Are you going?

 

Blessing death. . .

For a long time I have suggested we ought to be wary of our neighbor to the North.  They have instituted things that eventually find a home here and, although it usually takes a while to make it through the border, it does not take long enough.  Assisted suicide is one of those things.  Labeling the Bible hate speech not to be tolerated in the public square is another.  When you cannot screw things up any worse, what you can do is bless the mess.  That is what Canada is doing -- at least some of the Canadians.

The Anglican Church of Canada has deemed it time to provide for a litany of blessing for those being killed.  Indeed, the Canadian Anglicans have authorized their clergy to bless people being euthanized just before, during, and after being lethally jabbed (at least with the permission of the bishop). From “Pastoral Liturgies at the Time of Death in Contexts of Medically Assisted Dying”:

It is not our intent to enter into the ethical arguments regarding MAiD, nor to provide a moral argument for or against MAiD. . . . No matter where people are in their life journey, we as a Christian community and Christian leaders in particular are called to respond pastorally to the needs and concerns of the people before us. Wherever the church serves, we are the Body of Christ reaching out to the suffering, the sick, and the dying. When someone reaches out for pastoral care, the church responds: there is a duty of pastoral care.

Ouch.  Jesus came to overcome death but the Anglicans are now authorized to bless it.  Imagine if only Jesus had the benefit of their generous pastoral care!  But that is the point.  In their theological vacuity they have failed to raise an ethical argument against euthanasia so what is left but to bless it -- giving it the stamp of approval from the Anglicans who presume they are also acting on behalf of God?  Never mind that suicide has a long history of being one of the most egregious sins in the Christian book of wrongs from the earliest of our days.  No, they have no stomach to prevent this death but they do think it might benefit from some nice words being spoken as it makes its way to rob the life of the living (whether they were complicit in this death or merely its victims).  Better let the Anglicans speak for themselves:

Death is a natural part of life, and in the spirit of the Church’s continued ministry, we are called to walk alongside health care agencies and practitioners to offer a pastoral response and presence to those who are dying. As the Book of Alternative Services notes, “if the sick could not get to church, then the Church [. . . should] come to them.” 

So, then, if death does not come at the right time to those who wish it or those wishing it for them, the church can come to them with a blessing while the government conveniently provides the painless end for the very thing Jesus suffered all to kill once for all.  Legal must mean moral in the playbook of the Canadian Anglicans.  Again, their own words:

People who choose MAiD freely and without coercion may indeed be ready to go. They have been living with and suffering through complex health challenges and they want the pain to stop. They want to be able to sleep. They desperately do not want their families and loved ones to watch and wait, wondering how much longer? They have exhausted all medical options, and they know, everyone knows, that there is no cure. Some wish, most of all, not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well. Some, who are Christian, also desire not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well, and with the grace and blessing of God and with the presence of the Church at their side. 

Indeed, I am not sure that hastening death with a medical assist is something anyone who has read the Scriptures or knows the history of Christianity would ever want to do alone.  Funny how they want to put the imprimatur of Christ on the very thing that Christ came to end.  Oh, well, sometimes we know better than God, don't we?  For what it is worth, I am not suggesting that we abandon the Christians who are making this kind of choice but the alternative to abandonment is not blessing.  Is it?  No wonder the Anglicans are struggling so in North America.  They just don't seem to know how to get it right.  Perhaps that is why they US version is selling its prime property and church headquarters.  I am sure they will come out with enough money so that they can afford to print up blessings when the time comes for the Americans to follow the Canadian lead.

 

Voting is the problem. . .

I was having coffee and reviewing the news with beloved wife some weeks back and mentioned that the Presbyterians had voted on the issue of whether their clergy had to be monogamous.  It was a shocking thing to think.  Churches will now be required to vote to keep their pastors from practicing one or more versions of the polygamy now becoming avante guarde.  My beloved responded that no matter how the vote turned out, the mere fact that you had to vote on it was itself a sign that the battle was lost.  How astute!  That is the problem with voting.  You vote once every year or two years or three but the effect of the vote is only as good as the last time you voted and only sure until the next time.

We seem always to vote in the Church for things we should not be voting for -- even good things!  It is a good thing, I suppose, to vote regularly for an all male priesthood or for close(d) communion or weekly Eucharist or the value of the liturgy and a host of other good, right, and salutary stuff.  But that is the problem with voting.  You are only as good as the last vote and the next one may change it all.  I am weary of voting.  It is the Achilles' Heel of democracy and it may well be the undoing of the Church down the road.  The mere fact we vote on things that are a given in God's Word and a staple of our confessional and creedal life means that these things are not enough and, without reaffirming them, we could actually overturn them (though the Word of God does require a two-thirds majority vote to be overturned!).

