Official Workbook report source text
Official Workbook source-navigation report record. No analysis has been added.
- Report number/id
- R62.6
- Report title
- R62.6 Online Technology in the Church: Study Materials (2024) PAGE PAGE
- Workbook start page
- 232
- Workbook end page
- 235
- Source pages
- 232, 233, 234, 235
- Source status
- source_checked
- Committee
- Not available
R62.6 2026 Convention Workbook 233 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 5 2. Virtual Multi-Parish Arrangements (“Video Venue”) In part due to the growing pastoral shortage within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, there has been conversation about whether a single pastor could service multiple congregations virtually. That is, rather than the traditional arrangement of a multipoint parish, where a pastor would conduct in-person services at two or more congregations at different times, conducting services virtually means the ordained pastor would preach in one congregation and his sermon would be streamed live at the other congregation(s). Also known as “video venue” ministry, the rest of the service at other sites would be officiated by a layman, with the exception of the Lord’s Supper. The practice of multi-parish arrangements is not new to the Missouri Synod. Planting churches and ministering to churches that cannot afford a pastor have often taken place by way of an ordained minister serving multiple congregations at a time. In a certain sense, virtual multi- parish or video-venue arrangements are a technologically mediated way of carrying out such ministries. Rather than having a congregation or church plant hold services at odd hours or on unconventional days, or the parish pastor traversing snow-covered roads or traveling long distances, the use of virtually delivered services (preferably synchronously) means a congregation otherwise unable to afford a pastor would have the benefit of doctrinally sound preaching from a rostered, ordained and preferably called minister. There is clearly a need for the Synod — while remaining theologically faithful to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions — to be adaptable in how it provides pastoral care for congregations that cannot procure pastoral service. In its recent Mission and Ministry Principles and Practical Observations and Suggestions, the CTCR specifically proposed extending the service of the Synod’s ordained ministers, including the arrangement of more multipoint parish ministries. 4 A virtual multi-parish arrangement might be an example of that. As noted elsewhere in this document, the Word itself can be faithfully and profitably communicated through virtual means. The Spirit works through the oral Word (Rom. 10:14–17; Augsburg Confession 5) but is not restricted to an oral Word declared in the confines of a church building. That digitally proclaimed Word is also capable of mediating the faith-giving work of the Spirit. Such an arrangement could obviously not include the Lord’s Supper.5 The pastor would have to make other provisions for the administration of the Lord’s Supper under the care of an ordained minister. Arrangements would also have to be made for pastoral care at the virtual sites — ideally, though not necessarily in every case, by the ordained minister — including visitation of the sick and the homebound, confirmation instruction, funerals, preparation for and officiating of weddings, preparation for and administration of baptisms, and so on. Moreover, the conduct of 4 Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Mission and Ministry Principles and Practical Observations and Suggestions (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2024), www.lcms.org/ctcr-observations-and- suggestions. 5 On the LCMS response to the practice of online Communion during the Covid-19 pandemic, see 2023 Resolution 5-08A (“To Affirm In-Person Communion”), as well as opinions by the CTCR, Communion and Covid-19 (2020), www.lcms.org/ctcr-communion-and-covid, and One Little Word Can Fell Him: Addendum to Communion and Covid-19 (2020), www.lcms.org/ctcr-communion-and-covid-addendum. 6 services by a layman in place of a pastor is no intrinsic obstacle. Specific guidelines for that practice were laid out by the CTCR in order to prevent confusion with the pastoral office.6 There are also reasonable objections to this practice. In the first place, there may be confusion about who is responsible for oversight in the congregation. Theologically speaking, the Synod has understood the oversight (from the Greek episkopos in the New Testament, e.g., Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7, among others) by pastors to be a ministry conferred on him by his call to a given congregation. He exercises that ministry through his preaching of the Word, administration of the Sacraments and pastoral care among his flock. While we have the example of vacancy pastors, for instance, who serve a congregation without a “call” per se, a pastor exercising this ministry of oversight through preaching, Sacraments and pastoral care ordinarily requires a call, especially for any extended length of time. Second, and more pertinently, the ministry of a pastor is not simply