Sweden's mosques. . .

Permit me again to visit the problems of the homeland of half my relatives, Sweden.  It was and remains in myth and legend a Lutheran homeland.  There are still plenty of Lutheran church buildings.  The problem is that they are largely empty.   The some 3,000+ buildings dot the landscape but actual attendance of the 5+ million member church is dismal.  Some say as low as 2%!  The Lutheran Church of Sweden - the state religion/church until 2000 - remains the largest Christian denomination but is facing a continuous decline in registered membership - once nearly all the population of Sweden but now dropping below half.  Look at the attendance at worship and you see another picture entirely than the seemingly steady membership figures.  While there are other smaller Christian denominations include Free churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, the growing face of Sweden is Muslim.

Sweden has experienced a sharp increase in the number of mosques over the last decades. Without an official register of how many mosques or prayer centers there are in Sweden, the Swedish Agency for Support to Religious Communities estimated last year that there are around 300 mosques nationwide, though the true figure may be higher because many of the prayer centers operate rather casually and outside any formal system of registration.  Government officials also say more mosques are on the way.  While this might seem negligible in comparison to the numbers of buildings associated with the Church of Sweden, the difference is that Muslims attend and the Lutherans don't.  Sweden's religious landscape has been radically transformed over the last quarter of a century. While churches have been quietly closed or the number of attenders decline to almost nothing, the number of mosques has skyrocketed by some 4,200 percent and they are full.  Furthermore, the Muslim population of Sweden has a robust birth rate while Sweden's native population is graying and having less children than it would take to replace them.  In effect, Islam is the second official religion of Sweden.  Sweden's massive demographic changes over the last 25 years is not only reflected in the demographic composition of the nation, but also the religious composition of the country. While churches continue to empty, Sweden went from approximately seven mosques in 2000 to now 300 in 2025.

This is not simply about the influx of Islam but about the decline of Sweden.  Its ethnic brand is about to become a memory.  Indeed, according to figures suggested by Yasir Qadhi, a Pakistani-born American theologian, predicted that in just one generation, half of Malmö’s population would be Muslim.  While it is certainly the path chosen by the Swedes over time, the reality is that Sweden would be hard pressed to reverse this course or make any real changes in the future ahead.  It is almost a done deal.  What is written here could be written about many of those nations in which Lutheranism once thrived and, indeed, about Western Europe as a whole.  Again, this is less about what Muslims are doing than about what Swedes and the Europeans are not.  They are not having children and they seem fairly passive about giving up their history and their identity and more concerned with maintaining their social service umbrella as their population ages.

Sadly, it is not uncommon for Lutheran church buildings across Europe to be seen as the cultural property of the nation rather than religious buildings in which the faithful gather for the Divine Service.  That itself is an admission that the handwriting is on the wall.  Membership figures tell a completely different story than the numbers of folks in the pews and virtually admit that what is being maintained is not a living community of faith gathered around the Word and Sacraments but a monument to their history to which they continue to cling as they reality of the change unfolds before their eyes.  It is becoming increasingly costly to maintain these Christian buildings while money is pouring in to finance mosques.  Swedish mosque construction has been partially or completely financed with money from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar or Turkey. In the case of Saudi Arabia alone, the numbers are in the realm of billions of kronor. There is also information in the media that every fourth Swedish mosque is financed by the Sunni Muslim and Wahhabi kingdom.

As I have posted before, many years ago my parents hosted a Swedish folk music and dance troop which had come to Nebraska to join in the anniversary celebration of a small village with a Swedish heritage.  The meal she served was stereotypically Swedish to the folks there but the modern day Swedes called it museum food and preferred American fast food and other non-traditional dishes.  Perhaps that is the Christian future of Sweden and other nations in the same boat.  Their Lutheran heritage is museum fodder, something to be appreciated in a display behind glass covers rather than celebrated with faith.  If it is their future, it could be ours as well -- whether or not it includes the explosion of Muslim immigrants celebrating their faith.  In my Swedish hometown, one of the three church buildings in town has closed its doors for good and, guess what, they thought about turning it into a museum.  

Feeling loved. . .

I find it interesting how love has shifted from something concrete and real to something perceived or felt.  If we do not feel loved, we do not believe we are loved.  I am not sure when this shift took place but at some point it transformed what love is from something that is revealed by what is done to how it is perceived, received, and felt.

I knew the affection of my parents not by how I felt but by what they did.  The fact that my father went to work every day to provide for his family without indulging himself in hobbies or self-interest remains the most profound way I knew his love.  It is the same for my mother.  It was not the special things they did that the depth of their love for me was shown but in the ordinary of everyday life, the sacrifices of themselves for me and for my brother.  It is nice to have flowery words spoken or to have received special things along the way but I did not depend upon these to know I was loved.  They were not perfect parents or perfect people but they gave of themselves every day and I am the recipient of this love, along with my brother.

We say God is love but then we put God to the test all the time.  If God really loved me... then, well, you fill in the blank.  Sometimes people will confess that they ditched the faith because they did not feel God's love or know any special or unique way He expressed that love to them.  Or, perhaps more accurately, everything else God had done was discounted because they could not believe that if God really loved them they would have suffered this or that along life's way.  God's love was defined not by God but by the people and His love was subject to the conditions they attached to that love.  Without these, they could not see how God is love or believe that God loved them.

