Workbook page: 234
PDF page: 269
Section: No public section attached
Source status: source checked / public
LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 269
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.