41 (Surprising) Things Not in the Bible #0386 How many can you guess?

The List of 41(+):

As of today (October 1, 2014) we are actually up to 62.

  • Angels with wings (there are angels but no mention of wings). Or that people become angels when they die. And would you believe the angels are not singing at the birth of Jesus, but rather just speaking? And yes, seraphim (the “burners”–Flame on!, plural form of “seraph”) have wings, and no, the Bible never identifies seraphim as angels. Ditto cherubim (plural of cherub), who are intimidating beasts in the Bible, but turned into fat, naked, winged babies on the walls of Italian churches. Find me one place that says seraphim (burners) are angels (messengers). I’m waiting….
  • Any female angels at all in the Bible. In both biblical languages, spiritual masculinity comes out of heaven and femininity comes out of earth. Ruach/Malkuth/Shekhinah (feminine), form the connection between the two. Kinda like the Christmas song “let earth receive her king—let heave and nature sing.” Female angels are found mostly in gift shops on earth, and of course, with wings. Gabriel (GBR-i-El) is literally, in Hebrew, God’s intimidator. Hardly a precious moments statue.
  • The devil with horns and a pitchfork (there is a devil but no red skin, horns or pitchfork)
  • Any account of a battle at Armageddon. They gather for battle, but does the Bible say that anything happens? Have a look. I once had coffee at the Armageddon truck stop in Israel. Yes, it’s a real place and you can get gas there.
  • A singular apocalyptic Antichrist figure (used in plural by John) and….
  • Anywhere that says any singular Antichrist is the “Beast” of Revelation
  • That people mocked Noah for building an ark. By the way, seven (!) pairs of many animals were taken into the ark–not just two by two.
  • Jesus being the reason for the winter season. We’re not sure what time of the year Jesus was born. December 25 to January 6 (Epiphany) was just a beautifully symbolic guess.
  • The word or even the concept of a “halo.”
  • Any prohibitions against certain kinds of peripheral “cuss” words. Taking the name of the LORD (YHWH-יהוה) in vain is specifically mentioned and forbidden in the strongest terms. Cursing (but that was literally cursing people and things, not just dropping salty adjectives) is prohibited in the book of James. But throwing in occasional H, S and F words (although I don’t use them) is not specifically prohibited.  Only the Old Testament forbids taking the name of יהוה in vain; there is no equivalent prohibition of the expletive use of Jesus’ name (or Christ).
  • Any encouragement to celebrate Advent or Lent. Or even any mention of them.
  • Any English version of the Bible with God’s pronoun capitalized. (i.e. “He”). Let alone the original versions that didn’t have an upper-case/lower-case writing system at the time.
  • Any mention of birth control (Although there is plenty of encouragement to have children).
  • The idea that God literally calls us to “be our brother’s keeper.” Cain simply asks it of God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
  • Any mention of the New Testament church celebrating Ash Wednesday or any biblical suggestion to do so in the future.
  • An apple in the Garden of Eden (only fruit)
  • Any suggestion that clergy should perform marriages, or that a wedding is anything but a family/community reception/feast. Old Testament priests never perform weddings that we can see anywhere in the Bible.
  • The Bible says that those who have sex before marriage should indeed get married. And that once you join with someone in that way, there are permanent consequences. But a strict, specific prohibition against cohabitation before marriage is hard to find, and all of we youth pastors would like to have had it handy. Courtship-betrothal-marriage customs in the Bible do not mirror our own very well, so it’s hard to know exactly how that worked. My guess is that premarital chastity was expected and assumed (for property and disease-prevention reasons) and thus not explicitly mentioned.
  • For that matter, any ordained clergy in the early church at all. Jesus and Paul were lay preachers who learned crafts. The former was a stone contractor (tekton). The latter likely supplied tents to the Roman army.
  • Any in-the-Bible explanation as to how we switched from worship on Saturday (Sabbath) to Sunday. Quite a historical mystery with a lot of speculation…
  • That Jesus was a (just a poor) carpenter. Inaccurate English translation of the original “tekton” (builder/contractor); likely with stone.
  • Any sense that communion, baptism, “sin management so we can get to heaven someday,” etc. were central to Jesus’ teaching. He did mention these things, but clearly his core teaching was always about Malkuth (Kingdom–the Creator’s creative and sustaining power in the universe). And his main purpose seemed to be to convince us to have the faith to share and operate in this power. The Kingdom is like unto a mustard seed…
  • The fish which swallowed Jonah identified as a whale (just a fish).
  • Jesus uttering the word “grace.”
  • Any word for “faith” (as we understand it) in the Old Testament.
  • Discipleship. A made-up word based on a military, Latin mis-translation of “mathetes” (students).
  • Any clear doctrine of Original Sin, let alone “total depravity.” Sure, there are proof texts you can find to support it, but there is tension with the fact that we are made in the Image of God, fearfully and wonderfully made, and “behold God saw that it (humankind) was very good.” There’s tension there.
  • Shepherds and wise men visiting the baby Jesus at the same time (wise men came way way later). Or that the number of wise men was three. I just saw this error (three wise men walking thru the shepherds to visit Jesus in the manger) watching the movie Ben-Hur last night! Most people ignore the fact that Magi are Zoroastrian holy people.
  • Anything that specifically says Jesus was single. No evidence either way. Very few ancient records of any famous people bother to mention spouses.
  • The fact that we live in heaven forever. No matter what your end times view, we end up on a renewed earth at the end (See the end of Revelation). Heaven is at best a way station in the Bible to our ultimate destiny.
  • Any suggestion that we should dress up for church
  • Any prohibition of gambling
  • Any record of a vote in the early church. They’d rather cast lots for big decisions ;-). Nor any votes at congregational business meetings.