The mark of God's love for us lies not with the special things we have counted upon and He has fulfilled but in the realm of the most basic thing of all.  He forgives us.  Forgiveness is the most profound act of love and the most costly.  It could not be simply a word or decision on the part of God but required the incarnation of the Son, the agony of the cross, the suffering for sin by the sinless One, and the payment of all sins by the cleansed blood of His self-offering.  Yet even this seems not to be enough for us.  How easy it is for us to discount the power and manifest love revealed in the cross and look for something more, something that fits our mood, something that matches our feelings, and something that we set as the test of what His words of love mean.

The Christian answer to the question of how we know God's love for us is the Cross. “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).  We might rather have God snuggle us in at night or speak quiet words only to us and not another or do for us what we demand as the condition for us to feel loved but faith trusts not in feelings nor even in words.  It trusts in the cross.  We each Christ crucified because the cross is where the eternal love of God is revealed and where we encounter it.  It is nice to have your prayers answered now and again and to receive hidden voices in the night telling you little nothings in your ear but these pale before the cross.  “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son” (Hebrews 1:1–2). 

The more we define what love is by how we feel it or how well it lives up to our expectations, the less love we will know.  That is why forgiveness is always a component of love, perhaps its deepest component.  We know we are loved because the cross proclaims the forgiveness not earned nor merited nor even request but freely given.  Such is the depth and height and length and breadth of God's love for us. In the same way, we would define love as approval for who we are and what we feel but God's love for us is manifest in His willingness to do all that is necessary to redeem us from the things we claim are who we are and how we feel but are really sin. 

What have we done with truth?

The case of Planned Parenthood of SE Pennsylvania vs Casey arose from a challenge to five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982; among the provisions were requirements for a waiting period, spousal notice, and (for minors) parental consent prior to undergoing an abortion procedure.  The Court overturned the Roe trimester framework in favor of a viability analysis, thereby allowing states to implement abortion restrictions that apply during the first trimester of pregnancy. In its "key judgment," the Court overturned Roe's strict scrutiny standard of review of a state's abortion restrictions with the undue burden standard, under which abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional when they were enacted for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

Everyone thought that this might have been the moment to overturn Roe.  It was not.  Shifting positions created a split decision in which only the first few paragraphs of the opinion were agreed upon but there was no heart in the justices to undo Roe at its core.  In the opinion, the court felt for the pulse of the time and put into legal language what has now born its terrible fruit of a personal truth, true for the individual at the moment but without any ability to reach beyond that person without consent.  They wrote it this way:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" (Planned Parenthood of SE Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992)).  Written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

If liberty cannot mean the right to define by each individual their own concept of existence, meaning, the nature of the world, and the mystery of human life, the count seemed to say it was not liberty at all.  Except that this was a venture onto the unsure ground that our nation had never traipsed upon before -- at least not in the official language of justice and law.  Imagine the absurdity of this statement in defining abortion as good and then equating this with the stuff of the universe and the meaning of human life.  The triumph of the autonomous self has turned the individual into an imperial humanity without qualification.  Neither family nor community, nation nor culture, truth or morality brings us together except the common cause of our individualism.  Note how natural law and moral law and even the very institutions of marriage and family are sidetracked before the sacred altar of self.  What happened to "we hold these truths to be self-evident?"

In the end, Roe was finally overturned but not the idea of this individual, imperial, autonomous self.  That remains and is now so deeply embedded in our souls that it will be hard even to address much less overcome.  If is the ultimate falsehood parading as our most noble truth.  It is what some have called the “tyranny of relativism” and subjectivism.  Alas, when we shift the locus of truth from the object (reality) to the subject (the individual), “truth” becomes something fragile and truth ends up being the cause for the rawest pursuit of power and control.  It would be hard to see how this has not resulted in the combative and violent shape of our society and the way we insist upon tolerance when we really expect approval. 

The gates of hell. . .

It is often a mighty comfort to the faithful in the midst of trouble and turmoil.  The devil will not prevail.  The gates of hell will not prevail.  But what this does not mean is that the status quo will endure forever.  It is a false comfort to presume that everything that is will continue because God has set His protection upon it.  Indeed, God has not set His protection upon all the institutions and their various shapes and forms.  God has placed His protection over us.  Over you and me.  We belong to Him.  All the things that have articles and bylaws, web pages and physical addresses, phone numbers and email addresses may not endure.  They probably will not.  We will.

This ought to be of great comfort to us as God's people.  We are the people of His promise, upon whom He has placed His mark, whom He has cleansed in baptismal water, and begun the good work of salvation in us.  Yes, this is our comfort and assurance when things seem bleak and threats abound.  We belong to the Lord.  It does not mean we are immune from suffering or that we will not pay a cost for being His disciples.  Of course not.  Our Lord repeatedly reminds us that as He was treated, so shall we be treated by a world at enmity with those who belong to Him as it was to Him.  But the things that the devil and the world can do to us cannot rob us of all that Christ died and rose to bestow upon us.  That is the promise.

