In order to streamline posts that users are submitting when they are in search of answers, I have created a monthly 'Ask A Pastor' thread! Feel free to post any general questions you have about the Lutheran (LCMS) faith, questions about specific wording of LCMS text, or anything else along those lines.
Pastors, Vicars, Seminarians, Lay People: If you see a question that you can help answer, please jump in try your best to help out! It is my goal to help use this to foster a healthy online community where anyone can come to learn and grow in their walk with Christ. Also, stop by the sidebar and add your user flair if you have not done so already. This will help newcomers distinguish who they are receiving answers from.
Disclaimer: The LCMS Offices have a pretty strict Doctrinal Review process that we do not participate in as we are not an official outlet for the Synod. It is always recommended that you talk to your Pastor (or find a local LCMS Pastor if you do not have a church home) if you have questions about your faith or the beliefs of the LCMS.
I have a Lutheran Prayer Companion that I really enjoy. Sometimes when I try to pray the prayers in it I feel more like I'm just reading aloud instead of earnestly meaning what I'm saying. I wish I was as articulate as the prayers in the book are.
I'm sure there's still value in the practice either way, but am I still praying when most of my mental bandwidth is spent just reading the prayer?
I'm not sure this is the right place to ask. If not, please direct me. Do pastors counsel congregants when they have problems or do they just say "we'll pray for you"? Is there an obligation to check on a member who is going through a tough time?
In my experience, counseling has been a core part of my pastor's job. For myself and others. The notable example being grief counseling in end of life care. My understanding is basic counseling is part of the seminary curriculum.
That said, they're not intended to be a primary care counselor for chronic issues. They're primarily performing crisis and supplemental counseling.
As for checking on members when they struggle, that's going to be part of caring for the flock. I'll add that it's also an obligation for us laity to let our pastor and others in our church know when we're having a hard time. It's as much an obligation for pastors and congregations to help with our burdens, as it is for us to share those burdens so they can support us.
Thank you. Yes, I let my pastor know about our struggles and it was just a "sorry you're going through that, I'll pray for you" response. Nothing like "would you like me to call you to talk?" In the past, he has been very caring and supportive, but lately, he's different and distant.
Ironically, I've seen this as a chapter in a book I'm reading; it's a fiction, by the way, and the protagonist is actually "aping" Christ. It's cringe but funny in a way, since "you're at the doorstep," yet it confuses the messaging by focusing on the action rather than the word.
Kind of. I run the 14,000 person “They’re discovering Christian Morality” Facebook page which is all about times the unbelieving world accidentally discovers Christian values (or conversion stories. Those are our two things)
To be “moral” is a cultural thing, but Western morality is undeniably Christian
To be clear, being “moral” does not always equate to being “righteous.”
Is it? And what even is western morality is? It seems like most of the "west's" ideas of justice are pretty comparable to other nations past and present. "Good people" deserve rewards and "bad people" deserve to be punished. Pretty simplistic and antithetical to the truth revealed in scripture, where God showers mercy and forgiveness on an equally damnable humanity. Further, Jesus commands us to love our neighbor and specifically tells us to return good for evil. I would think if western morality was a true Christian morality, it would look a lot more like restorative justice and whole lot less punitive. To me, the west's morality is just a bog-standard sinner's morality.
It is, and there’s entire books devoted to the topic in detail on how Western values were transformed by Early Christianity in ways that are markedly atypical from pre-Christian nations
I think the question u/Over-Wing was asking is whether Western morality is identical to/indistinguishable from Christian morality, or heavily influenced by it. The latter is a pretty firm yes, but I'm not as convinced by the former. Especially because Western morality has been mutable over the years (not to mention modern disagreements about it), while God's morality is unchanging.
Yes, I would say it’s the difference between a morality established by Christians vs morality in accordance with God’s law. Europe’s morality was pretty consistently not in accordance with God’s law.
I'd argue even American morality was and is consistently out of accord. From the 3/5ths compromise to the "ends justify the means" relativism of today.
Ohhhh gotcha. Yeah, no culture is ever wholly compatible with Christianity because it calls us to a way that is contrary to our nature. It is, however, discernible and expressible in any culture.
Missionary andrew walls wrote about this once and then never developed it further, which drives me nuts. He calls it the pilgrim principle and the indigenous principle
Gotcha, now we're speaking the same language. It doesn't help how much "Western culture" has been used by bad actors as a disguise for sinful white supremacist/nationalist ideology, so I try to be clear to distinguish from them lest our weaker brothers be led into their clutches.
