicked may prosper in this life, they will meet a terrible end: “Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin” (Psalm 73:18, ESV).

Paul affirms that those who are evil are storing up wrath: “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Romans 2:5, ESV).

Christ was vindicated, and His evil enemies put to shame, on the other side of the grave.

Theme 3: Justification Is an Exchange of Recompense

For we sinners, the message that recompense for our transgressions will eventually catch up to us is bad news. But, the message of the Gospels is an exchange of recompense, Christ receiving the recompense for our sins and giving us the recompense of His righteousness.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6, ESV). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and through His innocent and precious death on the Cross, Christ received that just recompense we have all deserved.

In turn, Christ extends the recompense of His righteousness to us. Christ fulfilled the Law to its greatest extent in His Cross, laying down His life in the ultimate act of love (John 15:13).  The due reward of that love is offered to others: “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:17-19, ESV).

The benefits of this exchange recompense, the forgiveness of sins, the reception of Christ’s righteousness, and eternal life, are not received by us on account of any work but instead solely and wholly through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Heaven is Christ’s reward, enjoyed by those who are baptized and believe.

Theme 4: Heavenly Reward Is the Christians’ Recompense for Loving Obedience

The Christian receives the inheritance of heaven purely through God’s work - the justifying work of Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. And yet God promises inheritance in heaven as a reward for loving obedience on earth. The Scriptures are clear on this. “Whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord” (Ephesians 6:8, ESV).

Other passages that clearly teach reward in heaven for the Christian: Matthew 5:11-12, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:19-21, Matthew 10:41-42, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 25:34-40, Luke 6:35, Luke 12:33, Luke 14:12-14, LUke 18:22, I Corinthians 3:8, I Corinthians 3:14-15, 2 Corinthins 5:10, Colossians 3:23-24, Hebrews 6:10, Hebrews 11:26, Revelations 14:13.

This teaching does not contradict the Doctrine of Justification. It does not teach that one gains eternal life by means of works. Instead, it is a promise given to the believer, so that he might strive to live out the Christian life here on earth. 

Theme 5: God Invites Christians to Seek Reward

It is one thing to simply observe that reward comes from righteousness. It is another to encourage the pursuit of righteousness for the sake of reward. As we will see in a moment, Lutherans in the Twentieth Century warned against this, but the Scriptures have a different message.

Invitation to Temporal Reward

The Bible encourages the pursuit of righteousness for the sake of temporal reward.

“‘Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you” (Deuteronomy 5:16, ESV). God invites the Israelites to consider temporal reward when it comes to the Fourth Commandment. And, the reward for obedience to the Fourth Commandment seems clear. If on a society-wide scale children honor father and mother, then father and mother will have no lack of care in senescence; their lives will be long, and it will go well for them. But, the command isn’t given simply for the sake of father and mother, but also for children. If children submit themselves to the wisdom and guidance of previous generations, and if they allow their lives to be ordered by the governing authorities, then things will indeed go better for them than if they are churlish and disobedient.

That’s just one of the many ways God invites the Israelites to consider the temporal blessings of obedience on the one hand versus the curses that will come through disobedience on the other hand (Deuteronomy 28).

Proverbs encourages the stewardship of temporal wealth unto God’s glory with the promise that it will be increased (Proverbs 3:9-10).

Various forms of lawful gain are encouraged in the Scriptures. Paul encourages slaves to lawfully seek their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:21), the thief to take up lawful work so that he not only have enough for himself but also for others (Ephesians 4:28), and churches to temporally reward ministers (1 Corinthians 9:14).

Invitation to Eternal Reward

The Scriptures go even further than encouraging obedience for temporal gain. They also encourage them for eternal gain.

Christ says: “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” ( Matthew 6:20–21, ESV). Jesus invites us to pursue heavenly treasures, but this leads to the question, “Why would he do so?”

The answer becomes evident in some of the circumstances Christ commends the pursuit of heavenly reward.

Jesus promises heavenly reward so that people would endure in the face of revilement and persecution:  “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11–12, ESV).

Jesus also promises heavenly reward so that people might show love and generosity even when it will not be recompensed on earth. If you love those who love you - even the heathens do this! Loving your enemies, however? Don’t expect anything back, but instead look to a return in heaven: “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil” (Luke 6:25, ESV).