  • Any sense that “liturgy” is on the Creator’s short list. Jesus never even mentions any “order of worship.” Mostly just “on the road” informal outdoor ministry.
  • Any overwhelming proof that Jesus was poor. Most evidence suggests the opposite.
  • Any mention of Mary remaining a virgin after Jesus’ birth
  • Any direct mention or description of an abortion. Or comment upon the issue. (For the record, I am very pro-life, but that’s beside the point)
  • Any record of a “confirmation class” or “confirmation ceremony.” Ditto first communion.
  • Any direct linking of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute or woman of ill-repute. Ditto any direct mention that Herodias’ daughter was doing any kind of suggestive dance.
  • Anyplace where the original languages of the Bible say that a person is “possessed” by an evil spirit. It usually just says a person “has” an unclean spirit or something like that. We have unclean spirits. They don’t “have” us. Most modern translations which use the word “possessed” were published after the movie The Exorcist.
  • Any specific mention of transgenderism, although men and women are forbidden from wearing each other’s clothes. Sorry, Boy George.
  • Any sense that Jesus wanted the government (Caesar) to take care of the poor. That would be our job.
  • Any record of anything Jesus said in his native language (Aramaic) except for “Abba,” “Talitha Kumi,” “Raca,” “Mammon,”  “Jot and Tittle,” and “Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani” His teachings and sayings were written down by Greek speakers.
  • Anyone praying with hands folded
  • Pews or Pulpits
  • “God helps those who help themselves.” That would be Benjamin Franklin, not God.
  • “God will never give you anything you can’t bear.” Obviously not true in real life. God only knows where it came from.
  • “Cleanliness is next to godliness.” That would be Francis Bacon, not the Bible.
  • Any suggestion that churches should be decorated with crosses, outside or inside. Or that there should even be church buildings at all.
  • Any blanket prohibition of drinking alcohol
  • Any prohibition of consciousness-altering through external or internal means. Drunkedness is discouraged; but never controlled altered states. We alter our consciousness through prayer, going to movies (an induced vision), reading imaginative books, running (endorphins), and using coffee. John was in a serious altered state seeing the vision in Revelation. Ditto Ezekiel in his prophecy. Ditto Paul (who wasn’t even sure if he was in his body or not).
  • Any mention that church leaders should wear different clothing than the regular peeps (clerical collars, robes, etc.)
  • Anything that says church music should be reflective, subdued, or played on an organ. (See the loud clashing cymbals in the Psalms–with trumpets and shouts)
  • Anywhere that says women can’t wear pants (pants aren’t mentioned at all) or use makeup
  • Any mention that women should work at home (see Proverbs 31)
  • Any specific “age of accountability” for baptism. Or even the concept.
  • Any command that baptism has to be by submersion. Paul was baptized in a home which likely had no running water.
  • Of course, only people in the New World were smoking tobacco; a substance and behavior totally unknown to the writers of the Bible. And using “your body is a temple” to forbid smoking would also outlaw junk food if you wanted to be specific.
  • Any mention that there should be separate “departments” in the church for kids (Sunday School), youth groups, or men’s and women’s ministries
  • The word or explicit description of a holy Trinity
  • Elijah taken up in a chariot (he was taken up in a whirlwind)
  • God changing Saul’s name to Paul (Paulos, or “shorty” was just his Greek trade/business nick-name). Imagine: “O Saul, from now on thou shalt be named….Shorty!”
  • The word “wine” associated with the “cup” in the Last Supper. Fruit of the vine is probably wine, but the Bible does not make the explicit connection.
  • Jesus’ command to baptize mentioning water (could be Spirit baptism–See Mark 1:8)
  • The “rapture” mentioned anywhere in the book of Revelation
  • Anything mentioning that Jesus had long hair (or a beard)
  • The phrase “personal relationship with Jesus.”
  • Any record of anyone ending a sermon in the Early Church inviting people to receive Jesus into their hearts (the altar call perfected by Finney over a century ago)