Whether in Australia or in Germany, recent events have shown us that even when the vote fails to change the practice from truth to error, there is always another vote and another opportunity to change the right side into the wrong one.  Even Rome knows that.  The mere fact that a diocese or two has voted to support the ordination of women, for example, shows the problem lies with the vote.  Voting does not establish doctrine but it cannot deny it.  What about the biggest ballot of all -- the one that sends up the white smoke?   And, too often, it does just that.  I cannot speak for Rome and what they are doing with their abundance of problems but I know in the Lutheran back yard voting has become the idea that we get a say so over what the Lord says and a say so over how we intend to implement what He has said.  That is the fallacy of voting.  Voting does not establish doctrine.  Only the Word of God can do that.  When we vote for practices that muddy the waters of doctrine or confuse what we say we confess, the problem lies already with the vote even before we get to what it is we were or are voting upon.

One convention I well recall is when we voted to rescind the XIV article of the Augsburg Confession.  It took nearly thirty years to fix that mistake and we did it by, yup, you guessed it, voting.  Which means we could screw it up all over again.  We were careful to say we were not changing doctrine back then but only tweaking with the practice but in the end we pretty much destroyed the idea of ordination (whether or not you think Apostolic practice is serious stuff or not) and the rite vocatus that led up to the laying on of hands.  Even if you win, unless your margin is 90/10 or so, you almost leave room for the opponents to come back again for another go at undoing what we said we believed and how we practiced it.  There were, after all, overtures submitted designed to turn back the clock so we could party like 1989 one more time.  I am writing this a little early so I will venture to say we did not give into that temptation -- at least not yet.

Some people think that it is a problem of who votes -- laymen or, in particular, female laity.  I think it is a problem of voting period.  We should vote less on even good things which we confess and practice.  Voting gives us the wrong impression -- namely that we are in charge! 

Why are we losing them?

In 2007 Lifeway published the results of a fairly wide study that found some 70 percent of young American adults who regularly attended a Protestant church in high school stopped attending upon when hey reached college age. Interestingly, this was mirrored in those who did not attend college as well as those who did enter university.  Ten years later when Lifeway repeated the study (2017), guess what—it found pretty similar results.  Before we quickly blame the colleges and the secular education industry, we would do well to recall that Lyman Stone made the conclusion to his review (Institute of Family Studies) that “most nonreligious children are born into religious households and lose their faith while under the supervision of parents who believe that they are successfully transmitting their religious values.”  Neither study is alone in its findings or its conclusions.

Organization	Study / Source	Year	Key Finding
Lifeway Research	Church Dropout Study	2007	70% of young adults who attended church regularly in high school dropped out for at least one year between ages 18–22.
Lifeway Research	Church Dropout Study (updated)	2019	66% dropout rate—a slight improvement from 70% in 2007. 71% say leaving was not intentional.
Barna Group	You Lost Me	2011	59% of young adults with a Christian background disconnected from church during their 20s.
Barna Group	Faith for Exiles	2019	Dropout rate rose to 64%. Only 10% of young Christians qualify as “resilient disciples.”
Pew Research	Religious Landscape Study	2023–24	29% of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated (“nones”)—up from 16% in 2007.
Pew Research	Why Americans Leave Religion	2025	53% of those who left religion did so by age 18.
Gallup	Church Membership Trend	2020	U.S. church membership fell below 50% for the first time ever, to 47%.
NSYR	Longitudinal Study	2002–13	Parents are the single most important influence on long-term religious outcomes. Retention drops to single digits without parental engagement.
Fuller Youth Institute	Sticky Faith	2006–10	Intergenerational worship participation is the strongest predictor of sustained faith into college.
PRRI	Census of American Religion	2020–24	36–44% of adults under 30 are religiously unaffiliated. Young women now leaving faster than young men.

The data points to a dropout rate somewhere between 59% and 70%, depending on how you define “dropout” and depending upon the time period being surveyed.  Of course, many of those who "drop out" will eventually return but even so, the situation is serious.  What is concerning is this.  The surveys found that: 71% of those who left said it was not an intentional decision—it just happened. They drifted away.  They stopped attending for a while and it became a habit. They did not get angry and storm out.  They did not rebel against church teaching.  They just woke up one day and had lost the habit of attending Church.  Some of them worked to regain the habit.  Many did not.  It is also interesting that many, perhaps even most of those young adults who dropped out of Church were not rejecting the faith outright (though this might come later) but they had lost the habit.