Finally, Jesus promises heavenly reward for those who have sacrificed earthly gain for the sake of Christ's name. When Peter recalls the sacrifices he and the other disciples had made, Jesus does not rebuke him. Instead, he encourages him with the knowledge of the recompense he will have in heaven:  “Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life” (Matthew 19:28–29, ESV).

Recompense: A Unifying Thread

As I’ve sketched it above, recompense is unifying thread woven throughout the Scriptures. God as creator is due our thanks, praise, service, obedience, and above all love. In our sin, we have failed to give Him the recompense that is his due and have earned for ourselves the just recompense of our damnation. Nonetheless, Christ took that recompense for our sakes, and offers us His due recompense according to His righteousness. And, the Lord invites us to pursue recompense, above all the eternal recompense that comes through self-sacrificial love for the neighbor here on earth.

As a rule, I’m not much a fan of unifying accounts of the Christian message. That was a special hobby of 20th Century Lutheran theologians, who proposed unifying principles such as “Law and Gospel” or “God Preached.” The problem with a unifying account is that it tends to smooth out the complexity and particularity of Christian revelation. Traditionally, Lutheran theologians such as Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and Gerhard simply listed theological loci, simply expounding the Scriptural witness, without some unifying account.

Therefore, I am putting this idea forward not as a comprehensive, unifying account of the Christian faith. Rather, I am arguing that this is a principle that can be seen consistently in the Scriptures.

Confessional Consistency

And, it is a principle that is reflected in the Lutheran Confessions. The Confessions are very comfortable using compensatory language.

Take, for example, the way the Confessions discuss the Doctrine of Justification: “Whenever we speak of justifying faith, we must keep in mind that these three objects belong together: the promise, grace, and Christ’s merits as the price and atonement. The promise is received through faith. Grace excludes our merits and means that the benefit is offered only through mercy. Christ’s merits are the price, because there must be a certain atonement for our sins” (Apology IV.53, emphasis added).

Compensatory language is also used to discuss Good works: “Faith must be the mother and source of works that are truly good and well pleasing to God, which God will reward in this world and in the world to come” (FC SD, Article IV, emphasis added). This teaching was so universally held, that the same article adds: “There is no controversy on these points among our theologians.”

20th Century Rejection of Recompense

Recompense is a thread woven into the fabric of the Christian message. Many 20th Century Lutherans tried to pull that thread.

Some of them pulled at the thread as it relates to God’s wrath. Werner Elert, for example, denied a “reasonable relationship between sin and punishment” (Structure of Lutheranism, Concordia Publishing House 1962, 39). He goes on to bemoan Johann Gerhard’s teaching that God’s wrath is just and a proportionate response to sin (ibid., 41). To put it in the terms of this essay, God’s wrath isn’t compensatory, a response to anything in man. It simply is.

Others have rejected recompense as it relates to justification. Gerhard Forde, for example, expressly rejected the idea that Christ’s death was payment for sin: 

In the so-called “objective” theory it is maintained that God needed the death of Jesus in order to be able to be merciful to us. God is the object of the atoning act. The demands of his law, or wrath, or justice had to be “satisfied.” So we are exonerated because the cross was necessary to God. But the inevitable consequence of such thinking is that it doesn’t finally reconcile us to God. If the cross is necessary to pay God, God will be pictured as at worst a rather vindictive tyrant demanding his pound of flesh or at best an inept subordinate caught in the same inexorable net of law and justice as we are. The theory intended to foster reconciliation actually contributes to further alienation. (Caught in the Act: Reflections on the Work of Christ. Word & World 3/1 (1983). 24).

Forde goes on to ask: “If the death was payment, how could reconciliation be an act of mercy? Mercy is mercy, not the result of payment. If God is by nature love and mercy, why could he not just up and forgive?” (ibid., 24). His answer is that God did in fact just up and forgive.

Forde also denies the idea that recompense ought to factor into Christian good works. To him, good works are “works done for the neighbor without calculation or claim” (On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. Eerdmans, 1997. 104).

