Sitting in the Back Pews of Life

Their minimalism renders Lutherans ineffective

By Uwe Siemon-Netto

(This commentary is scheduled to be published in the April 2007 issue of the Reporter)

Theologically, there is really nothing objectionable about the idiosyncratic preference of many Lutherans for the back pews in church.

  I am sure that God does not care one iota where you sit during the Sunday service, as long as this does not reflect unchristian prejudices or a lack of interest in worship. Perhaps the spiritual right-hand kingdom provides us with a foretaste of life beyond time and space. So stay in the rear if that’s where you want to be.

That said, does this principle also apply to the left-hand realm where we live out our biological lives using natural reason to guide us? Do we, who are called to engage this world, have the right to loll on the back pews of our secular reality?

More to the point, what are we to think of the fact that in the 110th Congress our number [of Lutherans] has shrunk from 20 to 18? And what does it tell us about America’s 2.5 million Missouri Synod Lutherans that only two, Dave Reichert (R-WA) and John M. Shimkus (R-IL), were elected to he House of Representatives last fall, and none to the Senate?

  Two congressmen – that puts us on a par with the Unitarians, of whom there are only 217,000 inhabiting this country. Is there some pogrom underway keeping the tenth largest denomination in the United States from being duly represented in Washington, a conspiracy perhaps marginalizing confessional Lutherans to the point that even in Missouri no Missouri Synod Lutheran made it to D.C. this time?

  But no, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, with a mere 400,000 members, has two of them in the federal legislature. Given that statistic, it wouldn’t make much sense to whine about an alleged anti-Lutheran bias in politics. Instead, I suspect that a significant number of Lutherans might hold a bias against politics -- and for that matter, against work in the media as well.

Type “famous Lutheran journalists” into your Google search engine, and what do you get? Nix! The only well-known Lutheran media personality I can think of is the amusingly grumpy Jack Cafferty, who reads viewers’ e-mails on CNN.

A recent New York Times headline announced: “Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate.” This should have activated Lutheran reflexes among LCMS, ELCA and WELS members alike.  Certain types of conservative evangelicals and liberal Protestants actually consider it their godly mission to find a presidential candidate of their persuasion. Lutherans, on the other hand, are blessed with a sounder theology for how this world ought to be run.

“It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason,” Martin Luther wrote. Replace the term, “emperor,” with the word “President,” and you get the drift.

At a time when America is at war, the sober Lutheran voice stressing reason as the God-given operating system for the left-hand kingdom is paramount.

Should America remain in Iraq or withdraw its forces, regardless of the consequences? Should even larger troop contingents be sent there, or should the U.S. presence be diminished and limited to certain pockets? Should petroleum consumption in this country be reduced by radical measures, or should we trust market forces?

These vital questions and so many others require unruffled rational assessment rather than the ideologically motivated hyperbole plaguing us today. This is where a much stronger presence of men and women raised in the Lutheran ethos would be a blessing on both sides of the aisle in Congress – and in the media. This is also why during a forum at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, evangelicals and Catholics appealed to Lutherans last fall to open their doctrinal treasure chest to this confused postmodern America – for the benefit of all.

  Why is it, then, that the ELCA, LCMS and WELS together are so woefully underrepresented in the nation’s capital that the result seems like an absurd joke? There are in the United States 2.2 million Episcopalians, compared with nine million Lutherans. But 37 congressmen and senators belong to The Episcopal Church (TEC), twice as many as to the three largest Lutheran denominations put together. Why this discrepancy?

  The answer lies perhaps in a phenomenon Henry V. Gerike, a pastor, organist, and choirmaster in St. Louis, once called “Lutheran minimalism.” Gerike was referring to a curious trend among Lutheran congregations: “When the time comes for them to build a new sanctuary, and they have a choice between installing a new organ befitting that building or clinging to their old and by now incompatible instrument, they would opt for the latter.”