one of preaching or communicating content or data. The pastor is charged with pastoral care, and that pastoral care entails things such as instruction (not just in a sermon, but individually and in other groups), private counsel and spiritual nurture of all those in his flock. Part of that pastoral care includes chance conversations that arise in the course of routine church tasks. In an important sense, a pastor’s faith and life in general as lived in the presence of his flock are to be an example to the believer (1 Tim. 4:12; see also 1 Cor. 11:1; Heb. 13:7). While Lutherans have long valued the preaching of the Word as the principal task of the pastoral office, the pastoral office must not be reduced to congregational preaching. Nor should the called and ordained minister delegate all other (or even most) aspects of his pastoral responsibilities besides preaching to another. If he is called to more than one parish, the pastor must provide care as responsibly as possible to all those entrusted to him, so far as that is within his power to do. Finally, given these concerns, it is hard to see how virtual multipoint parishes are preferable to the traditional model. In the case of severe weather conditions or other immediate challenges that would preclude the presence of a pastor in other congregations he serves, a video alternative may be possible. However, such a scenario does not necessitate the permanent arrangement of a virtual multipoint parish ministry. Under exceptional circumstances, the CTCR has encouraged the option of a layman reading a sermon written by the pastor. 7 If the changing of service times is considered a burden to the congregation, the CTCR has urged flexibility when it comes to times and days in order to facilitate regular preaching, administration of the Sacrament and pastoral care from an available ordained minister. 8 Moreover, the opportunity to receive the Lord’s Supper with some degree of regularity (not to mention corporate or individual absolution, as well as other pastoral acts) makes the traditional model of multipoint parish ministry a less problematic option than its virtual alternative. While virtual video arrangements may be used in emergencies or in hybrid arrangements, such as alternating weekly services (where one is in-person, the other not), the Commission believes the 6 Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons and Conduct of Worship in the Absence of a Pastor (2023), www.lcms.org/ctcr-absence-of-a-pastor. 7 CTCR, Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons. 8 CTCR, Mission and Ministry Principles, and Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons, 6. 7 practice creates more obstacles than it removes. Under ordinary circumstances, it would urge traditional multipoint parish ministry. 3. Online Reproof and Church Discipline In recent decades, social media has become a new public space for conversation, debate and the airing of concerns. This has not gone without impact on the church and how it handles personal reproof, church discipline and other matters pertaining to the resolution of disagreements. For Christians both inside the Missouri Synod and in other churches, it has become common to publicly identify errors of doctrine or practice, call upon those with administrative or oversight responsibilities to address these errors, and even interject oneself into the process by commenting on matters of church discipline. Should members of our congregations, and particularly church workers who are members of the Synod, use the internet (specifically social media) to engage in accusations, reproof or other forms of church discipline ordinarily reserved for private, congregational, district or Synod mediation? It is inevitable that those who use social media as a primary means of communication would take to social media to discuss matters of importance for the faith and life of their church. Concern for right doctrine and practice has been a hallmark of the Missouri Synod since its founding. That concern is laudable and should not be disregarded because of the particular means one may use to express that concern. Indeed, there has long been a precedent for addressing certain sins in a public way, provided those sins are known publicly. Martin Luther himself said that it was not a violation of the Eighth Commandment to call attention to a public sin. In the Large Catechism, he spoke of it this way: “But where the sin is so public that the judge and everyone else are aware of it, you can without sin shun and avoid those who have brought disgrace upon themselves, and you may also testify publicly against them” (LC I 284). In an age when social media has become a “digital commons” for discussing social, political and theological matters, we should expect that one’s opinions expressed online may be regarded as public statements of their faith, especially in the case of pastors. It is also true that services, sermons and other congregational acts formerly not known outside of those involved are now broadcast online and available to anyone who wishes to find them, thus making them “public” in a sense. Where any of the above exhibit doctrine or practices that are contrary to Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions or the doctrinal positions of the Synod, then it is entirely understandable for someone to take to online media to identify errors, express concern, and even solicit the Synod and its members to condemn such errors. That said, there are any number of problems with this practice. First, these online statements, services and so on may not be intended for broader, public consumption. While this does not excuse the error, it does mean that we should not assume the offending party is making a public declaration of faith or committing a public sin. As the CTCR said concerning “public sin” in 2006: “When Luther speaks about public sins, we might better translate ‘public’ as notorious or scandalous. In other words, it is not simply a matter of a sinful action that is known to some other person or a few other people. All of sixteenth century life was public in that sense. The situation Luther envisioned was a sin so widely known that it could no longer be covered without 8 scandalizing the community. But the publicity would also end with that community.”9 In fact, that report argues, making public accusations of a perceived sin not known widely may serve the exact opposite purpose: “The rebuke has the side effect of publicizing the sin more widely, of making it known to an audience that had no prior knowledge of it.” 10 In such cases, it would be far preferable to address these errors personally and privately rather than publicly and online, following Matthew 18. Through personal, private reproach, one may find that the error was unintentional and the individual repentant, or possibly that the offending issue was misunderstood or easily explainable. Second, in the case of legitimate error in doctrine or practice, the Synod has adopted very specific procedures for addressing such offenses. All members of the Synod in any capacity — elected officers, faculty, church workers, congregations — submit themselves to ecclesiastical supervision. Concerns regarding false teaching or practice should be directed first to the individual (in keeping with Matthew 18), then to the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. The ecclesiastical supervisor is entrusted with the oversight of those under his care, and therefore concerns should be raised with the supervisor privately rather than broached publicly, especially online. The Bylaws of the Synod provide for a dispute resolution process, which covers theological, doctrinal and ecclesiastical matters, including the appeal of excommunication or specific call-related disputes (Bylaw 1.10). There are specific Bylaws addressing the expulsion of congregations and individual members (ordained or commissioned), officers of the Synod, and those guilty of sexual or criminal misconduct (2.14-2.17). The Bylaws also allow for appeals to the certification of materials by doctrinal review (3.9.3.2). In nearly all cases, confidentiality is required to allow time for fraternal correction and repentance without calling attention to the dispute publicly, as well as to ensure unbiased review or the possibility of selecting unbiased panelists to consider appeals. Likewise, “circularizing” (or attempting to sway opinion) of the Synod on these matters may be expressly prohibited in certain cases (3.9.3.2.2[d]). By publicizing accusations or opinions on matters mediated through one of these processes, the confidentiality necessary may be unintentionally eroded and the ability to resolve or appeal these cases compromised. Moreover, since the purpose of these various bylaws and procedures is to bring about reconciliation through biblically based reproach and repentance, intervening in, publicizing or politicizing conflicts may have the opposite effect of inhibiting such fraternal conversations and resolution. Finally, what may be appropriate for online debate in a secular world is not necessarily appropriate in the church. We should not treat internal theological or ecclesiastical concerns as reasons for public dissension that compromises our witness to the world. St. Paul makes this point clear in 1 Corinthians, when condemning Christians who bring accusations against one another in the civil courts of his day: “So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against 9 Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Public Rebuke of Public Sin: Considerations in Light of the Large Catechism Explanation of the Eighth Commandment (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2006), 21, www.lcms.org/ctcr-public-rebuke-of-public-sin. 10 CTCR, Public Rebuke of Public Sin, 23. 2026 Convention Workbook 234 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 9 brother, and that before unbelievers?” (1 Cor. 6:4–6).11 In its 2019 report on social media, the CTCR underscored this point: “Even as they attempt to proclaim Christ, believers may undermine the good news of salvation by causing (or supporting) division or conflict in their online conversations with fellow believers or with unbelievers.” 