How to Kill a Small Lutheran Congregation

How to Kill a Small Country Church
Anonymous
(perhaps this was your pastor)

[The author of this article insists on anonymity at the present. The author gave me permission to publish it with the explicit warning to the reader that the article is sarcasm. If the reader does not understand what sarcasm is, then the fault is the reader's]

For the past few years there have been more and more requests at Synod Convention for advice on how to deal with the problems facing small rural congregations. This article has been assembled to answer many of those problems and is based on many years of practical research.

We start with the family because the family is the basic unit of congregational life. Anything that can be done to keep families busy is a benefit to destroying a congregation.

One of the most basic things you can do is encourage both husband and wife to work jobs away from home. The practical benefits of this are manifold. First, instead of just one worker who needs to work out a vacation schedule, both spouses need to coordinate their work schedules. In most cases this reduces the total time available for family and church to Saturday, Sunday, and 5-9pm weekdays, plus a 10 day vacation. The vacations can only count as family time if they are taken together. Fortunately, there are events-like funerals- to which the lady of the house may be obliged to serve at church, thus eliminating a vacation day or two.

Collateral damage can be multiplied if the couple have children. This next suggestion is especially valuable for single parents or families where both parents work. Get your kid(s) involved in every extracurricular school sport or activity that you can. This can easily eat up the 5-9pm weekday hours. It very often takes care of most of Saturday and part of Sunday. Under this plan, not only do families have the complexity of two work schedules and vacations, they add to it the complexity of a school event schedule. This brings the family's total contact with each other down to a manageable 4 to 8 hours a week. Much of that time will be occupied by shuttling kids back and forth from events. And there is always the radio to supply relief from uncomfortable conversation which might distract you from driving.

This brings up another fantastic suggestion. Occupy your family time with great activities like shopping. Make there are as many TVs and video players and video games as members of your family. That way there won't be any fighting over viewing choices.

Now, it is also important to fortify the family members with good defense and justification for these lifestyle choices. After all, they've earned it. So, if someone should point out that both parents working might not be in the best interest of the children, encourage the parents, especially the female, to become indignant and offended. Anyway, who do these busybodies think they are judging dual-income families? If those know-it-alls have one parent staying at home, it obviously means they don't know what it means to sacrifice.

Now we turn to training all the members of the congregation.

Grudges are essential. Nourish them. Feed them. Every time someone apologizes, realize that they are only bringing the issue up to hurt you and to soothe their consciences at your expense-especially if the apology is public! The more you can encourage each other to act like selfish ten-year-old girls the better. Almost no one would want to join a congregation where years of bad blood have been spilled on the doorposts and lintel of the church. The more irrational the grudge the better. Why? Because you don't have to think so hard about it. It is easier to hold in the heart and much, much harder to let go.

Along with grudges you need to nourish the feeling of under appreciation. The Bible tells us that when we are giving we should not “Let our right hand know what the left hand is doing.” Encourage the feeling of martyrdom and apathy towards those who do things for the congregation. And encourage those people to grumble softly to others about lack of appreciation.

If there are troubles, the pastor should not be informed directly. Instead, encourage the members to speak discretely to relatives outside the congregation so they can pass the message to others inside the congregation. Eventually the information should get to the pastor through his wife. And if the pastor hasn't done anything about it in the next week, then use the same channels to pass the concern and complaint to the pastor.

If at all possible, when there are troubles, a member should take it upon himself to call other pastors or synod officials before going to his pastor. The member should then talk with a few members he can trust to make use of the advice he's received. That way the strongest possible case can be made to the pastor through the synodical officials and the official will have the support of a significant part of the congregation.

Nostalgia is an important tool. It is the basis for good complaints like: “The old hymnal had good hymns, not these hard hymns.” Or, “Pastor Sø Åndso never did it that way.” It doesn't matter if he did. What matters is the authority with which the older members can use nostalgia. Former pastors and old hymnals or Bible translations are great sources of controversy. The former pastors are especially good resources if they are deceased and therefore unable to be asked about what actually took place.

This should make it apparent that the best ally to nostalgia is selective memory. The dining hall may have been built originally to benefit the Sunday-school as a teaching space for the young. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the kids keep messing it up, and the teachers don't do a good enough job cleaning. So it all falls on the ladies' group to clean up the mess when they are trying to host a baby shower for a former member's unmarried cousin.

That brings us to scheduling. Keep the schedule changing. That way your neighbors won't be able to visit the service easily. This keeps you from having to constantly explain why we have closed Communion. And it's a handy excuse when the relatives show up and you want to avoid the embarrassment of closed Communion. After all, many of us have relatives in the ELCA and their lady pastors tell them that they're Lutheran just like us.