  The analogy is obvious. Lutherans have inherited the largest treasure of sacred music of all Protestant denominations, but they are, in Gerike’s words, too minimalist to splash for appropriate organs on which these works can be properly played. Similarly, the Reformers have handed down to today’s Lutherans theological gems that would reintroduce sanity to public life. But no, today’s Lutherans prefer to linger in the back pews of the left-hand kingdom eschewing these wonderful gifts.

  Does nobody in American Lutheranism hear the sirens’ wail going out to parishes, Lutheran schools, and universities? It alerts pastors, teachers, and parents that the Lutheran kairos is here -- meaning that the opportune time has come for them to instruct students to roll up their sleeves, move forward from their back pews, and fully engage this dangerous world to which they have so much to contribute.

Not to do so would in the end reduce Lutherans to a species neither Scriptures nor  the Confessions want us to be, and few Americans like: separatist fundamentalists selfishly dismissing this unredeemed world, which is still God’s kingdom after all, if you don’t mind.

In rhetoric, the word kairos describes a passing instant that must be grabbed swiftly and with determination if success is to be achieved. This means that Lutherans can very well miss their moment in history if they insist on remaining by the exit of their worldly existence where all of us have a divine vocation.

Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto is director of the Concordia Seminary Institute on Lay Vocation in St. Louis.

Comments

[Carl Vehse]

Of those claiming to be Lutheran, six representatives and one senator are Democrats with 100% ratings from NARAL, a pro-murder-by-abortion organization. The two other alleged-Lutheran Democrat senators have a 55% and 15% NARAL rating. Only one Democrat representative who claims to be Lutheran has a 0% NARAL rating. All six Lutheran (including LCMS) Republicans have a NARAL rating of 0%. (Two other Democrats are unrated: one is pro-life; the other is pro-murder-by-abortion) (http://www.naral.org/choice-action-center/in-congress/congressional-record-on-choice/)

Thus it appears that ten out of the eighteen representatives or senators are a mockery of the name "Lutheran".

[Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto]

Thank you, Carl Vehse, this only strengthens my argument that in public life, Lutherans are absent without leave, in short they have gone AWOL.

[Erich Heidenreich]

You may be right, but have you any way to know how many true Lutherans actually run for office or are even electable? Perhaps they're running but not winning. Perhaps most Lutherans believe (rightly?) that the liberal American electorate is extremely unlikely to choose a candidate with the beliefs and stance that a true Lutheran would have.

Truth, justice, and morality are not all that popular these days. Might a true Lutheran, being honest and open about all his beliefs, be perceived by the general population as a right wing radical?

It is no surprise to me that true Lutherans do not hold many public offices. I wouldn't expect many to get elected even if they tried their hardest.

In short, I think there are certainly other factors to consider than your perceived problem (possibly true) of political indifference among Lutherans.

That said, it is certainly worthwhile to educate Lutherans on the importance and propriety of participating in public life. I'm just not sure you can blame the under-representation of Lutherans in public office on a Lutheran aversion to these vocations.

Your argument is not complete -- at least not with what you have presented above. You have figures as to the under-representation of Lutherans in public office, but your evidence presented for the cause of this is merely anecdotal.

[Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto]

Dear Erich, a newspaper, magazine or a website commentary is never "scientific." It's a commentary,a journalistic opinion piece, period! But it is in line with similar observations by more prominent scholars than I, Robert Benne, fo example. It also corresponds to much older complaints about the reticence of Lutherans to face public responsibilities. If there are as many Unitarians in Congress as LCMS Lutherans even though there exist 11 times as many LCMS Lutherans as Unitarians in the United States, you don't have to have a Ph.D. in stats to figure out that there is something seriously amiss here.
And if out of nine million Lutherans only 18 have seats in Congress compared with 37 Episcopalians out of 2.2 million, one can safely assume that not enough good Lutherans are running for office competently, unless you believe that an anti-Lutheran bias prevents Lutherans from being elected. I am not using anecdotes here but facts. As for the alleged inability of true Lutherans to get elected by the "liberal" U.S. electorate, do you really believe voters make a conscious distinction between Lutheran and conservative evangelical theologies when going to the polls? I doubt that anybody in this country willing to give his vote to a conservative Christian stops to think, "Oops, that Fritz is into the two kingdoms stuff, better not elect him!"