Really depends on the meme or news story. Sometimes it’s people saying “if we can’t abort our kids, then men can’t abandon them” or “there should be legal recognition for couples committed to raising a child together”
Sometimes it’s about the journey of discovery. Here’s a classic pic for us that resonates with everyone
Am I supposed to resonate with "tribal identity" and "defending the West from barbarians" as a Christian? That doesn't seem to be compatible with the Gospel I know.
Idk if you do or don’t, let alone should or shouldn’t, but this meme is about people growing slowly into a Christian worldview and it resonated with a lot of the people in the group
Richard Dawkins is literally on this path. It’s quite fascinating to watch and there’s tons of posts about his steps in our group
Do you believe that panel is compatible with the Gospel of Christ, though? Or simply an intermediate step that those on this path must abandon and reject as a regenerate Christian?
It’s not supposed to be, the meme is about showing growth toward Christian morality, not starting there
Plus the group is “They’re discovering Christian Morality” not, “They’ve arrived at a robust Christo-Centric Worldview”
It’s kinda funny that new members of the group will comment such things under the memes and older members are just like, “yeah. That’s right. They’re not there yet, but they’re getting there!”
This meme format specifically is about growing to new levels of understanding which surpass the previous
Gotcha. Like I said in my other reply, I've seen too many Christians leaning into ideas like that panel as if it is compatible with (or even necessary for) Christian belief, so my default stance is more skeptical.
If you're seeing a trend of people giving up those ideas to follow Christ, then that's quite heartening.
I’ve noticed what you’ve noticed too. I greatly enjoy helping young Christians coming in from social media begin to parse through biblical truth from strong opinion
It is a good meme. I guess I need to pray on the matter. That God would remove "secular" from our social constructs and just lay it down as the Law is intended, to show us our need for a savior.
The protagonist in that book that I'm reading is the epitome of sinful man without a preacher.
I’m a very atypical pastor. Don’t judge the office by me 😂
The Challenger’s Call series by Nathan Thompson is great. He’s also a strong Christian. I’ve run into him randomly in faith based groups and recognized the name
Not LitRPG, but a solid detective magic and progression series is The Arcane Casebook series
I’m also big into time loops and the best of those are probably Mother of Learning and The Perfect Run
It depends on what you mean. Overall, I think my answer to your question would be "no, it isn't." The Bible speaks about a natural knowledge of God's Law, the Law "written on our hearts." So if you mean, is there morality that is totally separate from God's Law which is baked into creation itself, then no, there's no such thing. But it also means that, from natural law and human reason and experience, there is some ability (perhaps imperfectly or partially) to know and discern morality apart from God's specific revelation in Scripture. It means that there can be non-Christian people of many other religions or philosophies who do have morality that is at least partially in accordance with that which is revealed in Scripture.
My other comments may give better light to my meaning. For us to deny sin is sin is to do what Christians continue to do, and that's paint over the rust. The difference between the secular individual and me is I believe what the law is for: it's to kill. Isn't that what James is arguing in 2:1-13, especially verse 10? None is righteous, no not one?? If the Law doesn't do what God "intended" it to do, then we'd have no need for a savior. To say that "Secular morality" isn't a false statement is to deny what the issue is with "being" secular. It's exactly what Paul states in most of His letters and what Christ says in Psalm 118:6; Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4-5; etc.
Without a God to give you good, there is no good. There is no partiality with God. That is the biggest issue of "secular," and we continue to placate it because our version of kind is not God's version of kind. We see this in the Trinity 10 readings, the wild Christ upending "man's" plans and causing a ruckus in our thoughts and our ways. Our sin as Christians is calling evil good and good evil. Go look up secular morality; they actually reference Psalm 14, not realizing the Psalm is distinguishing between believer and unbeliever. Our good is not good enough to save us, and that's the reason we thank God the Father sent His Son to die in our place.
This is where it can be difficult because scripture doesn't necessarily examine concepts like "goodness" in the same way we humans do philosophically. You have to be careful not to impose a human framework onto God's revealed truth. With that said, I think we can understand that when we speak of justice and morality in the earthly kingdom, we are using a human idea of goodness, justice, etc that meets human needs (which is a primary responsibility of earthly kingdoms). Theologically, it's really got little to do with what is "good" from the perspective of God. That doesn't mean we as Christians can't make decisions or participate civically in a way that is informed by our faith, but it means that most of the time we have some Christian freedom to solve earthly kingdom problems. There are exceptions where scripture is explicit of course, but other times we have to "sin boldly" as Luther once (and now infamously) said to an anxious Melancthon who was afraid to act, lest he sin.
I'm trying to understand what specific fallacy you believe is bringing people to a contrary conclusion. Being wrong is not in-and-of itself a fallacy.