At the same time this comforts us, it ought also to push us to action.  As we in the LCMS look around us, we should be chastened by the reminder that even the good institutions among us have no guarantee upon them and carry no immunity from the assaults of the devil or the ravages of time and the whims of the moment.  IF they are good and salutary, IF they are to endure, it will be because we work for them.  We cannot stand on the sidelines and watch the Lord do for us what He has called us to do.  We are the laborers in His harvest.  If we are lazy or complacent, all the good things that are our Synod will fall into disrepair and fail us.  If we are foolish and mistake earthly success for faithfulness to the Lord, all those things we think of as we identify ourselves as a Synod will fall through the fingers of our own neglect.  If we squabble over needless things or overlook serious disagreements over faith and practice, it will come back to haunt us.  

Jesus did not tell us not to fear but whom to fear and whom not to fear.  Do not fear the powers of this world but fear God and heed the voice of His Word.  We will be accountable and not only for the individual stewardship of the time and resources He has granted to us but also for the things we hold of value together as a Synod.  Sometimes we get this wrong.  We act to protect institutions instead of the cause, fearing the loss of the things that may be valuable today but are not eternal over that which is forever.  We also act as if we are merely spectators and God is the only actor.  The witness of the New Testament ought to show us how God does His work.  He works through those whom He has called.  He works through us.  

The hard part is working this out in daily life.  Some presume that the Church grows because of what we do or how we do it.  They would forget that this work is too valuable to the Lord for Him to consign it to others.  His Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies still and He works through means.  These means of grace, the Word and the Sacraments, are administered by us but He is their power as well as their goal.  We would be foolish if we thought that we had the franchise of the Church and it was our duty and our power to make it flourish and grow.  But we would also be foolish if we presumed that if God wants it done, He can just do it Himself.  What we do in the home and in the congregation matters and has profound effect.

Conventions can be a mess, a cacophony of voices and agendas clamoring for the limelight.  They can be boring as we realize that we have dealt with nearly everything on the agenda before.  They can be sobering as our well meaning efforts of the past had unintended consequences.  But they can also be a place of hope as we encounter people from all over the nation who share our common identity as Missouri Synod Lutherans and are working in their own neck of the woods to do what we have been called to us, trusting in the Lord but placing all the attention and energy of their hearts, minds, bodies, and souls at His behest.  Hopefully we will walk away reminded that nothing will be preserved without our efforts but we shall be kept to everlasting life by the Lord alone.  Hopefully we will have met some new folks who labor with us but in different arenas for the same cause and be encouraged.  Hopefully we will learn to set aside smaller loyalties for the larger loyalty to Christ, His Word, and the faithful Confession once made and still kept by us.  Hopefully we will not expect our leaders to do what we have been called to do and we will not try to be a church body of many leaders with no followers.  Hopefully we will find cause for joy even as we are given sober reminder that these things are not easy, clean, or efficient.  It is what it is but the LCMS is still our best cause and the best place to be.  If and when that is no longer so, we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it but for now it would be nice if we showed in life some of the unity we claim in theory.  

Meanwhile on the AI scene. . .

I read recently where many researchers are now convinced that to achieve a more humanlike AI, or artificial general intelligence (AGI), will require something more than merely mastering language and images.  It will, in their estimation, require AIs which can reason about space, causality, and the consequences of actions.  While this is more broadly necessarily for the evolution of AI, it is especially required if AI is to control humanoid robots, operate factories, and explore other planets—fulfilling at least some of the promise of those visionaries who laud its future.

Among those who argue for this need, AI pioneer Yann LeCun put it clearly. “I joke that the smartest systems we have today are not as smart as a house cat,” he says. A cat can’t code like a large language model (LLM), but it can survive by its wits. The notion that simply scaling ever larger an LLM will get to AGI is “complete nonsense,” he says. “It’s like saying you’re going to get into orbit by scaling airplanes. There’s a very powerful delusion circulating in Silicon Valley that this is the case.”  LeCun left a top job at Meta to co-found one of a growing number of labs and startups developing “world models”—systems that build representations of how the world works—and agents that operate within them to learn or plan. Ultimately, these researchers hope that more closely mimicking how the human mind learns will give AI stunning new powers. 

There is another problem.  Companies  are spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to build AI models with hundreds of billions or even trillions of adjustable parameters, trained on trillions of words and images scraped from the internet.  The latest GPT model from OpenAI is several times the size of its largest 2020 model and trained on an order of magnitude more data.   So LLMs can pass lawyers’ bar exams and doctors’ medical licensing exams, match the achievements of top high school students in math, write poetry that many readers find more beautiful than human works, and do such an efficient job that top programmers now use them to write most of their code.  However, each advance in AI requires disproportionately more resources.  They are running out of input.  Literally.  One 2024 study estimated they’ll exhaust high-quality public text data in the next few years.  The equipment (computer chips and algorithms are gaining efficiency), but not quickly enough and data centers under development will each draw so many gigawatts of power and water that they are straining the grid and turning the minds of the public against them.

In other words, building a better human may be even more difficult that improving the ones we have. 

Addicts of our own success. . .