Gritsch and Jenson continue this line of thought: “Most ethical theories and all sensible persons have known that a good act cannot appropriately be done for an ulterior egocentric reason. If I feed my hungry neighbor in order that I may acquire stars in my crown, I thereby lose the claim to any stars. . . The radically proclaimed gospel frees me from moral egocentricity in that it does not merely tell me not to try to get anything out of my act for my neighbor, but that I cannot get anything out of it, that I will not in fact be rewarded at all” (Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and Its Confessional Writings. Fortress Press, 1967. 146),

When it comes to this account of good works from Forde, Gritsch, Jenson, and many others, it seems plainly obvious that this is simply an attempted baptism of Kantian ethics. It is a Christian patina on his maxim that ethical conduct only treats others as ends, and not means.

Your Wife Begs to Differ (Self-interest Is Not Selfishness)

Kant never knew a woman. If he had, his ethical perspective would have changed.

In the normal course of life, we have no problem with others acting with self-interest. In fact, we invite it. No place is this more evident than in romantic relationships.

If your marriage is healthy, your wife desires your affections. More than this, she desires your desire. She doesn’t want the mere outward act: “My husband behaves affectionately to me.” She wants the inner affection and desire: “My husband desires me, delights in me, and finds being with me rewarding.” She has no problem with you showing affection out of a desire for the pleasure this brings you.

This applies in nearly every human relationship. The Christian plumber who fixes my faucet: I am not at all scandalized or feel merely instrumentalized if he desires gain (payment!) from me. In fact, I want him to gain from me! It brings me pleasure to know that he will go fly a kite with the money I give him. (Literally. He is a kite fanatic.)

It brings me comfort with the knowledge that he likely also wants to please God with his work, and even gain reward in heaven for good work done. When it comes to the trades, much of the work is done in places that cannot be inspected. I can’t look inside the faucet to ensure that he has used the appropriate grease. If he works for God’s approval and reward, and that means better service to me and my family, then praise be to God!

Kant’s ethics and its baptized variants seem to operate on a zero-sum view of ethics. If I act with self-interest, then I cannot act in the interests of others. But, that is not how God designed human life together to work, and the best human interactions are ones in which multiple parties benefit. All at the same time, a Christian plumber can be moved out of a desire to serve me, a desire for financial gain, and a desire to please God without any contradiction. In fact, I believe that a plumber might do his best work when motivated by all three at once.

But, you don’t need to take my word for it. Christ himself taught us that the second table of the law can be summed up as “love your neighbor as yourself.” This implies self-love, and insofar as self-love implies self-interest, there is not contradiction between self-interest and looking for the interests of others. Paul warns the Phillipians to do “nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.” And yet he sees no contradiction to looking to one’s own interests as well as the interests of others.”

To put it succinctly, self-interest is not the same as selfishness. God condemns the one, but He invites the other. As with all sin, selfishness is merely the corruption of something that is good.

Recompense and Digital Marketing

The Lord has designed the world so that what we do tends to come back to us as recompense. “Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days” (Ecclesiastes 11:1, ESV). This is neither mechanical nor magical, but it is a principle which tends to be carried out.

A surprising number of people are searching for churches online, whether they know it or not. Some are searching directly for churches. There are 2.7 million searches for the query ‘churches near me’ every month. There are 49.5 thousand searches for “Lutheran churches near me”! Optimizing your church website and Google Business Profile for discoverability and to impel digital visitors to become in-person visitors is a means of blessing them. It is fulfilling their desire to discover new churches, and by doing that you are one step closer to your desire for them to visit and potentially become members.

Others are searching for churches, and they don’t even know it. Someone searching for, “What does the Bible say about having peace in my home?” is ultimately asking to receive the grace and mercy offered through Word and Sacrament, so that grace and mercy might prevail in his marriage. If your church has a search engine optimized article or a sermon on this topic, that individual may find it via traditional search or an LLM, and that may lead him to seek out a Lutheran church and maybe even your church.

In other words, if you seek to fulfill the requests people are making via search, it is highly likely that your church (or another Lutheran church) will benefit.

This is not theory.

In the 2000s, Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Lexington, Kentucky, had a series of articles on their website on Lutheran theological topics. A student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary encountered those articles via search. His family converted and joined that church.

I serve the only liturgical LCMS church in Door County, Wisconsin. As such, I have members who drive to my congregation from over an hour away. That is not accidental, as I have optimized my church’s online presence for discoverability in communities across my region.