An added plus to a changing schedule is that it amplifies the use of nostalgia and selective memory. Great complaints can help build grudges. For example, “We used to have more visitors.” And, “How come we can't have church the same time every Sunday?”

Scheduling is a very effective tool in parishes with more than one congregation. There are no ends to the arguments that can be generated over who gets to have early or who gets to have late services. Just the addition of hosting dinner at one church can throw the whole schedule for the rest of the churches. Sunday school has to be rearranged, all the families made aware of the schedule changes through the bother of a telephone call-out list. Placing the burden of responsibility to call out these changes on one or two people at each congregation can quickly generate a feeling of under appreciation and help feed grudges.

If the pastor asks for all events for the upcoming year, don't give them to him. Hold out on two or three at each congregation so that he is left in the dark until the calendar for the month has already been printed. He makes enough mistakes already for it to look like his fault anyway.
And if the pastor tries to lay down the line for consistent scheduling remind him that his authority is limited to the proper administration of the Means of Grace. He shouldn't meddle in the civil affairs of the congregation. Again, nostalgia and selective memory are very handy tools in such a confrontation. “Pastor Sø Åndso never complained about the service times!”

This guide is meant to be an introductory help. It is by no means exhaustive. But these techniques work. They are well tested.

Before this article ends there is a very important point that needs to be made about destroying a small congregation. Several of the techniques listed above are examples of this basic way to destroy a small congregation. The basic technique behind all others is to allow people to be members no matter what they believe. Learn from the huge mega-churches “Doctrine divides, deeds unite!” Always emphasize what is socially appealing and your church will grow. Thus, it will not be a small congregation anymore, but a bustling, gossiping, socially engaged and theologically ignorant group of busybodies.

Wherever Scripture is uncomfortable dismiss those passages as “culturally conditioned,” or mere “historical information” valuable in that it shows us today what kinds of different struggles the early Church had to endure. Use the term “relevance” with respect to what kinds of deeds and experiences the assembly will accept, emphasize what they can do: boycotts, protests, packing shoe-boxes full of human relief for children, anything that can keep the congregation filled with the idea that they are really doing something “relevant” to help someone somewhere in their very “real” life experience. Do not let theology or the Doctrine of Scripture interfere. By all means, cause doubt in the minds of those who would want to emphasize Doctrine. Show them a tolerant God and their own intolerance. Hold before them the woman caught in adultery and Jesus' rescue of her. Emphasize the ignorance of the Apostles, after all, weren't they just some dumb fishermen? (of course, no one can prove how well educated they were, so this becomes a strong argument—remember argument from ignorance is the strong position)

And finally, if someone emphasizes the Lutheran Confessions, ask them why they don't trust the Bible more than the Confessions. Remember the slogan “Deeds, not Creeds.” Point to humanitarian relief efforts and how well they work with inter-faith groups. It doesn't matter that you've already decided that most of the Bible isn't relevant to the current social situation. What matters is that you can put the person off guard. If the person appeals to the Lutheran Confessions as an authority on what the Bible means, reply simply “All I know is that I'm supposed to love my neighbor. How can I love my neighbor if you insist on all these divisive doctrinal lines? Aren't you a sinner too? Don't you love your neighbor and want to help him in his time of trouble?”

Hermeneutics Paper Part 8: Bibliography

Bibliography

GNT Greek New Testament

HOTTP Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, UBS

HUBP Hebrew University Bible Project

NA Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

UBS United Bible Societies.

Abrahamson, Joseph

2005 “Bias in New Testament Textual Criticism: Textual Criticism and the Textus Receptus,”
http://clearwaterlutheran.org/cld/index.php/GPC/GPC

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland

1987 The Text of the New Testament Translated by Erroll Rhodes, Eerdmans, Brill, Grand Rapids, MI, and Leiden.

Aland, Kurt, et al.

1987 Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th Edition, following Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart.

Astruc, Jean

1753 Conjectures sur les mémoires originauz dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Génèse. Avec des remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces conjectures, Brussels.

Robinson, Maurice

2001 ”The Case for Byzantine Priority” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism: Volume 6,
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

Silva, Moises

1983 Biblical Words & Their Meaning: And Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Academie Books, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Stuhlmacher, Peter

1977 Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Toward a Hermeneutics of Consent. Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Terry, Milton S.