[Kevin Martin]

If, as Luther said, "simple reason" or reasonableness is the only factor for election to public office, I'm not sure I see why the number of Lutherans in congress matters. I don't think Lutherans have a greater claim to "reasonableness" than anyone else. I certainly wouldn't want to see some "quota" system to make sure every religious group and sub-group is properly "represented"!

As far as representation 18/535 is 3.4% and out of 300 million Americans that would mean we should have 10 million Lutheras. Per capita, Lutherans are actually slightly over-represented in Congress.

But that number is probably deceptive too. I remember a study done around 2000 by a sociologist from a major US university. It compared the number of people in the pew in a given Sunday to the reported membership numbers of major denominations. On a typical Sunday in 1999 the LCMS had just under 1 million members in church out of a reported 2.6 million. The ELCA had only 1.1 million in church out of a reported 5.2 million. The WELS wasn't counted. But the point is our membership numbers are grossly inflated. Even realizing that not every member is in church every Sunday, I'd be surprised if there are more than 3.5 million practicing Lutherans in this country. That makes the numbers look a bit different doesn' it?

[scott adle]

Dr Siemon-Netto,

Perhaps I am failing to see your connections. I agree with both Kevin and Erich up above.

If there are 9 million Lutherans in a country of 300 million, that comes to roughly 3%. If you say that there are 18 Lutherans in a (total) Congress of 535, that seems to come out to... roughly 3%. It would seem that Episcopals and Unitarians are over-represented. But that has never really bothered me. I guess I didn't even consider it before. I may have even voted for Episcopals and Unitarians.

You seem to be complaining that enough Lutherans aren't winning in free elections. Many other parts of government are given out by appointment. I would say there isn't much we can do about that except carry on in our normal vocations. If a president, or some other government official likes what they see, we may be selected by them.

Also consider that we did have a Lutheran as the Supreme Court Chief Justice---which is way over-representative to our numbers---for many years.

Perhaps the answer doesn't lie in some kind of "Lutheran minimalism", but rather in Luther's quote above. I don't care as much if my rulers are Lutheran (it'd be nice, but whatever), but I do care that they possess reason.

[Pr. H. R. Curtis]

I wonder, Dr. Siemon-Netto, if your penchant for statistics doesn't come from your European heritage where parliaments are often doled out to parties based on the percentage of the vote they gain in an election. I, and I think most Americans, prefer the American system which stresses the actual human being put into office rather than his/her party. I vote for a man, not a party, or a reilgious affiliation. So I'd second Scott and Pr. Martin above.

+HRC

[Erich Heidenreich]

Uwe,

I was not trying to argue that there is an anti-Lutheran bias in the electorate, but rather that I wouldn't limit unscientific speculation to the idea that Lutherans are shrinking from public duty. I would include speculation that the strongly conservative positions that true Lutheran candidates would (or should) take on public issues are routinely rejected at the polls.

You wrote: "Dear Erich, a newspaper, magazine or a website commentary is never 'scientific.' It's a commentary,a journalistic opinion piece, period!"

Commentary or not, do you not (especially in this case) desire to share an opinion that is based on verifiable fact and valid logic? You certainly don't need to include all the facts in your opinion piece, but don't you think you should be able to defend your opinion with more than anecdotes and fallacious appeals to the authority of "scholars" which provide no reference to verifiable facts?

I'm just interested in knowing the facts behind your opinion so I can decide if I share it. So far, your "opinion" seems to be relatively indefensible.

[Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto]

Well, Erich, not that I think I am obliged to "defend" myself, but let me regale you with some more stats. Please find below a good sample of faith groups plus in brackets their membership figures and behind the slash the number of congressmen and senators of their respective religious persuasions.