Here are some of the biggest errors in Bible interpretation:

  • The mistake that “description is prescription.” Since Jesus “came up out of the water” (description), baptism by immersion is commanded (prescription).
  • Inference equals explicit command. You can make an argument that the Bible infers a trinity (and I am a trinitarian, by the way), but the word is never used nor is the concept explained in even the most basic ways. The Bible doesn’t connect the dots. We have to. But our “dot connecting” is not equivalent to an explicit Bible text.
    • Thus implicit does not equal explicit. My list is a list of things NOT explicit in the Bible.
  • An unfounded equating of terms. E.g. “seraphim are angels.” Perhaps in your world this is true, and you are welcome to believe it; but the Bible uses different words here for different kinds of beings.
  • “You can’t disprove it!” (e.g. that seraphim are angels). “You can’t disprove/prove it” only works (and it works well) if you are trying to start a conspiracy theory. E.g. “You can’t prove men landed on the moon.” I’m just stating a list of things that the Bible simply does not explicitly teach. They may be true, but not because “the Bible tells me so.”

Perhaps you can add some more in the comments below.

Or if you can prove me wrong, say so (ditto in the comments).

Please pass this link on to others. Fun discussion starter in a group setting. Or a good church newsletter article (you have permission to print it as long as you mention the site http://ThornHeart.com). Shortlink to share (copy and paste it): 

        http://tinyurl.com/lzoeo43

I’m not politicking against any of these things in the list above, per se. Just inviting you to join us at Robinwood Church where we teach what is actually IN the Bible. And there is plenty to keep you growing spiritually for a lifetime. Click on our logo for more:

Robinwood Logo Sand

Sabotaging the Leader? #0235 Life & Liberty

If you are a healthy leader, your very presence will threaten an unhealthy system which you lead.

Unhealthy people will band together to sabotage your work.

But this is just a sign that you are doing the right thing.

Have a look at the delightful video above (refresh if your browser is slow) and you will feel a lot better in about 5 minutes.