Sometimes in the life of the Church, we realize that we are not really pursuing the goals and purposes of the Church as Christ has commanded but seeking success, approval, recognition, and, best of all, numbers.  Everything seems to come down to numbers but it starts with success.  We want to succeed.  It is probably in our nature to seek success and no one but a fool would pursue failure, at least deliberately.  But success can prove a poor teacher.  It teaches us less than failure does and it might impart lessons which are hard for us to shake.  When something works, we often stop looking to see if it passes the faithfulness or orthodoxy test.  If is works, that is usually good enough for us.

Approval is what we all seek.  Some of us probably seek the approval of God but I fear those numbers grow less and less over the ages.  We do seek the approval of others.  We are consumed by the need to be affirmed by those around us -- from family and friends to peers and even strangers.  We want approval and that need has led us to find ways around the Word of God in order to get the approval of those whose values and views conflict with God's own revelation.  If given a choice, most of us in the Church would trade God's approval (heck, He forgives us anyway) with the approval of those outside the Church (who are less likely to forgive any intrusion into their chosen way of life or feelings about it all.  Why else would we admit that Scripture has long forbidden as not simply wrong but bad for us in all sorts of behaviors we now want to accept or tolerate or even commend?  It starts with sex but it does not end there -- that is the lesson from Eden.

Recognition is hot on the list of things we want.  It is better to be known and rejected than to be ignored.  Even thought it might be better to be ignored by the forces at work in society and culture, we do not want to trade fame and its fortune for being forgotten or ignored -- even if that was the better path of faithfulness and orthodoxy.  Like Trump's idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity, we want the recognition of society and those around us more than we want to be commended by God.  It is the fatal flaw of sin and it might even be stronger in us than the desire for self-preservation or self-expression.  We want at least our fifteen minutes in the spotlight.

Numbers is where it all seems to end.  Using statistics to define both success and failure is hard for a God who promised a remnant or a nation to an old man and an old woman but it is not difficult for us.  We do not know how to gauge the statistics on faithfulness but we can measure the folks in the pews and how much they put in the plate or the ratings given to us on social media.  Is this the primary concern for the Church and her leaders?  No, I am not saying that decline is the cost of faithfulness always but sometimes it is.  The world is filled with the same itching ears as the pews and we attach our hopes to those who seem to show revival just as we blame those who suffer decline.  We take our comfort in numbers even more than in the Lord and, if we had to choose, we would probably choose stars, a satisfactory attendance number, and a healthy bank account over just about everything else.  That is what we wrestle with even within the Church and even among her pastors.

In some respects, we are addicts of our own success -- wishing to recreate the golden years of boomtown economies, suburban sprawl, immigration, or whatever else was working when we seemed to have no end to our future.  Now, we kick doctrine to the curb and jettison the liturgy and shop in the catalog of evangelical practices to find something that will make our glory filled yesterdays into today and tomorrow.  We forget how the Church began, the sufferings of the early years, the controversies that nearly tore us apart, the confusion of regal splendor with churchly nobility, the isolation of people from their churchly leaders, and so many other things.  He who endures to the end shall be saved.  I wish I listened to that more and I wish my church would as well. 

Moments of euphoria or irrational exuberance. . .

Every now and then a church acts in a radical way that in the moment is seen as one thing but in the rear view mirror looks different.  Often these actions are seen in the euphoria of the moment as opening the door to a bold new future but, looking back, they are often seen as moments of irrational exuberance (a phrase from a former Fed chairman I love to quote).

Let me give some concrete examples.  In the case of Rome, Vatican I and the papal centrism of that council were seen as essential if a bit radical in the moment.  Now, in the wake of the failed papacy of Francis and how quickly he undid some of the better work of JPII and BXVI, it looks like irrational exuberance.  If only one could go back and dial down some of the over the top rhetoric that virtually equated the papacy with the church and made bishops more assistants to the pope than real bishops.  So what do you do in the wake of it all?  If you are Rome, you try to ignore the excesses but you always have those folks who refuse to let it fade away.

Another example in Rome is Vatican II (sense a pattern here?).  There was euphoria about updating a moribund church body and opening the door to some fresh air.  It turns out, in retrospect, that some things that seemed dead were buried prematurely and the fresh air let in was poisoned with the headiness of the moment and it turned out not a great moment to make grand changes.  Now Rome is caught between those who continue to try and redeem the euphoria of Vatican II and those who shrug that it was a case of irrational exuberance that probably should be forgotten.  Of course, it does not help that Paul VI went on a bender drunk with Vatican II euphoria to make liturgical changes the council did not foresee or authorize.

Rome is not alone.  In my own small world of the Missouri Synod, there was euphoria in 1989 about opening up the role of lay ministers to supplement the pastors in places where the ordained were in short supply.  It turned out that the recension of Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession was irrational exuberance that required 20 years to fix and has still left us with the scars of the confusion of our own making.  It was a bonehead move.  Yet there are those who still live in the euphoria of that moment and keep trying to dredge back up the remnants of that ill-conceived resolution today.