Lutherans, all (9 million/18)
Methodists, all (9 million/62)
Presbyterians, all (3.9 million/43)
Jews, including non-practicing (5.2 million/43)
Episcopalians (2.2 million/37)
Christian Scientists (ca. 150,000-400,000/5).

I could go on until the cows come home but perhaps this might suffice. So if you are still convinced Lutherans are pulling their weight politically on the federal level, you might want to think again.

[scott adle]

Dr Siemon-Netto,

I suppose it is true that you don't have to defend yourself. You could just let the article stand as written. But I think some reasonable questions have been asked concerning what you wrote. So you can either ignore those questions, or bolster a defense for your point of view. Whether you do so is up to you.

And you don't really have seemed to done so (yet).

You seem to keep coming back to the idea that you don't feel there are enough Lutherans doing what, you feel to be, their duty in the political field. And you try to support this with stats showing how over-represented other religious groups are in Congress.

But this in no way makes your point. Just because other groups are over-represented doesn't mean that Lutherans are entitled to over-representation. Lutherans make up about 3% of US population---and about 3% of Congress. How is this not pulling our weight?

And once again, as Erich pointed out earlier, you haven't shown any evidence that Lutherans didn't try to participate in this field. Perhaps a majority of the losers in these elections were Lutherans, and if it had gone the other way, we'd be just as over-represented as the rest of those religious groups. Those would seem to be the breaks in a system that is based on FREE elections. We can't dictate the outcome. We can't say someone has to vote for Lutherans just because we'd like for there to be more Lutherans in Congress.

And another question that was pointed out above, "Why should we necessarily care if our rulers are Lutheran?" Luther said it was enough for them to possess reason. Why do you think it is necessary for them to possess reason and be Lutheran?

[Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto]

Please read my article again, perhaps then it will finally dawn on you why I wrote it. Nowhere did I say that we should automatically vote for Lutherans simply because they are Lutherans; this would be the opposite of my theology. The shoe is on the other foot. I claim there are not enough Lutherans willing to get their hands dirty in politics, even though -- and that's my point -- this is exactly what our doctrine urges Christians to do. Please don't compare Lutherans with some religious drips hiding behind the bushes. We should measure up to the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, the Jews, not some under-educated separationist fundamentalists. What's more, you are misquoting Luther. He said "Christian," not Lutheran, a term he loathed.

[Erich Heidenreich]

Uwe,

I am not asking you to defend yourself, but rather your assertions.

The additional figures you have provided prove nothing but the fact that Methodists, Presbyterians, Jews, Episcopalians, and Christian Scientists are OVER-represented in the national legislative bodies. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that?

Our representation in Congress is right in line with our percentage of the general population, as Scott and Pr. Martin have pointed out above.

Why should it surprise us that moderate and nominal Christians are elected to public office in greater numbers than we ultra-conservative Missouri-Synod Lutherans?

Even assuming the false premise that Lutherans are under-represented in Congress, or assuming that we should seek to be just as over-represented as Episcopalians and Unitarians, do we even know how many Confessional Lutherans actually run for office?

Are Missouri-Synod Lutherans running but just not getting elected?

If they are not running at the desired rate, do they have valid reasons not to run?

Is the liberal American electorate likely to choose a candidate with positions on today's issues that a true Lutheran would (should) have?

Why are other religious groups over-represented in the legislature?

All these and more questions should be considered before berating Lutherans _en masse_ for supposedly shrinking from their duty to participate in public life.

Certainly the Eighth Commandment applies here. Are you putting the best construction on these observations of yours? It certainly doesn't appear so. I don't think you are even putting a valid construction on them.

Regardless, I think we both agree that it is important to keep Lutherans informed of the social value, theological propriety, and salutary nature of participation in public office if they believe they are called to such and receive confirmation of that call by being elected and sworn into office.

I wish your article was more informative along these lines.