12 The Commission believes that, while the line between public and private has undoubtedly been blurred due to digital media, Lutherans — and especially members of the Synod — should refrain from engaging in online public reproof or online comment on matters of church discipline, particularly on social media. These are best reserved for private, personal conversation and for the processes established by our commonly agreed upon bylaws that regulate church discipline in our midst. 4. Online-Only Membership With the expanded use of online technology by congregations, specifically in the form of livestreamed services, there is a greater possibility of members joining a congregation and participating solely online. The most obvious and potentially controversial or divisive form of this might occur if an LCMS parishioner in one locality were to watch the online services of a congregation located somewhere geographically that would prevent them from attending worship in person, then ask to join that congregation. Should LCMS congregations accept into their membership those who do not reside in a proximate geographical area and cannot (or do not intend to) join the new congregation for in-person worship or to actively participate in the life of that local congregation? Missouri Synod congregations have often dealt with this dilemma when it comes to members of a congregation that do not reside locally. It may be a college student, an elderly person who has moved to a care facility or a member who has simply moved to another town. For any number of reasons, the person has chosen to retain membership at the home congregation. If it is a temporary — or potentially temporary — move, congregations will ordinarily keep them on the rolls but urge them to attend worship or procure pastoral care in the interim. In the event of a more permanent situation, pastors will advise them to visit a local congregation and speak to a pastor there about transferring their membership. However, there are closer similarities to holding membership in a congregation that one does not or cannot attend. For instance, many LCMS congregations have a practice of “guest membership,” especially in the case of those who may live part of the year in one locale and part of the year in another, for reasons of weather or family. In these cases, the parishioner wishes to be an active member of an additional congregation, possibly with voting rights in both 11 On this concern and its implications for the Gospel, see Christian Preus, “Suing Your Brother: 1 Corinthians 6:1–9 in the Lutheran Exegetical Tradition,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 86 (2022): 257–278. Also note Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 1 Corinthians 6:1-11: An Exegetical Study (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1991), www.lcms.org/ctcr-1-corinthians -6-1-11-exegetical-study. 12 Commission on Theology and Church Relations, A Snapshot of Trending Tools: Christians and Social Media (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2019), 28, www.lcms.org/ctcr-christians-and-social-media. 10 congregational assemblies.13 Similarly, the homebound who lack the physical ability to attend services without great assistance retain membership in that congregation, despite the likelihood of never stepping foot inside the church building again for corporate worship. In the case of online-only membership, there are some important differences to bear in mind. One is the availability of pastoral care. The homebound may be unable to attend worship at a local congregation, but pastors will routinely visit them to share the Word, pray and offer the Lord’s Supper. If a parishioner from Baltimore were to join a congregation in Chicago, for instance, that would not be possible. The Chicago pastor could not reasonably visit the Baltimore parishioner. Likewise, there will be a limit to the pastor’s ability to get to know the parishioner, to be with the parishioner in the event of a spiritual or personal crisis, or to be available to officiate the parishioner’s funeral. Caring for the souls of one’s flock is a fundamental part of Lutheran pastoral ministry and a reason why that pastoral ministry has long been referred to as “soul-care” (from the German Seelsorge). To simply be unable to provide that care for reasons of geographical proximity would unnecessarily detract from the very calling and responsibility of the pastoral office — all the more unnecessarily if there is a pastor in that locality who can provide such pastoral care. The same is true for other elements of the local congregation’s life. If one were to be a non-local member of a congregation who only participates online, there would be precious little opportunity to establish and build relationships. As noted above, the congregation does not exist solely to conduct worship services. The members of the church who gather together offer mutual instruction, encouragement, consolation and admonition. The ability to develop relationships where that might happen — in conjunction with a worship service or apart from it — would be severely hampered, and any resulting fellowship limited to digital communication itself. Moreover, since our churches reject the practice of online Communion as inconsistent with our Lord’s institution of the Supper and its intended use, online members would be