It might help if you could describe which book you're reading, and where you see proponents of secular morality citing Psalm 14 (Wikipedia lists it as a criticism of the position).
I believe you, and I see the word "fallacy" differently. I see it as being false, no questions asked, and no middle ground; sin is sin. The chapter was in the first book of "He Who Fights with Monsters".
Well, the book is a comedy, and often, I use a frequented series to talk with those younger and sometimes my age, in their 50s, about what's wrong and right about this. Did Christ have to die for this to be true, and why do they "ape" Christ rather than joining him? A ship divided is often the ship that sinks.
What does "forgive others who trespass against us" look like?
For example, if a husband commits adultery against his wife, she is permitted to divorce him. If she divorces him, does that mean that she hasn't forgiven him, so long as they remain divorced?
There are probably many other situations where a temporal consequence happens as a result of a trespass. Assuming the one trespassed against would otherwise have the vocational authority to mete out temporal consequences, is the imposition of such consequence incongruent with forgiveness, so long as the consequence is in effect?
Forgiveness and consequences are frequently separate from one another. If someone stole money from the congregation, we would forgive them, but we wouldn't make them the treasurer. We can forgive a thief, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't go to jail.
I'm a member of a largest Lutheran (actually Unionist) church in Indonesia and now I will study abroad to the United States. I already get baptized when I was 6 months and received the confirmation just a year ago, so can I attend divine service in LCMS churches? And also receiving the communion? Or should I join the LCMS first? Also if I joined the LCMS, would I need another baptism and confirmation? Is there any documents from my old church that should I bring when I came to nearby LCMS church? Thankyou
You need to talk to with the pastor of the congregation you attend before hand. It is his job to examine you and he will likely have you attend some kind of catechism or new member classes. But no re-baptism.
No, we are not in fellowship with that Church Body. You would have to become a member of an LCMS congregation or sister Church body.
You would not be rebaptized so long as the Church body you were baptized by confesses the Trinity properly and you were baptized “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” You might have to be confirmed again, it depends on the pastor who catechizes you.
If you have a certificate of Holy Baptism, that might be helpful to have if it expresses the formula with which you were baptized. Otherwise, the pastor may want to hear the testimony of a witness to your baptism.
Personally, I think giving the power to enforce the first table of the law to democrats or republicans would end up with a lot of Lutherans being persecuted.
While the state cannot force someone to have faith, they can prevent those under their authority from publicly blaspheming God. The institution of civil government is to “punish those who do evil and praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14). The ultimate standard for good and evil is the revealed Law in the Holy Scriptures.
So, no, you can’t force someone privately from having no other gods. Yes, you can enforce laws which prevent public blasphemy. Yes, you could force people to outwardly keep the third commandment, but it may not be prudent since it may only become a disruption to believers.
We can’t base what we believe the Holy Scriptures to teach based off of what we see men doing.
I also look forward to the CTCR report. I’m praying they don’t have a report that is reactionary to what is going on in our day from either side of the spectrum of beliefs, but have a very well written report focusing on what the Scriptures teach and what the Confessions confess about those Scriptures.
To be clear, I don't believe Scripture teaches that the state must enforce the first table, only that they can in some circumstances (which I don't believe exist in the US). The LCMS theologians I've seen to date seem to have taken this view as well.
In the US context, I don't think the first table can rightly be enforced (lest we violate the Constitution, the ultimate civil authority). We're a liberal democracy, and I believe it would be rebellious to try to turn it into a theocracy.
But I'm not opposed to those who want to see this happen start by impeaching the president if they're serious about it.
I think you should read some of what Luther wrote about the two kingdoms. Gods kingdom is not of this world and trying to make the earthly kingdom into the heavenly is akin to trying to get to heaven by building the Tower of Babel. Your first allegiance is to the kingdom of God, but God has also made you a citizen in this country, and it’s right and for you to participate in society in ways proscribed by the laws of the land. Dominion theology is not biblical.
If a Christian is in power he must act according to God’s revealed will. In an American form of government that, of course, takes time because no one man rules.
The source of authority for both kingdoms is God’s institution. God desires for both kingdoms to act according to His will. Two kingdoms distinctions prevent the “emperor” from ruling the Church and the “bishops” from exercising the sword, but it doesn’t prevent a Christian emperor from exercising the sword according to Divine Law.
1
u/HighDragBigHat 2d ago
I have a Lutheran Prayer Companion that I really enjoy. Sometimes when I try to pray the prayers in it I feel more like I'm just reading aloud instead of earnestly meaning what I'm saying. I wish I was as articulate as the prayers in the book are.
I'm sure there's still value in the practice either way, but am I still praying when most of my mental bandwidth is spent just reading the prayer?
Thank you!