Read more in Friedman’s book on the topic:

Edwin Friedman

 

A book that may save your leadership.

The Lutherans Sterben Aus (Die Out)

This article is not just for Lutherans. It applies to most North American faith families.

The above chart spells unmitigated disaster. And it’s a few years old. It’s gotten much worse since it was first printed.

And better theology is not going to rescue us. We Lutherans have always had the odd idea that if we could “nail” the philosophical content of the Gospel, then everything would line up and we would thrive. Truth is, we have right-leaning Lutherans (LCMS) and left-leaning Lutherans (ELCA) and ALL of us are headed down the same demographic waterslide hand-in-hand.

When eco-feminism is preached from our pulpits, the demographic results shouldn’t surprise us

I’m a theological conservative with no illusions that more conservatism would stem this tide. Our big problems are demographic.

We have HALF the demographic footprint we had in 1960; the year I was born. Then, the ELCA’s predecessor bodies had 5.3 million members. That’s 29.4 for every 1,000 Americans at the time. Our nation has almost doubled in population since then, and the ELCA now has 4 million members. That’s only 14.12 ELCA members for every 1,000 Americans.

Half.

The gay issue in the ELCA churchwide assembly of 2009 will be seen as a blip, historically, compared to the real crises:

1) Lutherans don’t have enough babies. We seem to see them as a liability. Ironic that we did backflips, inducing great trauma to the ELCA, to include the LGBT group (on their terms) which has the lowest fertility rate on earth. It’s like we’re trying to form a no-baby union.

When I was young, it was common to hear church leaders encourage dating, marriage, family formation and getting about the business of having and raising kids. “Be fruitful and multiply” was taken as marching orders. Such encouragement is seen as “gauche” at best and perhaps even taboo today.

Here are confirmation pictures from 1969 and 2004 from the same Lutheran congregation. These trends are the rule, not the exception, for most congregations. Do the math.

2) Lutherans don’t retain enough of the babies they have.

3) Lutherans have no clue how to do evangelism which leads to large-scale adult conversion and baptism. Some even have an “in principle” allergy against doing it; for them, praying with someone to become a Christian is some kind of theological felony. We did 14 adult baptisms at our last church picnic (and we are only a church of 200). Have a look at the video>> LINK We are shooting for 30 this year.

4) Many of our congregations are led by informal juntas of empty nesters and retired people which sabotage every step taken to try to create a young-adult-friendly environment, young adults who tend to have babies, by the way. The trauma many of our missional pastors carry is not unlike that of soldiers returning from Iraq. PTSD is rampant among the younger half of our clergy roster (which is tiny–the average ELCA pastor is 59 and aging). It’s not the pagans who beat on them, it’s their own church members.

5) Lutherans do not do well in urban areas where they have had many churches (big cities like LA, Chicago, St. Louis, etc.) when those zip codes diversify ethnically. In general, we’d literally rather die than reach the new immigrant residents. And we seem to think that urban Latinos and African Americans are looking for high-church worship with a PC message; intelligent Catholicism in black and white without the magic. Small wonder they are staying away in droves

Church Window

6) Our denominational corporate structures are clueless about the “opt in” revolution created by social media. They still think they can control their rosters and not have to attract, cultivate, and maintain “opt inners.” Both the lists of congregations and clergy are brittle and fragmenting. Denominations are like Tower Records trying to discipline iTunes. Good luck.

7) Lutherans are also clueless about the communications revolution. Most of them spend half of their office hours producing bulletins and newsletters which are among the poorest quality print media in America, and no one reads them. Most of our pastors don’t have blogs or a social media presence of any kind, let alone a podcast (click for example) that would hold anyone’s attention. Many Lutheran churches have no website or screens in the church. And the ones that do have websites usually have a big picture of a Jetsons-Gothic postwar church building (see pic below) with other useless information. Generalities abound on such websites (e.g. love the world and love God), and there are no branding distincitives (i.e. what makes us unique) that would attract someone. The mission statements are so vague that Taco Bell could probably use them. And you can never find a picture of the pastor or get a feel for her or his vibe. Anti-branding. Fine, don’t have screens–and while you’re at it, get rid of your parking lot and hope streetcars will come back. If you’re not at least toying with the idea of crafting a smartphone “app” for your church, you may simply never catch up.