unable to receive the Lord’s Supper at their congregation of membership, or from the pastor of that congregation. One wonders how, in this event, we can even speak of the communion or fellowship (koinonia) expressed at the table by virtue of our shared reception of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:14–22; 1 Cor. 11:17–34). There would be no shared participation at the Lord’s table or shared partaking of Christ’s body and blood with the fellow members of one’s own congregation. While there may conceivably be exceptional circumstances under which one participates in a ministry of a local congregation, despite only being able to do so online, the Commission urges against online membership. Pastors who receive queries about online membership would do well to inquire about the reasons for interest in such membership and, if not local, direct the interested individuals to a congregation close to them where they might attend and potentially join. 5. Artificial Intelligence-Generated Sermons In 2022, ChatGPT-4 was made available to the public. This generative artificial intelligence platform enabled anyone to draft full texts using a simple online prompt. It quickly became a 13 1989 Resolution 5-19 (“To Provide for Guest Membership”) urged congregations to allow for guest memberships that may entail, among other things, “attendance and participation in voters’ assemblies as advisory or associate members” (1989 Proceedings, 139). 11 cultural phenomenon, impacting not only education, academic research, journalism and other writing-related professions, but also preaching. Pastors could now submit a simple query on the text for their sermon, and ChatGPT — using large language models that draw content from everything accessible to it online — could draft full text sermons, literally in seconds. One can even specify that the sermon be “Lutheran” or “LCMS,” and the generator will provide theologically and denominationally specific versions. Should Missouri Synod pastors use generative AI to write (or assist in writing) sermons? At first glance, it may seem highly implausible that Missouri Synod pastors, who have received substantial training in preaching — not to mention the theological disciplines that inform their preaching — would make use of potentially controversial technology such as artificial intelligence. However, several points should be taken into consideration. First, we must ask whether or not an AI text generator is capable of producing a theologically correct Lutheran sermon. It is conceivable that large language models, when trained with actual LCMS sermons and other Lutheran literature, may generate sermon texts that would essentially reflect the theology already preached in our pulpits and written in our publications. One might even say, in that case, that it is modestly more likely to avoid serious theological error, since any such serious theological error would have to be widespread within existing LCMS sermons and publications. The question is less the theological correctness of a sermon (which one hopes any Missouri Synod pastor would review before preaching), but whether or not it is appropriate to preach a sermon that the pastor himself did not write. On that score, it might also be said that there is precedent for preaching sermons — or at least adapting sermons — drafted by someone else. For instance, Martin Luther published two different series of “postils” — essentially model sermons that could be read devotionally, but also used as inspiration for a sermon writer, adapted for his own preaching or, in a pinch, preached largely as his own. 14 In our day, it is not unheard of for LCMS preachers on a special occasion (for instance, on a Holy Week, Lenten or Christmas Eve service) to read a short sermon from a Luther work or a church father in place of his own sermon. Granting these concessions, however, the Commission believes there are important reasons to discourage the practice of using AI-generated sermons. First, pastors are not called simply to deliver ideas. Their sermons are exercises in pastoral care. They should know their flocks and preach to them. They do not simply read sermons written by others, or sections of a commentary or pages from a devotional. Their “aptness” for preaching (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:24) involves not only their knowledge of doctrinal content, but their ability to explain it in a way that their people can understand and affirm, in a way that personally calls them to repentance and persuasively delivers the Gospel to be received in faith. A Lutheran sermon — like a Lutheran pastor — is not replaceable with doctrinally correct data. The pastor must take that theological truth and deliver it to the people God has given him to serve in a way personalized to them and the challenges and trials they face. No sermon will be exactly the same, whether preached to a different congregation or preached at a different time in a pastor’s ministry. Pastors will preach the same biblical passages in different ways based upon the believers they are called to serve at any given time. 14 “In 1526 Luther suggested that less-capable preachers could occasionally recite one