Respectfully,

Erich

[scott adle]

Dr Siemon-Netto,

I find your response (apparently to me, since it appears immediately after) to be somewhat odd.

I agree with you that Luther did not like the term "Lutheran". I don't think I ever put the word in his mouth, however. You are the one complaining that there aren't enough Lutherans in the political field. I'm fine with "Christians" being in the government. You are the one who seems to have the problem with it---and who wants Lutherans specifically to be there.

Also, as Erich has again pointed out, you haven't proved that "there are not enough Lutherans willing to get their hands dirty in politics". And this seemed to be the thrust of your article.

[Paul T. McCain]

A person commenting on my blog site alerted to this ongoing discussion. Here was my response to his comment on my blog, which I thought might fit here.

McCain: And my response would be, "Why do you choose to miss Dr. Netto's point?" The fact is that much smaller church bodies and religious groups have significantly more representation in Congress. As for your allegation that I was doing something inappropriate when I posted Dr. Netto's remarks, they are simply what he sent me via e-mail, even as I posted the original article when he e-mailed that to me. Shocking a thought as it might be, I do not actually try to keep up with discussions on other blog sites. Just too much to read! Why are Dr. Netto's remarks so troublesome to some of you? It sure sounds to me like he really touched a nerve! I'm convinced we Lutherans are far too pacivistic in all areas of our life, both in the Church and out. We have such treasures to share and such wonderfully liberating doctrines that really help persons serving in public office go about their duties joyfully in accord with the doctrine of vocation and the two kingdoms. I think Dr. Netto had, and has, a very good point well worth considering, not simply dismissing. By the way, if you truly believe Luther had no idea of what a Christian ruler should be and do, well...start by reading the Large Catechism. His only criteria was not merely "that he have good use of reason." Luther's concepts do not fit neatly into our modern American notions of church and state, and his political theories and view toward government's responsibilities and duties can not easily be pigeoned holed as either "Democrat" or "Republican." Luther would have been quite pleased with a sort of Christian socialism, as Dr. Lowell Green once pointed out in a graduate class I had with him. His political writings, in my opinion, make this very clear. That might shake some American Lutheran presuppositions about "Republican" theories of government to the very core. Perhaps Dr. Netto will at some point write about this. Let the debates continue!

I've asked a couple of my friends who are presently serving at various levels of federal government for their take on this as well. I'll be interested to get their response.

[scott adle]

McCain,

I may be the one who was commenting on your site (I can't know for sure since my comment isn't up yet, nor any response). I didn't mean to imply that you did somethiing wrong by not posting a link to this site---there is no rule that says you have to link to another site---just that I found it odd. I assumed you pulled his comments from here. My bad. I apologize.

As for the rest of your comment, let me say more. I don't think anyone here (or on your blog) is missing Dr Siemon-Netto's point. We understand that he, and you, think that Lutherans are not doing their duty, pulling their weight, in the political realm, but are sitting on their hands instead of acting.

This point may be true or false, I am not partial to either answer yet. What we were reacting to is the fact that his arguments do not, in our opinions, seem to back up this point sufficiently.

I think we all agree that Lutherans think correctly in several areas, including government, and we all wish for our opinions to be heard and followed. That's fine.

But if Dr Siemon-Netto wishes to make his argument stronger, several of us feel that more evidence is needed. That's all.

I didn't mean to say that Luther's only thought on rulers should be that they possess reason. BUT, that is the quote Dr Siemon-Netto featured in his article. And that quote doesn't back his point. Luther did say many other things about what a ruler should be like. If there are such quotes, and they support Dr Siemon-Netto's argument, I think he would do well to put them in.

Again, I don't think any of us are opposed to Dr Siemon-Netto, or necessarily against his point---but we do think that he should support it better than he has. That can only benefit his article, and his readers. If he can prove to us that Lutherans are sinfully shunning their duties, that would open our ears. As it sits though, I think reasonable questions have been asked that should be answered if he wants actions to take place.