8. We have over-merged. Some talk about the “emergent” church. Well, we are the “overmergent” church. A few generations ago, when Lutheranism was thriving, we had a bunch of solid medium-sized Lutheran denominations which were very relational (every pastor could go do every national gathering), and each one had clear branding and vibe. There was loyalty to their one seminary and tiny handful of major global mission fields. Now we have two mega corporations which have no branding and spend all of their time fighting, because we are forcing together constituencies that don’t belong together. Many of our seminaries are going broke. Our leaders can’t name our global mission fields. Former ELC pietists have no business slugging it out for turf within the ELCA with former ULCA East Coast types. No branding, no new customers.

9) Most Lutheran sermons are virtually impossible to understand. I was a Fulbright Scholar and I can’t follow most of them. We tend to preach in the formal register with tertiary reflection; writing a weekly term paper for a professor who isn’t even there. And we are humor-impaired. Our preaching culture is non-existent. We don’t celebrate our (few) preaching stars. Name them. See?

10) We treat our successful churches like pariahs. Reading the Lutheran for years, you’d have no idea which churches they are. The ones that are growing and thriving, reaching lots of new converts, and baptizing them. The ones that are transforming their communities. Heaven forbid we celebrate any success. Synod staffs, churchwide, and struggling congregations tend to be at least passively aggressive towards any success. And if new church plants innovate? Don’t let them on the roster! Unless they impersonate the other dying congregations.

11) I value the opinions of leftists. Some of them I share; some I don’t. Respectful leftists return the favor. Some just scream at you. Bless them :-).

But with a drift toward PC “left-ism,” comes, without question and statistically provable, a less church-going population (see the recent Gallup results–a conservative is twice as likely to be in church as a leftist), and less tendency to have big families (NPR families have way less kids than NASCAR families) that will carry on the important missional work we are doing for generations to come. I think that’s worth questioning, once in a while. Even if I’m wrong, which many of you believe and may indeed be the case, I will plant my flag on the right to ask the question. The survival of our movement is at stake.

12) Along with leftism, follows harder-edged feminism and “green” mentality–taken for granted by most of our clergy. Promotion of these two “isms” leads to less births. Why?

Feminism, in its sturdier forms, can be outright hostile to traditional family formation, shaming “cookie bakers” as somehow embracing stunted femaleness. Women’s desire to get married and have lots of kids (so prominent in movies a generation ago that it’s almost shocking to watch) has to be expressed in hushed tones today in order to avoid a rap on the knuckles from radfem types. Family formation is delayed and less kids are a result.

And greens? I’m pretty green in my thinking. But eco-mentality-ism carries with it the basic assumption that humans are bad for the planet and the less of them the better. Truth is, the population of the world is not a problem at all; in fact the real problem is that most of us will see the global population peak and nosedive within our lifetimes (I know I just messed with your worldview, but it’s true). Economically, this could create huge challenges with an aging group of retirees and less kids to support them.

Truth is, the entire earth population could stand comfortably (all together) with one square meter of space, on South Stradbroke Island off Queensland. Fly across America and get a window seat. Our continent is empty.

So when “eco-feminism light” gets preached or implied/assumed from the pulpit, guess what the demographic results are?

There will always be Lutherans in America.

We are too strong in the Upper Midwest to disappear entirely. But we have squandered our “pole position” which we had after WW2. Instead of contributing to the core of the project that is America, we seem to be choosing to be a quirky footnote to life here.

