We Christians at First Lutheran in Benton love our country. We are proud to be Americans, we are thankful to our God for our nation, and we pray for it. But we must be candid about this: there are things about America and its culture that are not only not very good, but are really quite bad, and we must stay clear of them.

Originally, the separation of Church and State was meant to keep the government from playing favorites among Christian denominations. That is not what it means any more. Today, there is a significant strain of thought in America (and in the West generally) that only science and reason can reliably determine the kind of truth that we are obligated to believe. For example, science says the earth is round, and it rotates about its axis while revolving around the sun. Everyone is obligated to believe this or be thought a fool. The problem with this attitude is that it reduces truth only to those things that have been verified by logic and observation. That’s not very much! In fact, it might surprise you to know just how little in life can really be “proven” scientifically! But that’s for another day.

For many, the problem with religion is not that it isn’t true or good or useful, but that it cannot be verified scientifically, so we just can’t know that it’s true. Religious “truth” for them is more in the nature of an opinion–maybe a good and worthy opinion, but still just an opinion. This results in the following logic: Our government should stick with what we all know to be true. Scientific inquiry alone leads to truth of that kind and therefore can and should be supported by the government. On the other hand, religion cannot be verified by science as true, and so the government ought to stay out of teaching religion. So now, the separation of Church and State is no longer to keep the government from playing favorites among churches, but has become a “Wall” to separate Science, which determines truth, and Religion, which deals only in opinions and things we just cannot know.

See where this has brought is. In our public schools our government can (and does) teach that everything began out of nothing, all by itself, in a big bang, and then evolved, all by itself, by random chance alone, from that initial big bang into what we have now. No God, no meaning, no purpose, no future. That is, some think, what logic and observation alone (that is, “science”) tell us about our origins and the world in which we live, and so that is what our government teaches to our children. (Actually, it is not logic and observation that is telling us these things. Something else is going on here, but again, that will have to wait for another day.) By contrast, though, even the most elementary religious truth, that “God has created me and all creatures,” cannot be taught in our public schools. It cannot be taught not because we know it’s not true, but because we cannot verify with logic and observation that it is true. In other words, it’s not “scientific” to say that “God has created me and all creatures,” so it cannot be taught in our schools, but “No God, no meaning, no purpose, no future” — that is true and that can be taught!

Sad to say, for many of our fellow citizens, that has become the American Way. We Christians must not buy into that. Logic and observation alone cannot do what our nation has demanded of them. They can tell us the earth revolves around the sun, sure, but they cannot tell us why there is an earth or a sun. Anyone who reduces truth to only what can be observed and reasoned out will know very little, and will never know a great deal. They will never know God, will never know where they came from, why they’re here, what anything means, where they’re headed, or why they ought to live a certain way. If science is your only truth, you will never know the truth at all.

James D. Burns
Pastor, First Lutheran Church (LC-MS)
Benton, Arkansas

Our life with God is the work of God’s Spirit, which comes to us in His Word.  Life in Christ is planted in us through the Word, and it is sustained in us by the Word, and only by the Word. (1 Pet 1:23-25) The Word is our connection to Christ. Without the Word we cannot have Christ, and if our life in Christ is not sustained by the Word it will die. So I pray, as your pastor, first and foremost, that you and I—that we—stay in the Word. That Word is our connection to Christ.

Maintaining faith in Christ is not simply a matter of willpower. Faith is generated by His Word. (Rom. 10:17) That means there are places we go and things we do to stay connected to Christ. First of all, we go to Baptism.  Baptism is the very Word of God, “spoken” with water, to each of us Christians individually, and by it we began our connection to Christ.  Once baptized, we live in constant remembrance of what God promised us there.  Having been connected to Christ in baptism, we build a life of daily devotion and weekly worship to stay that way.  Every day we ought to read or hear or bring to mind some memorized Scripture, meditate on its meaning, and pray. Every day we ought to connect to Christ, and then talk to Him. Every week we ought to go to the house of the Lord and join in public worship, and there, in the midst of God’s people, confess our sins and receive the absolution; hear the Word read and taught and explained; eat and drink the Word, made present in the very body and blood of Jesus. There in worship we connect to, we commune with, Christ and His People. (See Acts 2:36-42) And that’s how we stay in the Word; that’s how we stay connected to Christ.    

The Word is how we sanctify ourselves, our lives, our homes, our families, our children and grandchildren. (John 17:17)  There is more to being a Christian than staying in the Word, true—but only if we stay in the Word.  (John 15:1-6) Therefore, more than anything else, this is my prayer for you and me—for us: that we remain in His Word. Every day, every week. If we remain in the Word, we remain in Christ, and all else will come. 

Staying connected to Christ would be easy but for the devil, the world and our own sinful nature. The devil and the world would poison our life with Christ, while our own sinful nature would starve it to death. We must be on guard against these enemies. We must understand them and their tactics and we must pray that God would protect us from them.