[Paul T. McCain]

Dr. Netto has stated his position. You are of course more than free to disagree with him, even as vigorously as you wish, but you and others who continue only to repeat yourselves are really serving no useful purpose in doing so. I think you've more than plainly made your opinion known. Perhaps best now to move on?

[Paul T. McCain]

Dr. Netto has stated his position. You are of course more than free to disagree with him, even as vigorously as you wish, but you and others who continue only to repeat yourselves are really serving no useful purpose in doing so. I think you've more than plainly made your opinion known. Perhaps best now to move on?

[Daniel Gorman]

Dr Heidenreich opines to DR. Uwe Siemon-Netto, "You may be right, but have you any way to know how many true Lutherans actually run for office or are even electable?"

I have no figures on how many run for office but the number of true Lutherans that are electable is zero. No district in America is going to elect a person who limits governmental authority to bear the sword as delineated in the scripture and in the BOC (simultaneously rejecting the unjust war in Iraq and the murder of the unborn). No district in America is going to elect a person who rejects the authority of government to advise its citizens to worship idols ("A Prayer for America"). No district in America is going to elect a person who declares the Roman pope to be the antichrist ("my church does not believe that the pope is the antichrist" Rep. Bachmann, Minn.).

[scott adle]

Rev McCain,

The repetition of our position has only come about in response to Dr Siemon-Netto himself, or other commenters, like yourself. You claim that we are choosing to miss Dr Siemon-Netto's point, but, from all the evidence I've seen, it seems to be the other way around.

But you are correct---enough has been said for now. I've heard that Dr Siemon-Netto will write another post concerning this topic next week, so I look forward to that.

[Carl Vehse]

One point that has not been made in the article, or by other commenters, is that Uwe Siemon-Netto's quote from Luther --“It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason”-- is correctly translated for our understanding since 1776 as, “It is sufficient for the electorate to possess reason.” For indeed, it is the people that are the government; the president and Congress are our elected (and impeachable) representatives.

[Carol Geisler]

Even if Lutherans are not involved in the left-hand kingdom at the level of federal government,it may be that some are involved at a local level. Lutherans serve as mayors and city council members, fire fighters, paramedics, soldiers, nurses, teachers, doctors, parents,and in countless other callings. I believe these people contribute a great deal to "this unredeemed world" and are by no means "remaining by the exit of their worldly existence." Their stories may not appear in newspapers but they faithfully carry out the work God has given them to do.
And since there have been references made to Luther, government and reason, here is one comment he made concerning the subjection of government to reason and the fact that temporal rule has no jurisdiction over eternal matters:
"For this reason nothing is taught in the Gospel about how [government] is to be maintained and regulated, except that the Gospel bids people honor it and not oppose it. Therefore the heathen can speak and teach about this very well, as they have done. And, to tell the truth, they are far more skillful in such matters than the Christians; Christ Himself says that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light." (on Psalm 101, LW vol 13, p.198) Luther later comments that Christian rulers must serve God and rule the people, and that the devil is more hostile to them than to heathen rulers -- a continuing challenge for those in government!

[Gene Edward Veith]

The Anglo in the WASP

The great Lutheran journalist Uwe Siemon-Netto has written about how strange it is that Lutherans are so under-represented in the corridors of political power and cultural influence, despite our large numbers. Despite too our theology, particularly the doctrine of vocation and the doctrine of the two kingdoms, which offer a blueprint for cultural engagement that other theologies are looking for but lack.

The Lutheran blogosphere is discussing the phenomenon, for example, at Cyberbrethren and Luther at the Movies.

I too bemoan Lutheran passivity, reticence, and obliviousness to their own theology. But here is another factor in why so few Lutherans get elected to political office and why people from other and often smaller denominations do: Social class.