 

Why Lutherans Can’t Evangelize

Now, granted, many of you reading this are not Lutheran, but you were drawn to the title much as you were to the movie White Men Can’t Jump.

I am a lifelong Lutheran. Laying my cards on the table, I’m a theologically conservative Lutheran with incurable Pentecostal tendencies.

The Lutheran Church is beautiful, in a Volvo/Ikea sort of way. We tend to be understated and solid, with terminal dependability and not much foolishness.

But we have some real weak spots.

1)  We more or less have no functioning eschatology (end times teaching). Martin Luther wrecked that for us. He thought the Antichrist was alive and that his name was Leo, and that he lived in Rome. Great Tribulation on its way? Heck, in Luther’s mind, it was already here.  And Uncle Marty had a tendency to want to mow down “Heaven is coming on earth!” Millennialists (Thomas Muentzer, etc.) whenever he had the chance. We’ve had an eschatological hangover ever since. A dirty little family secret.

Please hear me, I am not suggesting that we adopt the folk American Darby-based dog and pony show, which I affectionately call “Chutes and Ladders.” We can do much better than that. But it’s hard to invite people on a journey when we don’t have a compelling destination.

But as Lutherans, we have an empty missiological toolbox.

2)  We won’t even bring up Luther’s formative 16th century anti-Semitism which planted the seeds for all kinds of later nastiness. What he said about the Jews is not for polite publications like this one. And it was disgusting. I totally condemn it and there was no excuse for it.

3)  We have no theology of mission. Within the framework of our theology, we have no idea how to get someone saved. This will be the topic of our little essay today.

Our theology, as Lutherans, is primarily confessional and not missional.

Now by confessional, I don’t mean the confusing dual use of the word including personal or corporate confession of sins; not talking about the “mea culpa” on page 56 in the LBW.

What I mean, rather, is that we “speak together” the truths of our faith. The Reformed tradition (Calvinists, Presbyterians, etc.), along with Lutherans, is one of the two great “confessional” traditions.

The Westminster (Reformed) Confession and the Augsburg (Lutheran) Confession are towering examples of confessional Christianity.

Both streams, however, are anemic in their ability to think about reaching the lost (i.e. missiology).

Now confessionalism is not a priori anti-missional. You can have a missional confession of faith. We just don’t.

Why not?

Well, at the time the Lutheran Confessions were written, they were written within a (nominal) Christendom which had no immediate frontiers (at least none which most people had actually seen—Muslims were unthinkably far away and the New World was just being discovered) with non-Christian nations. There also were no large minorities of explicit non-Christians within Christendom. Only the Jews were present among them as a distinct minority, and they, as now, were a tiny sliver (albeit super-influential sliver) of the total European population.

The Lutheran Confessions were not written to define how to reach the lost. They were written to defend the new Evangelical faith against a Roman Christianity which was organizing to resist the Reformation.

It is also a misnomer to say that Lutherans were a “breakaway” from the Roman Catholic Church. Western Christianity before Luther was anything but monolithic. There were often up to three rival popes at a time. Lots of priests married and there were instances of female ordination. Rules and uniformity were unenforceable, especially at the farther ends of the muddy trails which were the ‘highways’ of Europe. In fact you can make a case for the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was only first incorporated at Trent (as in “the council of….”) in reaction to the Protestant Reformation. Without the printing press (which appeared about this time), it was more or less impossible to hold a bureaucracy together in those days.

The Confessions were full of Realpolitik (i.e. say whatever you have to in order to help the movement survive) and were defensive in nature. They were not nearly as systematic as the parallel Reformed-Calvinist documents.

Lutheranism has a high tolerance for tension and has less of a fetish for streamlining than Calvinism. For instance, our stock answer to the question “Can I lose my salvation?” is a typically Lutheran “yes and no.” We also have no answer for the problem of evil (theodicy). We live with the tensions of the Bible and those conflicts we find in life.