 

While it is true that many eventually return—especially after major life transitions—those life events that would eventually provide an opportunity for them to drop back in are themselves in decline. Survey said that the reasons for returning include feeling that something was missing and having the desire to return (34%), feeling God was calling them back (28%), having children (24%), and getting married (20%). About half of young adults who leave eventually return in some capacity which is good but if having children and marrying are on the decline among those same young adults, that means there are fewer entry points for them along their lives. 

 

The single strongest predictor of long-term religious outcomes: parents.  Duh.  This should not be a surprise.  So the fix does not lie with church programs.  It is not youth group, not summer camp, not a youth pastor or leader, not participation in church leadership, and not worship style that is the biggest factor in the long term religious connection of young adults.  Far and away the most significant variable in all the studies is the home, the faith of the parents, and the practice of the family. Though it is politically incorrect to admit this, the faith and practice of the father in the home has the greatest impact.  The declining presence of the dad in the home is therefore also very concerning.

 

Retaining youth is key to the vitality of the Church.  We may be great at evangelization but if we are a failure at keeping the kids we have, we will decline.  It is inevitable.  So having children and raising them in the faith and in the Church with a strong father example is part of the solution as well as a sign of the problem.  This is not earth shattering but it does reinforce the common wisdom that the strength of the Church is the strength of the home. 

Elections and mandates and governance. . .

It is probably impossible to resist but it is not good for churchly institutions to borrow from political ones to conduct and interpret elections.  We are not a democracy.  We do not decide things by plebiscite.  Even when we have votes or elections, we are not doing what political institutions do.  Interpreting elections can be dangerous or difficult.  Even Rome knows this and they insist that they do not conduct democratic elections or cast ballots (except to cause the white smoke to rise or at councils!).  People who try to make the Church fit into political style jackets find themselves disappointed and disillusioned.  There were those who expected one thing from JPII and BXVI and FI and LXIV only to see their visions disrupted by unexpected things from them all.  The little corner of the Christian world called the LCMS should be also chastened by such political hopes and aspirations.  Is this really what any one of us wants from the Church?

We do not have political parties in the Church and our political patronage is not as deep or broad as it was in the heyday of American politics.  We do not have the layers of political offices in which to identify and promote political candidates.  Some would suggest we have the rudiments of such a system and some would insist that this is exactly what we ought to be doing -- conducting the business of the Church as if it were some grand plebiscite voting on what God's Word says, what it means, and how it is to be lived out.  We already have something of the kind coming at us through the rear entrance as culture influences and shapes what we are willing to tolerate as God's Word and what we have decided to overlook.  We do not need to give culture and the mind of the individual more room to influence or shape Christian faith and practice.

Although some might disagree, I do not believe I am naive.  I know some of this will always be there and our baser nature always wants to fight for control and self-preservation.  But do we formalize this as the way we act as a church body or do we right against the intrusion of worldly ideas of how to govern the Church?  Do we interpret elections as mandates for change or for the status quo?  Do we measure these mandates by election majorities?  Do we play politics with the numbers in order to diminish our opponents or magnify our favorites?  Social media has become the perfect platform to do this.  We can do this almost anonymously -- doing everything from character assassination to slander while hiding who is doing the accusing.  Is that serving us well? 

I am not here simply thinking of such things as elections and votes but also policy based governance.  We want efficiency in the Church and in the name of efficiency we have elected to put more power into fewer hands.  At the same time, we have not bothered to differentiate between authority and responsibility and so the power gets to choose.  In my own church body we chose to eliminate boards and executives and funnel nearly everything through a very few hands.  We have done a mighty fine job of burning good people out and promoting some to their level of incompetence and, worse, created a perfect scenario for blame politics.  We blame our leaders for every problem in the Church -- from not having babies and the graying of the pews to not recruiting enough pastors.  We seem to look everywhere to blame someone for the problems that belong to everyone.  How is that working for us so far?

Finally, everyone agrees we need rules.  A constitution and bylaws are those rules, duly adopted and faithfully enforced.  But we cannot and will not solve some of the vexing problems of the day by throwing bylaws at them.  We cannot bylaw our way to more people in the pews or more souls baptized or more folks being catechized or more folks coming to the rail or more missionaries sent or more church workers trained.  Votes cannot create the answers to the problems we have largely created for ourselves.  We all need to look into the mirror and admit this and work, as best we are able and where we are placed, to correct our inadvertent or deliberate errors.  Governance can sustain what is but it cannot grow the Church.  Leaders can faithfully lead the Church but they cannot grow it either (especially in Rome where they have no wife!).  It is frustrating for us to work so hard to make the business of the Church about votes, governance about control, and then to ignore how our rules cannot fix what we have broken.  When we begin to admit this, we just may take the first step toward improving the state of things. That is called repentance.