Starvation is what happens when we have too little of the Word. When we are not remembering God’s promises to us in our Baptism, when we are not daily meditating on His Word and praying, and when we are not worshipping and communing and fellowshipping on the Lord’s Day, we are not remaining in the Word, and too much of that and we will starve to death. This is our own sinful nature at work against us!  And whether it’s because of work, or a troubled and doubting mind, or a new hobby, or a lack of discipline, or a dislike of people, or marital problems, or over commitments, or anxiety, or depression, or illness, or an unbelieving spouse, or whatever—the Word is the source of our life in Christ. It is the One Thing Needful. (Luke 10:42) No matter the reason, if we don’t stay in the Word, eventually even the most devoted among us will fall away.  “Man does not live by bread alone.”  Deliver us, Father, from spiritual starvation!

And, Father, deliver us from spiritual poisoning also! Spiritual poisoning occurs when a Christian embraces the wisdom, truths, values, politics, and ideologies of this present age, and is tempted to turn to them as to another gospel.  (Gal. 1:6-9) Atheistic rationalism; materialism; the deification of science; radical individualism; biological, social and psychological Darwinism; postmodernism; libertinism; the celebration and politicization of sex, gender and sexual identity; race-based politics; and all manner of other popular, silly and trendy beliefs—these all challenge, and often mock, orthodox, creedal Christianity, and promise a better way. They are the devil and the world at work.

Brothers and sisters, outside the Church you will rarely hear the teaching or viewpoint of historic creedal Christianity seriously presented, but you will hear all these other things, over and over and over again. The effect on a Christian’s life in Christ can be quite poisonous. It doesn’t so much rob us of the Word, as it causes us to come to despise it.  The Christian who too much ingests the wisdom of this world often in time abandons Christianity and the Word altogether. They come to believe that orthodox, confessional churches like ours are too backward, narrow-minded and intolerant for today’s enlightened society.  They turn to another gospel, and make shipwreck of their faith.  Many of our young people are doing this. Whole church bodies have done this!  Defend us from this, dear Father in heaven!

A pastor’s task is to make sure the Word of God is regularly set before the people of God. It is also to exhort everyone to stay connected to Christ through that Word, and to encourage those who are not doing as well as they ought to do better.  In our present day it is also vital that a pastor investigate, unmask, and explain the wisdom of the world and the insidious ways in which it attempts to undermine the truth of God’s Word and poison us against it. Pray for me that I may be faithful in all this!  I pray for all of you as well, that our Lord Jesus would bless our congregation, our homes and families, and each one of us, that He would keep us in His Word, and that He would deliver us all from evil!

James D. Burns
Pastor, First Lutheran Church (LC-MS)
Benton, Arkansas

Political issues are by and large moral issues, and the Church not only has a right but a duty to speak clearly about them.  Matters relating to life and sexuality and discrimination and economic, social and legal justice are all highly political, but they are also deeply moral.  How can we Christians not teach and preach about such things?  We have to, of course. But while the Church must often be involved in political issues, it should never be partisan. To be political means the Church is teaching and preaching about issues with political import. To be partisan means it supports a particular political party. To be partisan does not mean that the Church takes positions which are also the positions of one of the political parties.  Rather, to be partisan means that the Church takes positions because they are the positions of one of the political parties. 

As long as the Church stuck to the Word of God, partisanship has historically been easy to avoid because the basic moral positions of the Church have usually been shared by both parties. In the past what has divided the parties was not the moral ends they sought but the best way to achieve moral ends about which both parties agreed — although admittedly this underlying moral consensus between the parties may be breaking down. Nevertheless, regarding the morality of political ends, the Church must speak. Regarding the wisest and best way to achieve those ends, the Church must exercise more care.

The Word of God often addresses moral issues and makes clear moral demands of society while not addressing at all the practical question of how best to meet those demands. For example, the Word tells us we must feed the hungry and care for the vulnerable among us. That is a universal moral command, and the society that does not do this sins. Therefore the Church should instruct its members that they must, as a matter of conscience, demand that the hungry and vulnerable among us be fed and cared for, and actively work to that end. On the other hand, the best way to do that is not definitively stated in Scripture. Solutions will vary from culture to culture, place to place, and age to age, and reasonable and faithful people will disagree as to what those solutions are. As a rule, the Church should carefully teach its members about the moral and theological questions involved in any given issue and let the members decide, at the ballot box, on the party, the candidates, the causes and the policies which in their judgment offer the best path forward.

But hasn’t the Church been very partisan on the issue of abortion?  No, it hasn’t. The Church did not adopt a pro-life position because the Republican Party adopted it.  The Church has always been pro-life.  Maybe the Republicans cynically adopted a pro-life platform to win over Christians, I don’t know.  I don’t care. I wish the Democrats had done the same, and the fact that they didn’t doesn’t make us partisan! The problem here is that the Democrats have adopted, almost universally, the immoral position of allowing abortion on demand. This is a position the Church has never held, and can never hold.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding elective abortion is not about the best way to achieve an agreed moral outcome.  It is a division over the morality of the outcome sought. The policy end – abortion on demand – is wrong in itself, and the party, or candidate, or proposal is wrong that adopts it. That is an unabashedly political statement, to be sure.  But it is not partisan.