You see, Luther was a Bible teacher, not a systematic theologian. “Lutheran Systematic Theology” is a bit of an oxymoron.

Luther rediscovered the Apostle Paul’s “Jesus plus nothing” mentality in Galatians. He remade the new Evangelical church around this reality. And like Paul, he was ready to defend this new movement at whatever cost.

He didn’t seem all that interested, however, in the crafting of the Confessions; he left that to his indispensable-but-weenie-dweeb colleague Melanchthon. He’d rather drink beer and engage young leaders for hours on end (Tischreden or “table talk”); and he loved to preach and teach.

He and Paul are on everyone’s short list of one-handful of the most influential humans of all time (I would add Jesus, Newton, and Mohammed.)

So the Confessions were written in a time when the main job of the Church was not seen as evangelization or global missions. It was the education of nominal Christians (hence the writing of the iconic and ubiquitous Small Catechism).

Unfortunately, our faith family’s official theology locked in and froze up on this angle. We have huge education wings on all of our churches, but we don’t know how to lead a non-Christian to faith.

The Confessions are simply silent as to how to do mission. It wasn’t the issue they were dealing with.

In conclusion, the formative-era Lutherans were concerned with two things:

1) Catechizing already-baptized nominal Christians within their jurisdiction (the Small Catechism)

2) Defending the faith against non-Lutheran neighbors (the Confessions)

Mission was just not on their radar screen. It didn’t get into our family DNA.

It is a huge understatement to say that we live in a totally different world today. My block here in California has no ignorant but compliant Christians just waiting to be catechized, and defending the faith in an intellectually permissive pluralistic culture has way lower stakes (and no stakes to be burned on). But we Lutherans are operating with answer patterns (catechism and confession) which address situations that have long since vanished. We have a cure for a disease that is no longer with us.

I, a confessional Lutheran, came to the hard conclusion recently that criticisms against me not being Lutheran in much of my teaching (because I am very missional) were actually quite accurate. My missional side (my dominant driving spiritual thrust) doesn’t get its marching orders from the confessions.

And teaching unbelievers the Catechism is like building a second story on a vacant lot.

The truth is, it’s time to write a new Lutheran Confession of Mission. It is ironic that we have a new fellowship called the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ when we haven’t really thought through how to do mission as Lutherans.

In other words, since our theology is through-and-through confessional, and those Confessions are not missional, we have to go “outside the system” to do mission.

We’ve been borrowing the Arminian theology of the Second Great (American) Awakening whenever we feel the urge to reach a lost person or send out a missionary. It works, but it’s kind of like an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan using a Kalashnikov rifle—it gets the job done OK, but it looks and feels wrong.

Nothing wrong with Arminians. But they lack the Lutheran appreciation for ambiguity and struggle (the “Mighty Fortress” stuff). Their total embrace of free will collapses the inconclusive experiences of the human condition in this area. We are free and not free. We are sinners and saints. God is sovereign and rules all, but condemns no one to death. We Lutherans live with this stuff and have always been allergic to over-simplistic answers.

Now if you see no value whatsoever in the Lutheran way of looking at things, you may as well not read any further. I do see value in our tribal “vibe.” We are not the only voice in the Christian choir, but we need to know our voice and sound it clearly. The Christian movement without Lutheran contribution would be infinitely poorer.

Arminians (Finney, Moody, Billy Graham, etc.) are the world champions of missiology.

Calvinists, on the other hand, blow it by insisting on wooden “total depravity” and an existentially confusing (but in theory simple and elegant) view of election and predestination.

Arminianism, when connected with classical substitutionary atonement teaching, leads to the famous “bridge” illustration which then urges a free-will decision on the part of the hearer.

A half-generation ago, these methods were working well. The Jesus Movement used this model which led to millions of conversions. But we have been seeing diminishing returns. It doesn’t work for most of today’s young adults; failing to describe the ambiguity of the human condition and the apparent multiplicity of “bridges” that could be used.