of his postils as their sermon, though in 1543 he did not want preachers to use postils as a crutch for their own laziness,” Luther’s Works 75: xxiv. 12 Second, Lutheran pastors are trained not simply to be communicators of the distinction between Law and Gospel, but to be practitioners of Law and Gospel. That is, they are to know how to judiciously and sensitively, yet adroitly and intentionally, apply the Law and the Gospel in ways pertinent to the congregants they serve. There is no single formula for or balance of how much Law and how much Gospel should be in a sermon. Where Law is clearly present in a text of Scripture, the pastor is to apply that to the congregation in a way that addresses them and the sins prevalent in their midst or in their community or in their culture at large. Where Gospel is clearly present in a text of Scripture, the pastor is to apply that to the specific personal, spiritual or communal needs and threats of conscience those parishioners feel. As C.F.W. Walther wrote in his third thesis on Law and Gospel, “Rightly distinguishing the Law and the Gospel is the most difficult and the highest art of Christians in general and of theologians in particular. It is taught only by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience.” 15 Finally, by preaching sermons drafted using artificial intelligence, a pastor unnecessarily creates doubts about his theological competence and ability to write sermons that meet the needs of the people he is called to serve. Scripture urges pastors time and again to shepherd their flocks by protecting them against false teaching and guiding them to correct doctrine (e.g., Eph. 4:1–16; 2 Tim. 2:14–26). Pastors are trained theologically and homiletically to write and deliver sermons, and the abdication of that responsibility to a text-generator — no matter how doctrinally correct the generated sermon may be — potentially creates suspicion that the pastor will not be able to identify false teaching and guide his flock to correct doctrine. That is a risk not worth taking. While the critical use of artificial intelligence in developing sermons (outlines, illustrations, cross references, etc.) may be of limited help in sermon research, the Commission strongly urges against Synod pastors preaching sermons generated using this technology. Adopted by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations December 2024 15 C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, trans. W.H.T. Dau (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), 42. By “theologian,” Walther — himself a seminary professor — has in mind the preacher. The seventh lecture (in explanation of thesis 3) repeatedly makes this clear, 50 –58. 2026 Convention Workbook 235 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS a report of THE COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS A Theology and Philosophy of Lutheran Education MAY /two.lnum/zero.lnum/two.lnum/five.lnum A T/h.smallcap/e.smallcap/o.smallcap/l.smallcap/o.smallcap/g.smallcap/y.smallcap /a.smallcap/n.smallcap/d.smallcap P/h.smallcap/i.smallcap/l.smallcap/o.smallcap/s.smallcap/o.smallcap/p.smallcap/h.smallcap/y.smallcap /o.smallcap/f.smallcap L/u.smallcap/t.smallcap/h.smallcap/e.smallcap/r.smallcap/a.smallcap/n.smallcap E/d.smallcap/u.smallcap/c.smallcap/a.smallcap/t.smallcap/i.smallcap/o.smallcap/n.smallcap A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod May 2025 Copyright © 2025 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod 1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7295 1-888-843-5267 • lcms.org All rights reserved. This resource may be copied for personal study and classroom or congregational use only. Other usage is prohibited. Unless specified, it is not permissible to make modifications, omissions, or adaptations to this copyrighted resource without the prior written permission of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Scripture quotations are from the ESV ® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version ®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Quotations from the Small Catechism in this publication are from Luther’s Small Catechism © 1986 Concordia Publishing House. All rights reserved. The quotations from the Lutheran Confessions in this publication are from Con- cordia: The Lutheran Confessions , second edition © 2006 Concordia Publishing House. All rights reserved. The quotation from Luther’s Works in this publication is from Luther’s Works, Amer- ican Edition, vol. 45 © 1962 Fortress Press. Used by permission of the publisher. Manufactured in the United States of America Abbreviations AC Augsburg Confession AE Luther’s Works. American Edition. 82 vols. Concordia Publishing House and Fortress Press, 1955–. FC SD Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration LC Large Catechism SC Small Catechism Contents Preface 4 A Theology and Philosophy of Lutheran Education: 6 The Overarching Principle The First Article: 8 Lutheran Education and Creation The Second Article: 13 Lutheran Education and Redemption The Third Article: 16 Lutheran Education and Sanctification Conclusion 20 Further CTCR Resources 21 2023 Convention Proceedings: Resolution 5-10 22