A Lutheran school in Jacksonville, Illinois, was struggling with enrollment. By working on its SEO, it secured a waiting list for its preschool and filled up its enrollment pipeline.

Ultimately, digital marketing via search engine optimization is a means of serving the neighbor. Your neighbor desires information, and you are supplying it. It is likely that your church can be blessed by doing so. However, even if you see no benefit on this side of heaven, blessing others always leads to eternal reward for the Christian.

Free Review

And since I've just spent several thousand words arguing that seeking one's own good while serving one's neighbor isn't sinful, I'll make you an offer . . . . 

If you’re not sure where to start on your church’s digital marketing via the foundation of search engine optimization, I will record a free review video. It will be personalized to your church and your community, and I won’t pressure you into a sales call.

Of course, I hope that some of you will eventually become customers, and I don’t believe that is at all inconsistent with the review also being a form of Christian service.

A Final Thought and Invitation

When I’ve proposed elements of this essay online, I’ve been met with much opposition. The Twentieth Century view of God’s justice and good works was thoroughly inculcated in the LCMS until recently. It certainly was strongly impressed upon me in my seminary education!

If you have any questions or have any corrections to offer, I’m glad for you to reach out. I’m active on X, and you can also reach out via email: chris@churchseo.io.

God bless,

Pastor Christopher Jackson

AKA SEO Priest

In June, I was serving as chaplain for the 2026 Louisiana Wing Summer Encampment for the Civil Air Patrol at Keesler Air Force Base in nearby Biloxi, Mississippi. I was away for ten days. I was responsible for arranging religious services for our encampment - especially for our cadets who were there for training. I had the joy to meet the base chaplains Captain Yates (Greek Orthodox) and Lieutenant Walker (Seventh Day Adventist). To accommodate the majority of the faith groups of our encampment personnel, and to fit our tight training schedule, we sent them to either the Protestant base service on Sunday, or to the Roman Catholic Mass held off base at the nearby cathedral. Those who opted out of services received instruction by me based on our core values of Integrity, Volunteer Service, Excellence, and Respect.

So attending a Sunday service for me was a no go.

Every day, I was busy ministering to the needs to our cadets (and others) on base. I really do love chaplaincy work. But alas, there were no other LCMS Lutherans to be found. So I had no opportunity to offer, and thus receive, the Holy Sacrament.

Normally, I celebrate Mass every Sunday and Wednesday. Since my duties at encampment began Thursday morning, I did receive the Holy Eucharist the night before. But I was looking at a long spell without receiving the body and the blood. And I am spoiled in that I almost never go more than four days without Communion. Our days began early and ended late - making it hard to even privately pray Matins.

Fortunately, there is an LCMS parish near the base - the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd. Our encampment commander graciously granted me permission to leave the base on Wednesday in order to meet the Rev. Raymond Cox to receive the Sacrament of the Altar. It actually took me longer to get from my billet to the main gate of the base then it took to get from the base to the church. It is literally just up the road.

I had the joy to meet Pastor Cox, his wife Janelle, and their little one in the sanctuary. Pastor Cox conducted the liturgy with great reverence. It was a real blessing for them to carve out time for me to come and enjoy fellowship with them, and to partake of the Sacrament of the Altar together.

Being located in the Bible Belt of the Deep South, confessional Lutheranism in the Southern District has its challenges. But in my 22 years in the district, I’m pleased to report that we now have a good many solid, confessional, and liturgical parishes led by faithful pastors - and the numbers only continue to grow.

If you or someone you know is in Biloxi, there is a faithful parish and pastor just outside the base at Keesler. It can be a challenge for our deployed military personnel to find either an LCMS chaplain or a faithful congregation close by for spiritual care. I’m happy to report that LCMS Lutherans serving at Keesler are blessed to have Good Shepherd and Pastor Cox just a stone’s throw away.

Thank you, Pastor Cox, for your faithful service, and for providing much-needed and appreciated Seelsorge to me!

One of the frequent assertions of the apologists of non-traditional worship is that "style doesn't matter."  Or put another way, if the words speak the truth, the tune used is completely irrelevant.  There is also a common argument that many praise songs that are not accepted by traditionalists are actually paraphrases of the very texts traditionalists love.