1974 Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. Originally published in 1890, republished by Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Thayer, Joseph Henry

1896 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, reprint of 1896 edition became available in 1996 from Hendrickson, Peabody, MA

Tov, E.

1981 The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Simor, Jerusalem.

1992 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Walke and O'Connor

Bruce Waltke and M. O'Connor

1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Wellhausen, Julius

Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1882; Eng. trans., 1885; 5th German edition, 1899; first published in 1878 as Geschichte Israels)
There is an online edition at Project Guttenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/prole11.txt

Wescott, B.F. and F.J.A. Hort

1882 Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: With Notes on Selected Readings. Harper and Brothers, New York. Using the 1988 Reprint by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts.

Hermeneutics Paper Part 7: Prooftexting and Anecdotes

Prooftexting and Anecdotes

This final section looks at two methods used in teaching and edification, both in catechesis and during the sermon. Prooftexting and anecdotes are both methods of teaching the proper interpretation of Scripture. Both can be used appropriately. But both can also be grossly misused. The interpreter should be aware that these are opposite methods of instruction and interpretation. Prooftexting points the hearer/student toward a text of Scripture. Anecdotes point the hearer/student toward human experience.

Prooftexting is one of the most basic methods of showing where and how Scripture teaches. It should never be minimized or eliminated. For every line in the Catechism the student should be taught where in Scripture the teaching is found and how it is rightly interpreted. For every claim about the will of God a pastor makes in his formal interpretation of Scripture (known as the Sermon) he should firmly ground the hearers in the texts which prove his claim.

Unfortunately, as pastors who make public interpretations of Scripture on a regular basis, prooftexting is often done in a short-cut method. Consider the following example:

Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

What is the verse reference? Is the pronoun “us” contrastive with or inclusive of the reader? Who specifically is meant by “us”? What issue was being addressed by the writer of this verse? What is the previous verse? What is the next verse? Where is this passage typically used in catachetical instruction? When is this passage read in the historic Church year? Why is it used on that Sunday? How is this passage used in the Confessions? What does this passage have to do with the forgiveness of sins?

And now the tough question: “How far through this list would my confirmands and members get?” Actually, how would the second and third questions usually be answered by the average membership of a Confessional Lutheran congregation. In this author's experience the usual answer from college students who were members of Confessional Lutheran synods is that “us” means “Christians.”

Consider a second example: Question 53 in the 1981 ELS Catechism:¹

Is it a sin to take one's own life? God also forbids us to take our own life, or even to shorten it by harming our health.

Acts 16:28: Do yourself no harm.

Ask the same basic questions as above regarding this particular passage. Who was speaking to whom? What was the precipitating context? What is the concern? How does this particular wording legitimately extend beyond that context? Does this passage prove that suicide is a sin? With these words was Paul preaching the Law to this man? What should the interpreter know from context before making that kind of judgment? Consider Walther's treatment of this context in his fourteenth evening lecture on Thesis IX (p. 129ff). Students are better prepared when they know these passages in context and understand why they are used as well as limitations on their interpretation that need to be considered. They should be directed chiefly to strictly relevant passages and contexts and not be given a passage as a prooftext that has convenient wording, but which is in actuality only related to the topic by extension of thought.

Prooftexting has the distinct benefit of putting the actual Word of God into the hearer's heart and mind as the source and norm for interpretation of God's Word and their own instruction. But there is another method of interpretation that has been increasingly used in the sermon, the anecdote.

The anecdote is at best a well told example or story that illustrates a point of scriptural interpretation and makes that point more memorable to the hearer. A generation or two ago these used to be called “illustrations.” In the pages of Concordia Theological Monthly there were several articles from the 1930s to the end of the 1950s that discussed the proper and improper use of illustrations. The basic thrust of these articles was that an illustration should not be the fulcrum upon which the sermon balanced, it should not be more memorable than the Scripture itself, and it should not replace the Scripture as the basis for instruction and interpretation. Rather, the good illustration lead the hearer to remember the Scripture better, to understand the Scripture itself better, to enable the hearers to explain and interpret the Scripture to others in a clear way—all so that the Scripture had the preeminence.

But anecdotal preaching styles have been growing in Confessional Lutheran circles. Christ's use of parables is often cited as justification for this manner of preaching. And, as stated above, anecdotes can be used properly. However; in his public interpretation of Scripture—the sermon—the preacher must bear in mind that an anecdote by its very nature points people to human experience, not to the Scripture. This author's experience with anecdotal preaching at Conventions, Conferences, and other venues within his own synodical fellowship has lead him to question the value that seems to be placed on this type of Scriptural interpretation.