James D. Burns
Pastor, First Lutheran Church (LC-MS)
Benton, Arkansas

Christian Nationalism is an ill-defined concept.  The term is often used simply to smear Christians merely for being politically active and to conjure up terrifying thoughts of authoritarianism and theocracy.  I’ve never met a Christian, however right-wing politically, who actually wanted a theocracy!  Nevertheless, this is a fear among some fellow citizens who evidentially know nothing about the actual Christian faith.  However, some people do hold the idea that the United States is an instrument of God created by Him to establish Christ’s Kingdom on earth. The United States, in this view, is bound to support and promote Christianity, and all that entails, not just for its socially desirable features (which are many), but in obedience to the purpose for which God created the United States. For people believing this way, patriotism—that is, love of country—is often confused with faith and devotion to Jesus Christ.  I have heard people speak of the U.S. Constitution as though it were the very Word of God, and to extoll the founding fathers as though they were prophets or saints.  Such words are often well meaning, but at bottom, this kind of thinking confuses of the U.S. Nation State and the Kingdom of God. And if that is what is meant by Christian Nationalism, I’m against it! 

Because the Kingdom of God is not of this world.  Inasmuch as it is in the world, it is truly a global, indeed universal, Kingdom.  It predated the United States, and will endure (if Christ tarries) until long after America is no more.  It is true that God has created the United States with a purpose, but at heart that purpose is the same purpose for which He created every other nation on earth: to provide for the earthly welfare of human beings.  To believe that America has performed this purpose particularly well among the nations of the earth—an acceptable understanding of “American Exceptionalism”—is not an invitation to confuse America with the Kingdom of God—a very unacceptable understanding of “American Exceptionalism”.  Patriotism and devotion to Christ and His Kingdom, while both good things, should never be confused.  They are nothing alike. Patriotism is contingent on the nation being deserving of it, and lasts only as long as the nation itself. Patriotism is temporal and national. Faith and devotion to Christ are not.  The Kingdom of God is transnational, transcendent, absolute and eternal.  Its aim is not some utopian society on earth, but resurrection and eternal life in the World to Come.

But as I mentioned above, not all that is labeled Christian Nationalism is anything of the sort.  For example, to observe that American culture has historically embraced a Judeo-Christian world view, and still does in a general way, is not Christian Nationalism.  Nor is it Christian Nationalism to believe that our cultural cohesiveness will be jeopardized if this general embrace of a Judeo-Christian world view is abandoned for some other world view.  Nor is it Christian Nationalism to believe that our society would be better off embracing the Judeo-Christian world view than any alternative, nor even to actively seek to promote that.  Christians are as much a part of this nation as any others, and their ideas are presumptively as worthy of attention and consideration as those of any others.  To believe that the precepts of Christianity are good for, or even the very best for, our nation, and to fight for their acceptance politically is not Christian Nationalism. To believe that an idea has no right even to be heard or considered politically because it’s not Christian—now that might well be Christian Nationalism.  This Independence Day, I will celebrate God’s gift of America, but I won’t overdo it.   Something much greater than America is in the world.

James D. Burns
Pastor, First Lutheran Church (LC-MS)
Benton, Arkansas

This is Pride Month. Did you know that? I bet you did. There’s a presidential proclamation announcing it, you know. And everybody’s getting in on the act.  Commercials go out of their way to let us know that, whatever it is they’re hawking, and whether we even know or care what they’re trying to sell us, they want us to know they’re all about Pride. Rainbow logos everywhere!  Major league baseball games feature players wearing special rainbow logos on their caps.  The Marine Corps – for crying out loud, the Marine Corps! – has a Pride Helmet logo.  Oh yes.  It’s decorated with rainbow colored bullets. If that image seems incongruous, what about this.  To celebrate the beginning of Pride Month, an LGBT+ Pride flag was flown at the U.S. Embassy at the Vatican.

But I’m not proud, not proud at all, not proud of what Pride Month says I ought to be proud of. And why should I be? Sex in itself is nothing to be proud of; and even less, the mere desire to have sex, with whomever, and however one likes.  There’s nothing to be proud of in that. That’s just people doing what they want to do. There are things to be proud of in this world to be sure, things that make a real difference, that make the world a better place – and not only for ourselves.  People who control and channel their desires, for example, rather than merely satisfy them. The world is built by people who do that, who say no to themselves, who sacrifice, and we ought to be proud of and celebrate such people. Sex alone doesn’t do anything for the world. It doesn’t make the world a better place. At best it satisfies a personal desire for the one doing it.  At best. 

Stop and think about this.  Should I really be proud of some healthy young man who wants to sleep with some pretty young woman, and then go his way?  Rather, I’ll be proud of a young man who will not sleep with a pretty young woman to whom he’s not married—no matter how attracted he is to her, and even if she begged him to.  I’ll be proud of that man.  There’s nothing to be proud of that some straight guy merely wants to have sex. Is it any more laudatory that the guy who just wants to have sex is gay?