Perhaps another example is the restructuring of 2010.  The blue ribbon task force (who can recall the entire name) that proposed it seemed to have studied everything and come up with a radical solution to a management problem many admitted was real.  There was euphoria in the air but the same convention that adopted most of the fix denied its architect from implementing the thing and passed the leadership baton to someone who did not favor it.  Now, the same people who clamored for the centralization of power in the then president of Synod are claiming that the one elected has acted highhandedly to do what the new bylaws told him to do.  Euphoria in 2010 has turned out to be irrational exuberance today as we look at the possibility that we will have to revisit the whole thing again sooner rather than later and undo what was then a classic example of a policy driven executive structure.

My guess is that you could add somethings here and I could to make this a rather long list of things that seemed perfect in the moment but ended up being not so good as we look back from the vantage point of today.  Some will insist that the Church needs to act more quickly.  I am chastened by some of our past euphoria to suggest that these examples are proof that we need to act more deliberately -- not less.  The work of God's kingdom is of too great an importance for us to keep up with the heady euphoria of the day only to look back and see that our irrational exuberance has proven to be a major problem.  My guess is that the undoing of our institutions will likely happen more because of what we felt we had to do or die rather than what we did not do quickly enough.  I know some will disagree but that is my wisdom of the day. 

How you view the line. . .

The state of the Missouri Synod on the question of the role of women seems to hinge upon two very different viewpoints.  On the one hand, there are those who insist that everything matters.  They worry about having women in classes as the seminaries (deaconesses) and about women doing anything publicly that is the domain of men or pastors.  A woman leading an LWML Bible study is often seen as different only by degree with a vested woman in a stole leading worship.  They are constantly on the lookout for places where the line is transgressed, where woman are usurping the roles given exclusively to men or to pastors.  There is nothing innocent in this point of view.  Every infraction is nefarious and threatening.

On the other hand, there are those who insist that it is no big deal.  They see the line as flexible, adjusted in part by circumstance and in part by age or generation.  They insist that it is local and nothing more.  A woman leading a women's Bible study is just that.  Nothing more.  A woman holding congregational offices is just that and nothing more.  A woman doing what any layman might do on Sunday morning is just that and nothing more.  They are hesitant about making anything more out of something specific or local.  It is no big deal.

In between there are those in Missouri who are caught between the two positions.  They have a concern for principle but they also have a concern for rigidity.  They see women all around us in society, government, and industry but they know that the Church is not the same as those domains.  They realize that this is messy and it might mean that the same answer is not the same in every place -- that come congregations may not have women's suffrage or officers and others might.  They want to respect these differences but they also know that both sides push and pull toward the edges and not the middle.  They do not want to make too much out of it all but neither do they want to ignore the real differences which deserve to be noticed.

On the one side, those who want the line to be movable insist that we must trust them in every decision they make and on the other side are those who insist that rules are rules and they must be respected.  And this is not simply about the role of women.  It touches upon the issues of close communion, worship rites, and a host of different things.  Every three years we attempt to blend them all together in something called a convention.  It is sometimes a train wreck.  It is sometimes shallow, preferring to push off things that are urgent and photo ops for real substance.  It is sometimes hopeful, when progress is made even if it is slow.  It is sometimes a real conversation in which people are listening and sometimes it is people shouting at each other without paying attention to what the others are saying.  It is a call to trust with some insisting that there is no trust and others insisting that their trust has been violated over and over again.  And all of this is magnified by the bullhorn of social media and armchair commentators (like me) and backseat drivers who insist they can see clearly what others cannot.  I wish it was going to change, resolve into something less stressful, but I doubt that this will happen soon.  In fact, I suspect this is the shape of things to come -- made more urgent and more difficult as we witness the decline of things around us in the Church and in the world.  What do you think?

Gain the world, lose the soul. . .

There was no Episcopal congregation near where I grew up -- only Lutherans and a smattering of Evangelical Covenant and Methodist folk.  I had no experience of Anglicanism except for books and they contributed more to the mystery than the revelation.  It was not until college that I knew them first hand.  There I found a small congregation in Southern Kansas with a building that looked as if it had been ripped out of the English countryside and dropped in the most unlikely spot possible.  It was just after the 1970 General Convention had declined to ordain women but the handwriting was already on the wall.  Yet in this very Anglo-Catholic little church in Kansas almost to the Oklahoma border, nothing could steal my joy at discovering this very promising version of Christianity so much more interesting than my own simple Lutheran upbringing.  It started a fascination and affection not only for all things Anglican but for all things English.  The two went hand in hand and it did not take long for me to become a bona fide Anglophile.

If the building were interesting, the liturgy was even more.  There was more ceremonial than I had ever experienced -- Vatican II was already beginning to unravel Roman reverence and replace it with a more casual approach to the mystery of God.  Lutherans were liturgical but not quite ceremonial.  I learned new hymns and the congregation was filled with welcoming people.  It did not hurt that they had wine and cheese at the drop of a hat.  I probably knew down deep that this would never be more formal church home but it had already found a home in my heart, or, better, my imagination.  With it came some new terminology.  High church was a mostly Anglican term at the time although now it much more ecumenical.  Then there was some heavy baggage to lift.  Liberals claimed the heritage and identity and so did the evangelicals (broad and low).  Neither appealed much to me.  Apparently they came together as a package.  You could not simply choose one.  That was thought by some to be the strength of Anglicanism but it proved to be its undoing -- a church without a firmly defined soul.  Protestant.  Catholic.  Evangelical.  You name it.  They shared a fine liturgy, a decent preaching tradition, great music, nice vestments, gorgeous architecture, real bishops, fine ritual, seemingly honest reverence, and, depending on how you interpreted it, an honest confession of faith.  It turned out that as wonderful as these all were and even together as one package they could not save a church.