Most congregation members probably do not read the Scripture regularly at home. The most time an average congregation member spends in contact with Scripture is usually the Divine Service each Sunday—assuming that the member attends that regularly. Assuming that the Divine Service has not been subverted to the “Hey God, look at me, I think You're really Big and Totally Awesome” schlock,² the hearer has about 15 to 20 minutes worth of exposure to Scripture presented to him in liturgical form. Perhaps another 15 in hymnic form—if the hymns are scriptural. What is left? The public interpretation of Scripture—the Sermon. Once each week the preacher, the public interpreter of the Word of God, has an opportunity to present the truths of God's Word to the flock placed under his charge by God. What is it the public interpreter of God's Word wants the hearer to remember? --that the pastor tells funny stories? that the pastor had members at his previous calls who often had bizarre life experiences? that the pastor watches a lot of TV/Movies/ reads a lot of books/ spends a lot of time online? The public interpreter of the word has a captive audience for 15-25 minutes during which he has their attention. Why are they there? Why has God called that pastor there? There is no story, anecdote, or illustration that this author could think of for which there is not already an example in Scripture itself. Why not give them Scripture? Is 15 to 25 minutes of Scripture too much for the hearers to handle? Are the public interpreters of God's Word being taught to be so inept that they cannot rely upon Scripture to explain Scripture. Do the preachers not want their hearers to know and love each of the people mentioned in the Bible and understand the examples they give—it was for this reason that God had their experiences recorded!

A proper paper would have a conclusion and wrap things up. This author chooses to leave the reader to evaluate the whole on his own, and to evaluate his own situation in response to this paper. May it be of some good use.

רק ליהוה כבודו

1 Question 81 in the 1966 edition, and the prooftext is used for Question 54 in the 2001 edition—which is also about suicide.

2A Yiddish word meaning: “something cheap, inferior, or shoddy.”

Hermeneutics Paper Part 6: Descriptive and Prescriptive

The Descriptive and The Prescriptive

David committed adultery with Bathsheba. Should you? What are the limitations on the use of descriptive passages in establishing doctrine? We know that God condemns worship based on our own ideas of how to approach and appease Him. Consider Aaron's sons: Nadab and Abihu.¹ No one could question that they were sincere. No one could question that they wanted to do something for God. Theirs was a harsh lesson between the prescriptive and descriptive. The text about them is not only a description but gives the prescriptive will of God concerning the worship they were supposed to have offered.

Can certain descriptive passages be used to establish doctrine and practice? Yes! Consider the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Christ. The various passages that describe Christ as man and as God must be understood as limitations on how we are to understand Christ's Divine-Human nature when the prescriptive texts tell us to worship Him as the One True God.

Can it be that certain prescriptive passages do not establish doctrine and practice? Yes! Consider the commands for the observation of the three high festivals when every circumcised male was to appear at the Temple, or the command to stone rebellious children to death. These are certainly prescriptive passages, but there is more in the Scripture that tells us about how we are to view the ceremonial and civil law since their fulfillment in Christ.

In the end it is the context of the whole of Scripture that shows the interpreter what is to be normative for faith and life. But by nature all Christians want to be pietists and transfer their memberships to the church of Galatia. The opinio legis is our constant companion. Preachers are never to think themselves exempt. As interpreters of God's Word to God's flock it is a constant temptation to try to preach the Third Use of the Law. When we attempt to do so we usurp the work of the Holy Spirit. The Three Uses of the Law are not guidelines on how preachers are to attempt to use the Law of God in interpreting the Scriptures to His flock. The Three Uses of the Law are descriptions of how God the Holy Spirit uses His own Law in working on the hearts of the hearers.

It is this author's opinion that all pastors need to reread four books at least each year: The Bible, The Lutheran Book of Concord; The Hymnary; and Walther's The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. Each interpreter of Scripture should be able state clearly and concisely why these particular four works should be selected out for pastors in particular. These works represent the source and norm of interpretation, the confessional limits and experience of the Church in interpretation, the application of interpretation to the flock in its worship and life, and the proper application of God's Word to the flock during the chief act of interpretation: the sermon.

The frequency of rereading is not meant to be understood as a divine directive to the reader. It is meant to point out the weaknesses of the interpreter and his need for constant refreshing, reeducation, and edification of his own knowledge and skills. Constant immersion in these sources, chiefly the Scriptures, will enable the interpreter to grow in discernment between descriptive and prescriptive passages as well as their proper application to the flock of God.

1Leviticus 9:22-10:7.