Someone might say, though, that LGBTQ+ Pride is not about being “proud of sex”.  It’s about being proud of, and celebrating, who you are. Well, in the first place there’s nothing particularly to be proud of in merely being who you are. We ought rather to be proud of becoming what we ought to be. Except for perfect people, “who we are” is usually where the problem is. Secondly, to the extent that Pride month means pride in being who you are, it appears that to the LGBTQ+ community, what you are is what kind of sex you like to have. What else of note distinguishes this group? The only thing that holds all these letters together (and the ‘+’ sign also) is that they designate sexual orientations or proclivities or identities that are not of the traditional mold.

Am I being Intolerant, here? I don’t know. I haven’t touched that subject. This is Pride Month, not Toleration Month. I’m not being asked to be tolerant of LGBTQ+ behavior anymore.  Now I’m told I should be proud of it.  I’m not proud of people just because they want to have some kind of non-traditional sex just for fun, nor that they are willing openly to admit it.  Do I want to try to stop them from having their fun?  I, as a pastor of a church, have better things to do. And who am I to judge those outside the Church? They will reap what they sow. And anyway, I’m not writing to people outside the Church. I’m writing to and for Christians. And we Christians ought ourselves to know well, and to teach and raise our own children to know well, and ought to say publically and without embarrassment to the world at large, that when it comes to sex there is something far greater than fun and self-fulfillment here.

There is great irony, actually, in all this talk of sex by itself producing nothing, because sex is perhaps the most constructive and productive activity most of us will ever do. But not in and of itself, not just because it feels good or meets some perceived emotional or psychological need, but because of the children it produces. Getting married, staying married, having children and raising them well—which is what sex is for—makes the world a much better place. But that kind of sex isn’t just fun.  It is fun, but it costs a lot, and it requires sacrifice.  I’m not proud that people want to have sex or can now have sex with whomever they want. I am proud of people who want to undertake the sacrifice involved in having and raising children for the glory of God. Or even just for the betterment of our world. You don’t have to be a Christian to see the value to society in having children and raising them well! The next generation depends on that! But our corporations and our government and the LGBTQ+ community don’t celebrate that.  There is no such thing as “Married with a Big Family” Pride. No month, no flag, no logo.

I’m being rather snarky here, I know. And yet, how often have Christians been told not to foist their morality on others! Wow. Pride Month: The LGBTQ+ community foisting its morality on others, even on Christians. Am I Tolerant?  Intolerant?  I don’t know. But I’m not proud, that’s for sure. Not proud of any of this.

James D. Burns
Pastor, First Lutheran Church (LC-MS)
Benton, Arkansas

Christian teaching regarding sex and sexuality is as straightforward to understand as it is often challenging to practice.  Put simply, it requires all sexual activity to occur within a monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual marriage relationship. Sexually, anything beyond this comes of evil. This is not just a quirky, arbitrary religious rule about sex — although it is a rule for Christians and it does demand obedience. More than that, though, it is a sincere call for Christians to live a certain way as a public confession about God and the sanctity of human life. 

To see this, let’s look at some basic principles. First principle: The unique purpose of sex is procreation, to bring human life into the world; and the sexual act should be understood first and foremost as an act uniquely designed by God for that purpose. Yes, it is enjoyable and builds intimacy, but those qualities are not its first and unique purpose. They are, rather, delightful fringe benefits. Its design and potential to create human life is what sets sexual activity apart from all other activities people do. For Christians, then, the sexual act is sacred because of what God designed it to do.  Note that the act, because of its design, is sacred even when a particular couple cannot conceive, because of age, say, or some physical problem.  Such couples  hold the act sacred and honor God by joyfully engaging in it while remembering its purpose, even when that purpose cannot (absent a miracle) be realized.

Next principle:  The unique purpose of marriage is to create an appropriate environment for that one sacred activity which alone is designed to create human life.  This isn’t the only purpose of marriage, mind you, but its first and unique purpose. The design of and the potential for the sexual act to create human life is what makes marriage unlike any other relationship between people. That is what makes marriage sacred, even the marriage of a couple who cannot conceive. Thus, the sexual act is strictly limited to marriage, an institution designed by God around the procreation of new life; and thus marriage is between a man and a woman, the sexual union between such being the only union which can, and in fact is designed, to create new life.   

From these basic principles flow the Christian sexual ethic which limits all sexual activity to the marriage relationship.  And here’s a quaint and deeply religious term to denote that ethic:  Chastity.  Chastity means to limit all sexual activity to the marriage relationship. To practice chastity is not only to be personally obedient to God, but it is also to make a deeply religious and public confession about God and about the sanctity of human life.

Our culture long ago stopped believing in chastity, not even as a praiseworthy, if perhaps unattainable, ideal. It’s not just that our culture doesn’t follow the rules very well. It rejects the whole paradigm. It doesn’t believe in the sanctity of sex or marriage.  Our culture instead sees sex as a natural act which human beings desire to do, and moreover which they generally need to do for psychological health. In our secular culture, sex isn’t a gift of God. In fact, there’s nothing religious about it at all. Sex is simply a need that individuals have and therefore have a right to do. To the secular mind, the potential to create life is not considered to be an essential feature of the sexual act – in fact it’s not even a desirable feature, except in those occasional instances when a woman wants to have a baby.  Sex is what healthy people do, and there’s nothing more to it than that — only be careful to use protection (unless you actually want a baby), and practice safe sex (unless you don’t care if you contract an STD).  The result of this thinking is a brand new sexual ethic to replace chastity:  Let’s call it Desire and Consent.  Meaning, when it comes to sex, anything is permissible between two consenting adults. So have fun and be safe! And that’s pretty much it.