I will always have a soft spot for Anglicanism -- my Britbox subscription is testament to my continuing Anglophile credentials -- but it was and is a tragic story.  My affection for it all let me down.  As I write this The Episcopal Church is said to be dusting off its headquarters to sell as the denomination bleeds off people and congregations.  The church of the presidents has revealed its theological vacuity for all the world to see.  History, great ritual, and deep reverence (for something if not for God) turned out not to be enough.  They still have their history but I am not at all sure they have a future here in the West, anyway.  They just don't seem to know Jesus anymore -- or at least the Jesus of council, creed, and confession.  The Anglo-Catholics are gone; the big names long dead or departed to Rome.  Most of the evangelicals and low church folk are also packing their bags or have headed out the door.  The liberal are firmly in control of what is left.  Oh, to be sure, there are those who claim the identity and legacy of Anglicanism (ACNA) but they differ from what is by degree and not by substance and their enthusiasm masks their small numbers.  Yes, there is hope in the Southern Hemisphere but that is for another post.  What I thought I had found nearly sixty years ago is but a memory.

This is written not as a trip down memory lane nor as a confession to cleanse my own old soul but as a warning to other churches and to my own.  We think that if you win on the big fronts you have preserved the house from falling.  We think that a big tent approach to differences will preserve the core and content.  We think that uniformity in essentials, trust in the motives of all, and charity toward diversity will suffice to keep our fragile structures from caving in upon themselves.  We think that some good men and some good seminaries are enough to stave off collapse.  We think that preserving the liturgy will keep its content.  But we need all of these.  The Church never loses its soul by wholesale surrender but by degree, by a vote here and there and a blind eye to things that seem benign for now.  We end up one day realizing that when the for sale sign goes on the headquarters building that there is nothing really left.  We have little to sustain the people who are remain and nothing to offer the world except the palest imitation of its own lost soul with religious clothing.  We need it all and must settle for it all.  A robust church does not have a few good things going for it but all of them.  If we are to be of use to God and feed the lost souls for whom Christ died, we must believe in Him with more than half a heart and have good food to offer.  It always seems to begin with the same question of Eden.  Did God really say...  Then it seems to comfort us that whether or not He did or did not say it or it was or was not true, we can still keep the core of Christian faith and practice.  All of it ends up a lie we tell ourselves to make us feel better about surrendering our souls to something other than the cause of Christ, the message of Christ crucified, and the hope of glory Christ leads us to know now by glimpse before we will know Him and it face to face.  So there it is.  Let us learn from the example of others.  What good is it to gain the world and lose your own soul.  Those words were not simply spoken to individuals.  They were spoken to the Church.

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.  

What is the Law?

Sometimes we forget the obvious or become so comfortable labeling something what it is not that we no longer notice it at all.  Preaching the problems of this mortal life is not the same thing as preaching the Law.  We have problems.  You bet we do.  Some of those problems are caused by our sins and some are the consequence of living in a sinful world.  But preaching the problems of our individual or communal lives in this day and time is not the same as preaching the Law.  The Law accuses and convicts.  Identifying the problems we face is good and salutary but unless we go the second step of connecting those problems to our sins, the Law has not yet been spoken.

Preaching to "felt needs" or problems has become popular today but for the Lutheran, we must admit that preaching about the problems we face is not the same as preaching God's Law.  We struggle with many things that are wrong in our lives.  Loneliness is epidemic.  Marriages are struggling and failing all around us.  Our economic circumstances confound and conflict us.  The world is not a safe place.  Violence is all around us.  Medical diagnoses threaten our lives and the lives of those whom we love.  These are real problems.  We all feel them and they contribute to the constant anxiety of our lives.  But speaking of these things and identifying them as the sources of our fear and angst is not the same as preaching the Law.

Sadly, the identification of problems as Law in preaching has consequences for the Gospel.  Instead of being the answer of God to sin and its death, the Gospel becomes something rather weak and passive.  God is present with you in your problems.  God wants you to be happy.  God can be called upon in your hour of need.  All of these are true (well, maybe not quite the idea that God's greatest desire for you is your happiness!) but none of these are the Gospel.  The Gospel cannot be removed from the cross where Christ suffered in our place for our sin and from the empty tomb where He rose that we might rise with Him to new and everlasting life.

Preaching can easily become formulaic.  Even Lutherans are not immune.  When we simply identify the problems people have identified and tell them that God is with them, we have not told them a lie or deceived them in any way but we have not quite proclaimed the Gospel to them.  Preaching to the felt needs of the people can often become a simple exercise of identifying what things people are struggling with in their lives and then simply reminding them that they are not alone in their struggles.  It may sound relevant and appear to be successful but it is not preaching God's Word faithfully.  In the end, such preaching does little to help the people and everything to make it easier for them to fall away from Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  Perhaps it is better than telling people to fix themselves and their problems on their own but it is not preaching the cross or empty tomb.  It is not preaching Christ.  