Hermeneutics Paper Part 5: The Descent into Modernism

The Descent Into Modernism

With all the hullabaloo in the reaction against Post-modernism there is now an almost shocking embrace of Modernism in Confessional Lutheran circles. Part of this embrace of Modernism is due to the fact that Modernism is the fall-back position against Post-modernism. But the main cause for the embrace of Modernism is the continual indoctrination and inundation that takes place from birth on, within Western civilization and its educational, scientific, and governmental institutions.

Consider the statement: “separation of church and state.” Can the interpreter of God's Word draw a clear distinction between the Doctrine as it is found in Scripture, the political right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to its citizens, and the popular cultural post-modern interpretation? How many readers of this paper can make these distinctions clear to their own parishioners? The notion of inalienable human rights, as presented in the Declaration of Independence, is not a scriptural doctrine but the ideological child of the Enlightenment (the main philosophical movement toward Modernism) handed down to us through humanist philosophers such as John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson.

Modernism is woven into the fabric of America's founding, it's law, and it's promulgation as a politically free society. Following the influence of John Dewey (1859-1952) upon public (government sponsored) education, religion—particularly Christianity—has been excised from influencing most citizens of the U.S. in their formal educations since the late 1930s.

Most academically acceptable publications and research in the areas of the original languages of Scripture and its history that are available to the interpreter come from a strictly Modernist Materialistic perspective. As shown by the evidence in the sections on Text and Tools earlier in this paper, academically respectable biblical scholarship embodies a rejection of Scripture as the authoritative Word of God. Instead, such respected scholarship views Scripture as a phenomena of human historical development.

So consider what is “history?” Is it a factual description of the past? Is history reliable? Is history true? Can history serve as a limit on the interpretation of Scripture? In as far as history is a human effort to recover and explain the past to those in the present and future, most history written today is simply speculative fiction about the past.

In the so-called “Historical Grammatical” method of interpretation espoused by Berkhof (and also by many in Confessional Lutheranism) the interpreter is cautioned to value the “history” in the Bible as more reliable than any other “history.”¹ This author would suggest that the Bible contains the only factual representation of the past available in written form anywhere. Other historical writings, in this author's opinion, are at best able to show us some things and events. But those historical writings are not able to place those things and events with any certainty into the chronology and factual happenings of the past.

Consider the field of Creation Science. This particular field of study is an attempt to study the science of cosmology (the study of the historical origins of the universe) in biblical terms. But it is actually much more than that. It is the imposition of Modernistic Materialism upon the text of Scripture. The field of Science is the embodiment of Modernistic Materialism. Science is based on repeatable predictability. This is what is, at least in pretense, the basis for its historicity. It does turn a blind eye to such repeatable predictability in the area of evolution, where such predictability is impossible. But that does not stop the creation scientist from trying to work within the parameters set by unscriptural Modernistic Materialism. Creation Science doesn't say: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” It says, for example: “If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis, and could be effectively promoted and publicized, then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse.”² Or Creation Science proposes interpretations of the Biblical text that involve vapor canopies or ice rings.

The problem with efforts like Creation Science is that they undermine the Bible's definition of faith as that of a gift granted by God through the means of grace. In place of this biblical faith efforts to work within the framework of Modernism (such as Scientific Creationism) direct Christians to look at what they claim is or is not materialistically demonstrable. And faith rests on the rational abilities of mankind to work out the historical truth.

In the past few years the press have brought the James Ossuary and what was called the Tomb of Jesus to the attention of the public. Both discoveries were said to have foundational implications for the Christian faith. Both were demonstrated by historical research and scientific research to be frauds. In the case of the James Ossuary such a demonstration would rhetorically imply that Christianity is false. In the case of the Tomb of Jesus the demonstration that it was false would rhetorically imply that Christianity might possibly be a legitimate faith. Modernism has become such a basic framework for many people that the reported results of such historical and scientific research have significant impact on the idea of truth or falsity of Christianity.

The current descent into Modernism is shown by how much value the interpreter places on such “historical” information (which is merely another form of tradition) and makes use of it to limit the interpretation of Scripture itself. This includes the value he places on historical writings about the periods “before” and during Bible times as well as the value he places on the “historical” tools he uses (grammars, lexicons, textual criticism, commentaries, etc.).

1Frankly, there are too many quotation marks around special terms in this paper. For this the author offers his apology with the explanation that it is difficult in presenting a paper to modulate voice to emphasize the special use of a term or phrase. Let the quotation marks serve as clues to this modulation of voice.

2Morris 1974:252.