“Chastity”, or “Desire and Consent”.  There is no harmonizing these two ethics. For the Christian, sex is not about psychological health or orientation or identity, it’s not about fairness or liberty or self-expression. In short, if you’re a Christian sex is not about you. It’s not a purely private matter. Sex belongs to God and serves his purposes, and how His people conduct themselves sexually is an important and highly visible part of a Christian’s witness about God to the world He created.

And yes, one’s attitude toward sex is a highly visible thing. It’s never been a purely private matter, and especially not now.  What I mean is this:  Once upon a time it was assumed that married people lived together and engaged in sex and that unmarried people did not. That’s why it was wonderful when married people had children and scandalous when unmarried people did. That’s why unmarried men and women didn’t live together. One’s sexual ethics have never been a purely private matter. 

What is new though is that attitudes regarding sex have become highly politicized. What kind of sexual relationships a person engages in or approves (or doesn’t approve) is politically very important these days. Signaling broad acceptance of non-traditional sexual lifestyles makes a person seem tolerant, open-minded, sophisticated and reasonable, while indicating disapproval of the lifestyle choices of others is just inexcusable and likely to earn one the label of bigot. That’s because to the secular mind, the Christian sexual ethic of chastity is unjust, unfair, unnatural, unworkable, extreme, intolerant, backward – and sexist and patriarchal to boot – and no reasonable person could think otherwise.

That said, Christians shouldn’t go out of their way to condemn unchaste behavior in others – but we must be careful not to condone it either, as we are being pressured to do, under the rules of political correctness. But if the world demands an answer from us, demands to know what we think about pre-marital sex, casual consensual sex, living together without marriage, no-fault divorce, single parent homes verses two-parent homes, homosexuality, homosexual marriage, drag queens, transsexuals, LGBTQ  pride – if they demand to know, then we must give it to them unvarnished. We must make that good confession, even though it may come at a cost. “Jesus is Lord. I approve chastity alone. Here I stand; I can do no other!”

But far more powerful than what we Christians say is what we do.  Therefore, it should go without saying (but sadly, it cannot) that Christians should never engage in such things, engage in sex outside of marriage, no matter how consensual, and no matter how much the parties love each other. Likewise unmarried Christians should never live with someone as though married—even if engaged to be married and even if the marriage is already on the calendar and even if the wedding day is tomorrow! 

Let me be clear:  a person professing to be a Christian but who engages in or approves unchaste behaviors is not making a Christian witness or confessing allegiance to the Christian God. They are embracing the views of the world, pure and simple.  And that’s bad enough, but to make matters even worse, they are doing so publically.

That’s a strong statement, and many people, who sincerely believe they are Christians, will object to it.  They will say, “But isn’t it the case that Christians do do these things, and always have, and worse? There have always been children born out of wedlock, or children conceived before the wedding date.  And what about divorce? Isn’t that even worse than consensual sex between unmarried people? And whether we want to admit it or not, there has always been homosexuality, even in the Church, and we’re not going to stop it by driving it underground.  People are going to do what people want to do, and trying to force chastity on them will not make them any purer.” How do we answer these things?

First, the Christian sexual ethic of chastity is for Christians. Although I might commend it to unbelievers – the world would be a better place if all people practiced it – I am under no illusion that it will sell there.  But this is for Christians, and if you don’t want to be a Christian, you don’t have to be.  But if you do, you are called to chastity.  Second, this isn’t a matter of forcing morality on people to make them purer. Purity comes to a believer by faith, not by good behavior. God considers those with faith in Christ to be pure, regardless of their lifestyle. But He expects of those whom He has purified by faith, whatever their lifestyle may have been before, to start practicing chastity.  Third, of course Christians have always violated the chastity ethic!  Christians are sinners! So yes, Christians have engaged in extra-marital sex.  Yes, babies have been born out of wedlock.  Yes, Christians have engaged in homosexual acts, too.  And more. Christians have divorced, have committed adultery, and have often done what they wanted to do sexually rather than what their allegiance to Christ required of them. And much to their harm and much to their shame!  So what is the answer?  Get rid of the rules that Christians keep breaking? Breaking rules is one thing; casting them aside is quite another – and encouraging others to do likewise is even worse.  Christians do not approve what God has forbidden. Rather, Christians try not to sin, try hard not to sin, and repent when they do sin.

