LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 234

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

234

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.
11

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
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).

13

9

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.

10

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

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.
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.

15
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.

11

2026 Convention Workbook

12