Problems can become ways of connecting what is happening in the lives of people to sin, helping them to connect the dots between the troubles of this mortal life and what sin has done to cause these troubles.  Preaching can become a tool through which we connect people to their choices and to the voice of the Law condemning those choices when they are wrong.  But simply identifying problems and reminding people God is with them and working on their behalf to resolve them is to fail in the preaching task.  We might complain about moralism when it replaces preaching faithfully the Word of God but it is no different than preaching a weak idea of sin and what has done to us and a weak idea of what it means for God to love us and send forth His Son to be our Savior and Redeemer.  God is not a silent companion in our lives.  He has something to say.  I guess we would rather not listen. 

The waning influence of Europe. . .

I read a startling statistic that indicated that Pakistan had one million more births than the whole of Europe last year (7M to 6M).  It would seem that the birth rate is not merely a statistic but a sign of the decline of Europe and its influence.  Indeed, it has become dependent upon others to work in its factories, fill the service jobs, and pay into the government the tax money going out to its aging citizens.  No one likes to admit this, of course, but everyone knows this painful truth.  Europe is on crutches or, more appropriately, behind a walker, inching toward its own demise.  It may well be that there are not enough fertile females left in Europe to change this even if they all suddenly desired to become moms.  In any case, the day is looming when the social programs protecting the populace will either fail or be subject to the whims of others who are living in their lands but not European in values as well as ancestry

Even the EU’s largest and most industrialized nation, Germany, is vulnerable to the litany of ailments presently affecting them all.  Europe matters less in the world and Germany also matters less within Europe.  The Germans are victims of the same problems and all their industrial machine cannot produce them out of this problem.  It is related to the decline of marriage, the family, and the lack of children.  For some time now power has been moving away from Berlin and not to other capitals like Paris.  It is moving out of Europe as the population ages and declines and its influence is more ceremonial than real.  This is the real decline of a civilization -- when there is no value to or interest in the foundational structures of any society in marriage, children, and family.  It has taken a while to get here but it takes a longer time to reverse this kind of decline if only because the population has aged itself out of the child bearing years.

Not surprisingly, this same thing is also at work in the US though we are much slower to get there -- at least in part because of the strong birth rate of our population of recent immigrants.  Right now the birth rate of Nigeria is either the same or ahead of the US so the problem is looming for us as well.  Interestingly enough, this has already shown itself in many Christian churches -- the leading edge of this decline revealed among those whose graying membership and birth rate even lower than the rest of America show what will happen to the rest soon enough.  In the LCMS, the thing that is killing is most is not that we are terrible at attracting new people to our confession and church life but that every year shows a significant decline in the number of babies born to our people and presented for baptism.  Our statistical graph is ahead of the nation and the same people who dismiss this as an issue for Europe or the US are laughing themselves to death -- literally -- when it is pointed out for our church body.  Our influence wanes not simply because those outside our church body are not listening but because we do not take its theology serious enough within our own homes and congregations.

In the following table we find summarized the fertility rates of the LCMS compared to other religious groups in America (not necessarily Christian):

Religious Group	Fertility Rate
LCMS	Lower than average
Mormons	Highest among religious groups
Assemblies of God	High fertility
Non-denominational Evangelicals	Moderate fertility
Roman Catholics	Traditionally high

What are the implications of a low fertility rate?

• Decline in Membership: The lower birth rates mean fewer families are raising children within the church, leading to a shrinking membership base.

• Generational Impact: With only 11% of LCMS families currently in the child-raising stage, this is significantly lower than the national average of 20%. This trend suggests that fewer children are being baptized and confirmed, which is the most significant factor in church growth.  It also points out that many of those being raised in the faith, will not stay either due to marginal participation by the family in the life of the church or a break down of catechesis.

• Future Projections: If the current demographic trends continue, the LCMS will certainly face continued challenges in maintaining its membership levels and without a turn around, will probably see a functional decline in the church and its influence in the coming decades.

What we are now seeing in Europe is but a prediction of the future both for the US but in particular for the LCMS unless we work to turn this around now.

 

The focus is not on the soil but the Seed. . .

The Sermon for Proper 10A, the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, the Parable of the Sower, preached at Grace Lutheran Church, Clarksville, TN, on Sunday, July 12, 2026.

Though it seldom happens, we have the benefit today of Jesus’ own interpretation for His parable of the sower.  Except that He told the parable to one group and gave the interpretation to another.  Which might be cause for me stopping right here since the interpretation was given to the apostles while the parable itself was given to everyone.  That probably won’t work.  So let us venture forward.

While we are quick to rush in so that we can discover why some continue in the faith and others fall away, I am not sure we should begin there at all.  Parables are mostly pictures of God and if we are too quick to rush to an explanation to comfort worried parents or explain empty pews, we would miss the picture of God given here.  It is, after all, God who is on display in Jesus’ words and not simply people who have always grown hot and cold about everything.

As someone from a farm state, I could say that the picture of God given here shows He is not a very good farmer.  Seed is expensive.  So is fertilizer and herbicide – not to mention the time, labor, and energy invested in making sure that the seed grows roots and bears fruit.  No farmer can relate to this parable.  Every farmer knows his soil – which soil is a safe bet for the seed to grow and a harvest to be made and which is not.  Except God.  He does not spend His time finding the right soil.  He is wastefully extravagant.  He sows His costly seed everywhere.