Lutherans may be Saxons, but they are not ANGLO-Saxons. The heirs of the English-speaking colonists still, to a large degree, are the old money, the power elite, and the American aristocracy. They are the upper class in an egalitarian society. I do not intend this in any kind of Marxist sense, nor am I necessarily criticizing them for it. It isn't just that the WASPs dominate the Ivy Leagues or the wealthy country clubs. WASPS consider America "theirs," and they take to running things like the country with ease. And the religion of the WASPs is Episcopalian or Presbyterian.

And it isn't just the upper classes. The religion of the Scotch-Irish, another English-speaking group of setlers, who settled the South especially, is Southern Baptist. And the Catholics who started the political machines were Irish, their numbers and political strength bolstered by other immigrants. This, I contend, is why Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Catholics are so numerous in Congress.

Lutherans, though, were immigrants, grateful for this country, but they really didn't think of it as "theirs" in the same sense that those who were here before them could. And they were farmers, mostly, not even city folk. Many rose into the middle class, but they were small business owners, and even if they grew wealthy, their businesses demanded their attention, leaving them little time for interest in politics. And Lutherans ARE different from mainline American culture on many other levels as well.

Today, the conditions are different, and, as Uwe says, we have a moment, a "kairos," that we would do well to seize. But the habits of mind in the Lutheran culture remain.

[Christine]

Lutherans may be Saxons, but they are not ANGLO-Saxons

And then, in connection with those Lutherans of European descent are those like my mother, Salzburger Lutherans who left their beloved Austrian homeland rather than endure forced conversion by the Catholic hierarchy of the time, eventually settling in Prussia. Proud and devoted to their faith, they too make up the Lutheran milieu in the U.S. and need to become more visible in the public square.

Yet I cherish those things that do make Lutherans different from mainline American culture. They are a precious treasure.

[Sarah]

I completely agree with you, Dr. Siemon-Netto. I have been involved in politics (working on campaigns) for nine years, and working at the Colorado State Capital for four years now.

As an almost 18 year old, my plans for life are to work on campaigns and I belive my vocation is to find a confirmed LC-MS husband who will then be elected President at some point in the future (yes, I would like to be First Lady). Finding such a husband will be like looking for a needle in a haystack because "LC-MS Lutheran" and "politics" in the same sentence or describing a person almost seems to be an oxymoron.

I would love to see many more conservative Lutherans in Congress and the White House, but I'm beginning to wonder if that will happen. It's discouraging.

Thank you for this post, I hope it will help to catapult Lutherans into at least political action, even if they don't run for office.

[Jason]

I sit in the front pew. Largely because I have a 4 year old who my wife and I are concerned about needing to see what's going on. It amazes me how many Lutherans just don't see what's going on in the church and the world today. Or perhaps they do, but have resolved to pray instead of participate. I can't say I blame them. It is disheartening. The Republicans use the hot button issues of gay marriage and abortion to keep the faithful behind them. Yet, they are the same party who led us into a war under the guise of an emminent threat. What happen to those WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION anyway? I for one have not forgotten this lie.

I'll participate by voting for who my faith, mind and convictions reveal to be the best candidates. But, I will also pray that God would restore reason to our leaders. Yes, among the Republicans and especially the Democrats. I could actually vote for the Democrats in every election if they would just drop the Gay Marriage and Abortion stuff. If it wasn't for this war they wouldn't be in power now. The American people don't want Gay Marriage and Abortion.

In truth, I save little hope for this world and it's politics. I have also learned how divisive these issues can be in the church. The WELS does a much better job here than the LCMS. Let's keep the political discussion centered on the important issues facing the church today. Such as the erosion among some in the church body of the apostolitic authorship and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Let's talk about why some in the church are so anxious to set aside the confessions and redefine the office of the elder. And why so many have embraced the charismatic movement, lutheran liberalism and are ablazen with church growthism. Let's talk about why confessional Luthrans aren't welcome in the seminaries. Once we deal with our own internal struggles, perhaps we would be ready to become more active in advocating with reason in our society. I put my hope only in my Lord and Savior who rescues me from sin, death and the devil. Now that's something that is definetly worthwhile talking about.