The Gospel never changes. But missiology does. A particular missiology is not the core truth of our faith. It is a hermeneutical tool for getting that core across.

For instance, reaching people in pre-modern cultures with ancestor worship looks different from reaching people in post-modern, secular France.

But as Lutherans, we have an empty missiological toolbox.

We’ve all heard the joke about crossing a Jehovah’s Witness with a Lutheran and getting someone who knocks at your door but doesn’t know what to say. There’s a lot of truth in that.

And it’s not just that we’re Northern European and passive/stoic. We simply haven’t crafted a vocabulary and grammar of mission and conversion. We don’t even know how to describe the conversion event.

And we have to get serious about conversion for all kinds of reasons. One of them (along with the obvious love of the lost) is that we are in demographic free-fall.

Lutherans in America have had three major eras:

1) The era of immigration.

2) The era of procreation.

3) The era of decline.

The era of immigration was a period which lasted up to 1920. Millions of nominal Lutherans were coming in sailing and steamships to North America. If we set up ethnic specific ministries which functioned as community centers, and catechized and confirmed the young, then primary relationships would be built around church activity and continuous exposure to Word and Sacrament would get the job done.

It worked. Until the steamships stopped coming.

Then we turned to plan B: Procreation. The average Lutheran woman had 4-5 kids. We built education wings onto our churches (a whole new thing). From VBS to Lutheran Colleges and Seminaries (via Luther and Walther League) we did a full court press on the kids, knowing that keeping over half of them would lead to a growing church. I am a product of that full court press.

It worked. Until the pill came and the average Lutheran woman now has 1.7 kids. Keep half of 1.7 and you get exactly what we now have.

The pill was introduced in 1963. The Lutheran Church has been in freefall since 1964 (despite the rapid growth of the US population during that same time).

Contraction, aging, and entropy have been the norm for our congregations since then. The exception has been Upper Midwest suburban areas where a fresh critical-mass population of young Lutherans moves into new tract housing and has kids (a curious mixture of “retro” immigration and procreation).

This all sounds pretty pessimistic and dark.

But I am actually optimistic.

Why?

Because, if we can get our act together, the young adults I work with are much more open to a “Lutheran” way of looking at the human condition (with all of its tension and ambiguity) than an Arminian or Calvinist view. Both of the latter seem a little too easy for today’s nuanced and savvy young adults.

But these young adults are not going to stream into our churches by default. We have to craft our message and understand their sociology.

For instance, we baby boomers love “small groups.” Not so with the next generation. They tend to prefer larger groups (i.e. a houseful) with smaller informal “fragments.” I have looked all over and have yet to find even one single exception to this that would prove the rule.

We also have done precious little to get them involved in our leadership. How many 18-25 year olds are you grooming for leadership?

But back to missiology…

I believe that it will be Pentecostal-leaning (or at least experientially Holy-Spirit-friendly) Lutherans who will have the inside track to reaching the next generation (if we even show up for the game).

Why?

We Lutheran charismatics are experiential-oriented, as they are. We also, as Lutherans, have a gut sense, as they do, that life is not all that simple.

So the task at hand is to craft an experientially-friendly Lutheran missiology which respects the complexity of life, avoids simplistic answers, and involves the next generation in leadership. And it has to be clear enough to lead to lots of solid from-the-outside conversions into the Christian faith.

Stay tuned. I am actively working on just such a model. You do the same and we’ll compare notes. I’ll give you a teaser-hint. It has to do with re-framing the concept of sin (de-emphasizing Calvin’s total depravity) using mega-themes from the letter to the Galatians.

The church will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. But I am not satisfied with a church that stands. I want to see the church get up and walk! And to see it go into all the world…

+++++

Click on below and follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Screen Shot 2013-05-07 at 5.10.57 PM Screen Shot 2013-05-07 at 5.06.48 PM