To sum it up, then:  Our culture laughs at the concept of chastity. “How quaint!” Unfortunately, a good many Christians have bought that line too, to their own harm, and to the harm of the Church. But here’s the truth: Believers in Christ must accept chastity for themselves. It’s the Christian sexual ethic. It’s a rule to be obeyed, true, but it’s more than that.  It’s a powerful and public witness, also. Especially in our highly sexualized world the approval and the practice of chastity will set apart believers from unbelievers, will uphold the sanctity of life, and will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

James D. Burns
Pastor, First Lutheran Church (LC-MS)
Benton, Arkansas

Why Denominations, especially Confessional Denominations, are Good for Us

Almost every major denomination in America is and has been losing membership for some time, including the Missouri Synod, and the trend is likely to continue. The primary beneficiaries of all these losses are so-called “non-denominational” churches.  Many Christians in America are simply switching to non-denomination churches.  In fact, even some denominational churches are removing their denominational titles from their name and otherwise downplaying their denominational associations. All this is very consistent with the highly individualistic spirit of our age and our culture. I have heard many a spirited defense of non-denominational churches, that they are preferable, and more biblical, than denominational congregations—after all, “there are no denominations in the Bible.” That statement, although it means nothing, is practically a creed among the non-denominational churches! 

This trend toward non-denominational churches is not a healthy one for Christians who want to have and maintain a solid Biblical, orthodox faith. While it is indeed sad that there is a need for denominational divisions among Christians, that being the case it is a very good thing that denominations such as our own exist. So, I’m going to give a spirited defense of denominations generally, and in particular, of our own denomination.

First, let’s begin by acknowledging that the Christian Church is One, Holy and Apostolic. There is one Christian Church, it belongs to God, and what is believed and taught and practiced in that one Christian Church must bear the stamp of the apostles Jesus sent into the world.  Christians are not free to conceive of Jesus and the Kingdom of God however they want.  So how is a Christian supposed to know that what they are being taught to believe is truly apostolic? All Christians want to follow the Bible, and all churches say they do follow the Bible.  How is a Christian then to judge?

Join me in a thought experiment. What can we say about an individual who wants to be a Christian, but who has no association with a Christian congregation, who is self-taught from first to last simply by reading the Bible, who worships in their own way according to their own conscience and their own reading of the Bible, and who is answerable to no one but Jesus (as they understand Him) for their beliefs and practices? I will not pass judgment on whether this person is or is likely to be saved. I will only say this:  Theirs is almost certainly a very idiosyncratic faith, probably unlike the faith and practice of any other Christian on earth. It is unlikely to be very “apostolic”, and it is a dangerous place for a person who wants to be a Christian to be.

Follow me a little further. Now let’s take that same person and plug them into a stand-alone congregation, a congregation with no associations with any other congregations, past or present, a congregation which searches the Scriptures on its own and determines for itself what they mean. In other words, let our previously stand-alone individual be stand-alone no more! Instead, let them learn about Jesus from our stand-alone congregation, and worship in the same way and along with the others in that congregation. Let them be answerable instead for how they believe not to themselves alone, but to this stand-alone congregation. Chances are good that what that individual person ends up believing and how they put their beliefs into practice will be much less idiosyncratic than when they were when they were completely on their own, because their faith will be tempered by the belief and practices of all the others in the congregation. Two heads are better than one, and there is safety in numbers. But this individual may still be in a very dangerous place, because individual, stand-alone congregations can be very idiosyncratic too. A congregation like that will do what it thinks is best, to be sure, what it thinks is most Biblical. But if it’s wrong, there are no other congregations to reign it in, to temper its eccentricities. So the individual in this position who wants to be a faithful Christian is at the mercy of the stand-alone congregation to which they are attached, and whether that stand-alone congregation is apostolic in the teaching and practice.

Now let’s take that stand-alone congregation and plug it into a larger organization, a congregation, if you will, of congregations, and let our previously stand-alone congregation stand-alone no more.  Let it instead submit itself to the judgments and insights and wisdom of all those other congregations. Now we have another layer of protection for our individual who wants to be an orthodox Christian and wants to know that what they are being taught is truly Biblical and apostolic. Just as an individual them self is tempered and limited, so to speak, in how eccentric and idiosyncratic they can become, because of the influence of their congregation, so also their congregation is tempered and limited in how eccentric it can become by the influence of the other congregations with which it is associated.

First Lutheran Church in Benton is not a stand-alone congregation, but is a part of a larger collection of congregations, called a synod. “Synod” means “Walk together.” Our synod is a denomination, and we are proudly a part of it. The members of First Lutheran Church in Benton don’t interpret the Scripture all on their own, but are guided by the influence of the whole congregation, which itself is guided by the influence of the other congregations of the synod to which we belong, that is, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

But, you may ask, what keeps the whole synod from becoming eccentric and unapostolic?  Being a part of a denomination by itself is no guarantee of apostolicity. Just as surely as a stand-alone congregation can abandon apostolicity and go its own way, so can an entire denomination do the same—and take all the congregations and people who belongs to it with it!  A denomination must not stand alone either. And, in fact, the Missouri Synod does not stand-alone.  It cannot do as it pleases; it is part of a larger thing, the “Lutheran Church” (which is not actually a “church” at all, but a theological system).  As such, the Missouri Synod is guided and tempered by whatever it means to be “Lutheran”. 

In other words, our denomination, the Missouri Synod, doesn’t get to make up what a “Lutheran” is.  The doctrinal statements of the Lutheran Church, also known as the Book of Concord, or the Lutheran Confessions (by which is meant, Confessions of Faith), were assembled between 1526 and 1580, and they detail what a Lutheran is. So, long before there was a Missouri Synod, there was already such a thing as a Lutheran.  The Missouri Synod, and therefore the congregations which make up the Missouri Synod, and therefore also First Lutheran Church in Benton, are guided and limited by these documents, they are guided and limited by what it means to be a Lutheran.