Continue reading…

And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.

The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle.

The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:

“Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!”

Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever,

the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:

“You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.” (Revelation 4:6b-11)

Verses 6b: “And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.”

               Who are the four living creatures in Revelation 4? Many may think that they are angels. However, these four living creatures cannot be understood to be angels.

In Revelation 5:8-9, we see that the four living creatures   and the twenty-four elders fall down before Jesus the Lamb and sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.”

               The unfallen angels do not need to be redeemed by the blood of Jesus. The angels are not redeemed out of every tribe and language and people and nation. The unfallen angels are also not kings and priests to God; they are “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).

Christians will judge angels, just as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:3. Angels are not kings and priests; Christians are. Therefore, the four living creatures, who are redeemed by Christ’s blood and are kings and priests, are not angels.

We also know that the four living creatures are not angels because they are distinguished from angels in Revelation 7:11, which says: “All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God.” They are distinguished from angels and from the elders, and therefore they are different.

So, what are the four living creatures? Are they the four evangelists? Christian artists have used the imagery of the four creatures in order to portray the four gospels. But the Weimar Bible also calls this association into question. The interlinear gloss says: “The holy evangelists cannot be understood by them since John, who saw these four beasts in his vision and is one of the evangelists, is distinguished from the beasts.”

To prove this using Scripture, the Weimar Bible cites Revelation 6:1: “Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, ‘Come and see.’”

Now, the Weimar Bible doesn’t completely deny the association of the four evangelists with the four beasts. But instead of limiting the imagery of the four living creatures to the gospels, the Weimar Bible expands it to the ones who preach it.

“These four beasts indicate all faithful teachers and church ministers, who are to take what they preach from the writings of the four holy evangelists concerning Christ’s person, office, and benefits.”

As a preacher, you are close to your Savior. You stand in the midst of the throne and around it. Despite your unworthiness and your sin, Christ draws you close to Himself. You stand close, not because you are worthy but because He makes you worthy by His blood and wants you to give that message of salvation to others.

Revelation is a comforting book for pastors. Here, you learn that you stand in the midst of Christ’s throne and around it. Earlier, you learn that Christ will preserve you, since you are one of the seven stars held in His right hand. This is the application of comfort in chapter 1:20: “The stars seen in Christ’s right hand (therein guarded and protected), are understood to be the teachers of the Christian churches. This serves as a powerful comfort to all faithful servants of the word.”

But what does it mean to be faithful? Listen to the end of verse 6: these creatures are “full of eyes in front and in back.” This picture of eyes tells us that preachers and church servants should diligently watch over themselves and the flock which they are commanded to lead.

Two Bible passages are cited to corroborate this view. The first is Acts 20:28: “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

The second Bible passage is 1 Peter 5:2: “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly.”

The pastor is to be an overseer. He is to shepherd God’s flock. But these eyes must not just be turned outward. No, just as Paul tells us, let us preachers look to ourselves first. These many eyes must examine our souls first. We should preach to ourselves first. We must guard ourselves against personal sin and spiritual ruin first. Let us, as Jesus tells us: “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5)

There is faithfulness in self-examination and in the examination of the flock. But there is also faithfulness in the goal of the ministry. This is the second reason for the many eyes both front and back. We are to “bring men to the saving knowledge of God.”

Two verses are used here. The first is Matthew 5:14: “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.” The second is 2 Corinthians 4:6: “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

Christians are the light of the world. They are a city on a hill. They cannot be hidden from sight, but they are seen by all. What do the unbelievers see? They see our good works. The purpose of these good works is that these unbelievers might glorify our Father in heaven.

We preachers are full of eyes so that people might see. “And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.” (John 9:39)

We preach so that the spiritually blind might see. We live godly lives as examples to the flock. We teach the applications of Scripture, so that our flock might be “be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:17)

This first section deals with who the living creatures are. They are all faithful teachers and servants of the church. One characteristic has been mentioned: faithfulness in oversight and faithfulness in the goal of the ministry. In the next section, we will learn other characteristics of the preacher.