God the sower sows without care or concern for the kind of soil upon which He is sowing the seed.  He does not worry about wasting the seed or about the cost of His extravagance or wastefulness – at least by our standards.  He does not spend His time worrying about the kind of soil that is right but purposefully sows His seed in those places everyone knows is a big risk.  He does not stick to fields and soil which can be expected to produce a good crop but simply lets the seed fly indiscriminately on all kinds of worthless soil.  What kind of God does that?

He drops the seed along the rocky paths that mark where people have walked it hard – places hardly amenable to planting or harvesting.  He sows the seed among weeds and thornbushes where no one in their right might would even walk – much less plant.  God the sower is not looking for the right places to sow the seed from which His kingdom will grow and flourish but is extravagant enough to toss away some seed at places where not much can be expected. He simply sows everywhere.

 What kind of God does that?  We are so quick to rush into the explanation and to some answer to why some and not others that we have missed the most important thing about this parable.  We are so quick to nod our heads at the obvious explanation of what happens to some who come to faith and then fall away, that we miss the God who is wasteful enough (at least in our eyes) to put the seed of His Word everywhere and not in the places we think wise.  This is a parable of God’s unfathomable mercy more than it is an explanation to tell us why some believe and some do not, why some endure in the faith and others fall away.

The Word of the Kingdom is not something reserved for the right people but for everyone.  Everyone already knows that the world is made up of all kinds of mixed soil.  We know about the rocks and paths worn hard and weeds and thornbushes.  We do not know about the mercy of God.  That is what we need to have revealed to us.  We know all about the reasons why faith is hard, why we struggle to keep the faith in hard times and amid all the distractions of this world.  We all know the limitations of our strength, the ease at which we surrender our hope to despair, and the sins that we struggle to feel are forgiven.  We all know these things and we are too often overcome by them.  But what we do not know as we should is the limitless mercy of God and the grace that is sufficient for our every need.  Yet this is precisely where our focus should be and it is the focus of Jesus’ parable.

Every step of this life for every Christian is filled with constant temptation, with a world of competing values, ideas, ideals, rights, and wrongs.  We seem to spend our lives trying to reconcile our faith to these in a way that will satisfy us or make it all easier.  We think there are secret ways to making peace between the things we know are right, true, and of God and the things so enticing to us but just plain wrong.  We think there is some hidden way to resist temptation without it costing so much or being so hard.  But our focus is not meant to be on these.  Our focus is meant to be on the Lord, whose goodness will never fail us even though it is impossible to understand.

We are all the rocky paths, the hardened soil, surrounded by thistles and thorns.  We are the worthless soils in which God has dared to waste the seed of His Word, calling us to faith, washing us in baptismal water, guiding us by His voice, and feeding us at His table.  Faith is not the predictable response to a reasonable set of circumstances but the surprise of the Spirit, the surprise of grace, and mystery of a love that refuses to give up.  

The good soil is not the sinless soul or the righteous heart but the one who hears the Word of God and keeps it.  The miracle is not that some fall away but that any believe.  It can only be the work of the Spirit and the mystery of God’s extravagant love.  His Word that proceeds from His mouth shall not return to Him empty but shall accomplish His purpose and succeed according to His own intention.  That is the mystery revealed in this parable.  God’s mercy is His most important character trait.  And of any, we Lutherans ought to know this best of all.

At some point we forgot this.  We began to treat the church like a business and outreach like a business plan and we borrowed from the business world to try and figure out where to sow the seed to get the highest yield.  It has not helped the Church to grow but it has succeeded in making us think that the secret lies in the soil instead of the seed of God’s Word.  As parents we try to figure out the secret to raising good kids who will do what is right and keep the faith plated in them.  We all know that there is no secret.  The parent knows you love every child the same, teach them and provide for them as best you are able, and pray for them as if you have done nothing at all.  The results are uneven.  They are always uneven.  But you do not focus all your energy where you think the best results will be found.  You give your extravagant love to every child over and over and over again.  It is what you do.  It is what God has done.  It is what God is still doing.

He does not focus His resources on those most likely to come to faith or remain in the faith.  He sows the seed where nothing is expected and sends forth His Spirit on those we deem a wasted effort. He does not know how to give up.  He just sows the seed.  If we are failing to grow as a Church is it because we have failed to figure out the key to marketing the Gospel successfully or have we forgotten to sow the seed everywhere, no matter what it costs, because that is what was done for you and me?  Do we trust what we think will bring results or do we actually dare to believe that God’s Word shall not return to Him empty but will accomplish His purpose in sending it?

 Sow the seed like God does, without prejudice or constraint.  Be as lavish sowing the Word of God for the sake of others as it was sown into you.  It will not fail even if you never see results.  The focus is not on the soil but the seed.  We will only accomplish His purpose by sowing the seed of His Word and trusting that God will bring the results.  To you has been given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of heaven and blessed be your eyes to see and your ears to hear this Gospel of Christ crucified and risen.  Amen.