And these Lutheran Confessions are not stand-alone either. Martin Luther and the other Reformers were not free to fashion whatever teachings they liked and call them apostolic. What these documents say did not hatch out of their minds, to be sprung on the Church for the first time in the sixteenth century. Just the opposite. These confessions of faith are very careful to show how what the Lutherans were teaching was Biblical, apostolic, and not new at all.  Lutheran teaching arose squarely out of the one holy Christian and apostolic church, and those who are taught according to that teaching are being taught the apostolic faith of the one holy Church.

It is because our congregation is part of a denomination, and specifically a faithfully Lutheran denomination, that we, the members of First Lutheran in Benton, may have a great deal of confidence that the faith we are being taught to believe and practice is in fact the apostolic faith of the Scriptures and of the one Holy Christian Church.  We have this confidence not because we are free to interpret the Bible on our own and for ourselves, but because we are not. We received the apostolic faith from those who came before us. We did not invent it for ourselves.

Now, a brief word about non-denominational churches. It is not entirely accurate to say that a non-denominational church is a totally “stand-alone” church. Such churches generally do not make up their own doctrines and practices. (Stay completely away from any congregation that does that!) Rather, they typically owe their theology to some, or perhaps even several, unnamed denominations. For that reason non-denominational churches are not nearly as idiosyncratic as they would be if they truly were standing alone. Even so, what those denominational backgrounds are, since they are not identified, would have to be ferreted out by the members—and few are able to do that. Furthermore, the extent to which those unidentified denominations will have preserved apostolic doctrine will vary. But a church that calls itself “non-denomination” is indeed stand-alone at least in this respect: such a congregation is not answerable to any other congregations or confession of faith.  In that regard, rather than being non-denominational, they might better be characterized as denominations unto themselves.

It is sad that there are doctrinal divisions in the universal Church, but that is a fact. Rather than let every Christian fend for themselves in determining what’s Biblical and apostolic, it is better that individual Christians, congregations, and denominations submit to what has already been determined to be true and right. If the doctrine of the one holy Christian Church is apostolic, then individual Christians, congregations and denominations are to receive it, be faithful to it, and pass it on to the next generation—not find it for themselves! 

Brothers and sisters, let us assume for a moment that the draft opinion leaked from the Supreme Court yesterday evening will ultimately be the Court’s ruling concerning Row v. Wade.  May it be so!  This has been a dreadful law since its beginning in 1973. It is well passed time to lay it to rest.

But understand what this means—and doesn’t mean.  It means that elective abortions are no longer protected as a matter of constitutional law.  It doesn’t mean that elective abortions are banned. It means that the question of elective abortion is returned to the political branches of government to decide the matter—that is, to the congresses of the fifty states and to the federal congress.

And not to say that the same issues which have been argued for fifty years as a matter of federal constitutional law will now be argued by elective representatives in every state.  Actually, the issues which will have to be debated in all these congresses will be quite different, and much, much more relevant to the question.  As a matter of constitutional law, the issues raised and argued tend to be rather dry and far removed from the facts surrounding elective abortions.  Debated before judges are issues of privacy, standing, undue burden, stare decisis, federalism, textual interpretation, “substantive due process”, equal protection, and the like.  Looking only at this dry, legal list one would never know the underlying issue was a right to an elective abortion!

But here are some things which actually do relate to elective abortions which have not been argued, debated, or even treated in the courts for fifty years, but which will now have to be articulated and debated, openly, directly and clearly by elected officials and the citizens who vote for them.  For example, When does human life begin?  If not at conception, then when?  And why then?  What right to live does an unborn child have?  And who decides? Under what circumstances can a mother’s rights, whatever they are, trump an unborn child’s right to live?  More specifically, Does a mother’s liberty right—“my body, my choice”—overrule an unborn child’s right to exist and be born (a child, mind you, with its own body)? Laws will have to be drafted, and politicians who, up until now, have been able to hide behind legal constitutional arguments having nothing to do with the real matter at hand—these very politicians will have to make their choices clear and defend them. A politician who wants to protect the right of a woman to choose—in itself an admirable thing to defend—will have to defend what allowing that right will mean in the case of an unwanted, but otherwise healthy, pregnancy.

This debate is far from over.  Hopefully, though, it will at least begin to address seriously the real issue: the life of an unborn, human child. And my prayer is that, at least among some of the electorate and some of those they elect, such a child’s right to live will be recognized and protected. God willing, there will be some children born simply because their unborn life was protected—children who will grow up, and live, and have children of their own, and may even live in eternity with Christ, who otherwise might never have seen the light of day. God willing!

Cleaning an old shed, or a garage, which hasn’t been cleaned in a long, long, time, is not only a dirty business, but sometimes comes with surprises. Dirt on the floor, dust everywhere, boxes stacked on boxes, some broken open, some fallen over.  Junk.  Lots of junk.  Pick through it, one item at a time, remove the boxes and the junk, on thing at a time, remove them to the sunshine, to the lawn or the driveway, and then sweep the old shed clear, throw out what should be thrown out and re-box what should be re-boxed, and put it all back in nice and neat.