My book of meditations, first published in 1998, has been out of print for a few years. It’s going back into print this year, and we’ve taken some advance orders, but meanwhile I’m pleased to say that we have uploaded all the meditations to this website, and they are available to read right now. In fact, they’ve been available for several weeks already, but I just haven’t gotten around to announcing it. If you look at the top of this page, or the top of the home page, you’ll see several subheadings, and second from the right you’ll see “Daily Devotions.” Hover over that and you’ll see the seasons of the year. Click on the season you want and you’ll see listed each week of the season. Scroll down and click on the week you want, and you’ll see the Psalm of the week, and then each day of the week. Click on the day, and there you’ll see the reading printed out, followed by the meditation. It’s all there! If you know what day of the church year it is, you can always find a meditation for that day.

So, for today, you’d go to the Trinity season, then to Trinity IX, and then to Monday of Trinity IX, and voila! Here’s what you see:

Monday of Trinity IX

Psalm 54

Reading: II Corinthians 8:1–24 or 8:1–9

Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well. But as you abound in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us—see that you abound in this grace also.

I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.

And in this I give advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago; but now you also must complete the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to desire it, so there also may be a completion out of what you have. For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality. As it is written, “He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack.”

But thanks be to God who puts the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For he not only accepted the exhortation, but being more diligent, he went to you of his own accord. And we have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches, and not only that, but who was also chosen by the churches to travel with us with this gift, which is administered by us to the glory of the Lord Himself and to show your ready mind, avoiding this: that anyone should blame us in this lavish gift which is administered by us— providing honorable things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

And we have sent with them our brother whom we have often proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, because of the great confidence which we have in you. If anyone inquires about Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker concerning you. Or if our brethren are inquired about, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ. Therefore show to them, and before the churches, the proof of your love and of our boasting on your behalf.

Meditation: The poor at Jerusalem were in great need, so part of the reason for Paul’s journey was to take a collection for them. These poor were held in highest regard by the Apostle, for they were suffering on account of their stead­fast faith, even as Christ Himself had suffered at Jerusalem on account of His Gospel. Therefore the Macedonians, in giving alms for them at great cost to themselves, were proving thereby that they too held the faithful poor in high regard. Thus now he encourag­es also Corinth, not by commandment, but, he says,Testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. The evidence of the Macedonians’ faith was seen in their own selfless expres­sion of love for the faith­ful poor; even as Christ Himself was selfless: who, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich. Now His riches are not earthly but heavenly; therefore who will hoard earthly riches? He can hardly desire also the heaven­ly.

With the 2026 LCMS Convention now one week in our rearview mirror, three delegates had the chance to sit down and look back at the convention week as a whole. The Rev. Joshua DeYoung and I had the opportunity to speak with the Revs. Jesse and Joe Schlie of The Didymus Podcast earlier this week and review the convention from the perspective of those who were in the room (the Rev. Jesse Schlie was also a delegate). We talk about some of the biggest issues that came in front of the convention, the discussions from the floor committee hearings that took place on Saturday morning before the convention began, and some observations from the convention floor that were missed by online viewers, but vital for understanding the week’s proceedings.

Take a listen on your favorite podcast app, listen to some of the back catalog, and subscribe to hear what comes next on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Podbean, Pocketcasts, or your platform of choice.

P.S.: For a detailed day-by-day accounting of events as they unfolded, you can’t do any better than the On the Line interviews with Mark Stern, with episodes that discussed the proceedings on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. The On the Line team left on Wednesday morning, so you’ll have to listen to the podcast episode above to hear about the AALC fellowship discussion and the back-and-forth around the resolution that asked for a study of what Holy Scripture says concerning those who read Holy Scripture in public worship.

This was published July 23, 2009. — Ed.

A certain Gottesdienst editor (who answers to the name "Heath") suggested that I cross-post a recent Father Hollywood article regarding open communion and the Canadian Prime Minister.

Continue readiing…

This interview also makes it clear why rigorous seminary education and formation are non-negotiable.

As one of your students, thank you, Dr. Just, not only for your decades of faithful (and still ongoing!) service to our Lord and His church (even through tumultuous and trying times), but also for this encouraging and inspiring interview. We hope to hear more!

Dr. Just’s new book is called Ever to Emmaus: A Theological Memoir. His other books can be found here.