A lot of damage, typically.  Things are broken, water damaged, deteriorated with time, torn.  Just age or dampness or gravity.  Not all the damage is like that, though. Some of it is more intentional.  There is often evidence of animal activity, rats or mice or squirrels.  This was chewed through, that was chewed up.  Nests and animal waste and chewed up clothes and papers. You might get a surprise, too, if you disturb the wrong box. A family of mice which suddenly race in every direction!  And there are other creatures too. I’m thinking of spiders, which don’t seem to make the junk but just seem to like junked up places. They’ll surprise you also. And they sometimes bite.

Jesus came to heal the sick and release the oppressed.  Masses of people were brought to him, “all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to him, and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. And demons also came out of many.” Luke 4:40-41).  He did a lot of very rapid cleaning, that day! And notice:  Many were brought to Jesus, and all of them were healed, and out of some of those who were healed burst demons.  Not all the sick had demons, but some did. 

Jesus healing these people was like cleaning out an old shed—and cleaning it quickly! There was a lot of junk in those lives, and a lot of damage too. A lot of it was caused by nothing more interesting than time and the deterioration time brings. But not all of it.  Some of it had a more intentional cause, demons, which mean to do harm, or at least don’t care if they do, or which merely like to take up residence among the junk.  Not that one causes the other, but demons and illness go together naturally.  Cleaning as quickly as He was that day, Jesus surprised a lot of demons, and we see them caught in the open, and scampering to get away! “And demons also came out of many, crying, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.” Luke 4:41.

Here and there demons inhabit our lives and our world also. They are not always the cause of all our problems, and demons are not behind every illness. Our world and our lives are deteriorating too, all by themselves. But they are still lurking about, these demonic beings, and they like deteriorating places. We generally don’t see them.  Sometimes we see the evidence that they were there, but we move too slowly and they scram before we can really surprise them out in the open.  Sometimes they mean to do us harm, sometimes they merely don’t care if they do, and sometimes they just seem to like to take up residence among our junk. 

Our deteriorating lives, and the demons that sometimes live and flourish among us, oppress us.  Jesus will set us free from all this. He’ll clear the junk out of our lives, He’ll clear out our deteriorated lives like it was a dirty old shed, and He’ll cast out any demonic vermin that happen to be infesting it also. He will raise us up on the Last Day, and we will be free.

For a Christian, a human person is a sacred thing, the pinnacle of God’s creative work. God Himself became a human being. He didn’t become an angel, but a human person. All creation is designed by God to support human life, and human beings themselves are specifically commanded by God to support it. The most elemental role of government is the protection of human life and the advancement of human welfare in this world.  The first obligation of mothers and fathers is to protect the lives of their own children. The mission of the Church is to save human life from sin and death and hell, to save it not only for service to God here in time, but for eternity with God in the world to come. Christ died so that human beings may live and not die. The theological basis for the sanctity of life is clear enough!

Furthermore, a child is a human person both before and after birth. There is simply no theological or rational reason to believe that human life begins at any other point than at conception, and it should be held as sacred and it should be protected from that moment onward. A human person is sacred no matter how old, how young, how sick, how enfeebled, how expensive, how limited, how “unviable”, how inconvenient, how unwanted—need I go on? A human life is sacred.

Therefore, for a Christian, the willful taking of a human life is not a matter to be decided between a woman and her doctor.  It is not a matter of privacy, or individual autonomy, or self-determination, or women’s rights, or equality.  All those things, and much more, are implicated by a pregnancy, to be sure. But old age and illness limits our rights and freedoms as well, and yet do not justify the taking of any life, including our own. Pregnancy isn’t the only thing that forces hard choices on people. But none of these attempted justifications for the taking of life change the fundamental truth at the core here, that human life is sacred, that it’s not ours to take. And it’s not just that these attempted justifications of abortion, or suicide, or euthanasia, do not quite succeed.  If life is sacred—and it is—they are irrelevant.

Christians don’t often disagree with any of this, at least if they thought about it. It’s pretty basic stuff. Obviously, for the Christian, life is sacred. “But,” someone may ask, “does that mean that Christians should demand that others, who are not Christians, hold to this same view of life?”

Absolutely it does. Demanding that non-Christians protect human life is not about being Christian particularly, it’s about being human. One might say the same thing about feeding the hungry. Christian or not, it’s monstrous—inhuman—to let the poor starve to death if starvation can be prevented!  If anyone is not aware of that, it is the duty of a Christian—and the non-Christian—to enlighten them, and to do what can be done to make sure the starving get fed!

We Christians should be pro-life, but not for ourselves only.  We should unashamedly demand a pro-life culture for others also—not because we are Christian, but because we are human, because our fellow citizens, whatever their faith, are human, and because the unborn and the elderly and the sick are all human.  You don’t have to be Christian to see that, but if you are a Christian you’d have to blind not to!

James D. Burns
Pastor, First Lutheran Church
Benton, Arkansas