On the
Freedom of a Christian
Rev. Travis
Loeslie
Martin Luther had
much to say on the topic of Christian freedom in his tract from 1520. On the
Freedom of the Christian was published in Wittenberg as the third of three
writings that characterized the evangelical theology of the Reformation. The
Roman Curia had issued the bull Exsurge Domine on June 15,
1520 in which Luther was threatened to be charged as a heretic
and ordered to halt his preaching. This opened him up to the possibility of
arrest and punishment. Luther
responded with a fury of activity. To the Christian Nobility of
the German Nation was published on August 18, 1520. The Babylonian Captivity of
the Church was published on October 6, and On the Freedom of the Christian was put
out early in November of 1520. This third tract was written to attempt to
persuade Pope Leo X and Roman Catholics that the theology of the Reformation
was not a novelty in the faith, but a pure confession of the Word of God and
consistent with the truth of the Holy Scriptures. Out of this affliction and
the Lord’s refining fire, Luther was given to write one of the most enduring
treatments on Christian freedom ever in Christendom.
The tract begins with
two seemingly contradictory propositions: A Christian is an utterly free man,
lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is an utterly dutiful man, servant of
all, subject to all. Among the ancients, Aristotle stated the obvious about
lords and servants: “If there is a lord, then there is (also) a servant. And if
there is a servant, then there is also a lord.” Luther’s paradoxical teaching
of Christian freedom, following Christ and St. Paul, joins lord and servant in
one person. By faith alone, God sets a man utterly, completely, free in Christ.
He is lord of all, subject to none. Love binds him as an utterly dutiful
servant to the neighbor, subject to everyone. The paradox of Christian freedom
then plays out in faith and love.
Luther sees all things
in Christ, His person and work as He applies His saving effects to the
Christian. Luther summarizes this tight connection of Christ and the
Christian’s freedom in the introduction: “…in I Cor. 9 [:19], ‘For though I am
free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all,’ and in Rom. 13[:8], ‘Owe
no one anything, except to love one another.’ Love by its very nature is ready
to serve and be subject to him who is loved. So Christ, although He was Lord of
all, was ‘born of woman, born under the law’ [Gal. 4:4], and therefore was at
the same time a free man and servant, ‘in the form of God’ and ‘of a servant.’
[Phil. 2:6-7].”
As utterly free as
Christ was, He also bound Himself under the law to serve His creatures and win
their salvation. Christ’s salvific example becomes the form of Christian
freedom. Luther considers freedom first as it relates to the inner man. The
inner man becomes righteous, free, and a pious Christian in Christ. The Word
does it all. As Luther emphasizes: “One thing, and only one thing, is necessary
for Christian life, righteousness, and freedom. That one thing is the most holy
Word of God, the gospel of Christ, as Christ says in John 11[:25], ‘I am the
resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he
live’; as John 8[:36], ‘So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed’;
and Matt. 4[:4], ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceeds from the mouth of God.'”
Luther specifies which
Word he means: “The Word is the gospel of God concerning his Son, who was made
flesh, suffered, rose from the dead, and was glorified through the Spirit who
sanctifies.” What a comfort this Gospel brings with it! By faith alone the
Christian receives all that Christ gives. “Faith alone is the saving and
efficacious use of the Word of God, according to Rom. 10[:9]: ‘If you confess with
your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from
the dead, you will be saved.'” A man is “justified by faith alone and not any
works; for if it could be justified by anything else, it would not need the
Word, and consequently it would not need faith.”
Later in the tract, Dr.
Luther considers the outer man. Are Christians content to be saved by faith
alone, and not do any works? Is Luther’s liberty a liberty of ease? Luther
answers the charge of his Roman Catholic opponents: “…not so, you wicked men,
not so. That would be indeed proper if we were wholly inner and perfectly
spiritual men. But such we shall be only at the last day, the day of the
resurrection of the dead. As long as we live in the flesh we only begin to make
some progress in that which shall be perfected in the future life.”
Insofar as man is “a
servant, he does all kinds of works.” Man must learn self-control and have
dealings with others in this life. “Here the works begin: here a man cannot
enjoy leisure; here he must indeed take care to discipline his body by
fastings, watchings, labors, and other reasonable discipline and subject it to
the Spirit so that it will obey and conform to the inner man and faith and not
revolt against faith and hinder the inner man, as it is the nature of the body
to do if not held in check. The inner man, who by faith is created in the image
of God, is both joyful and happy because of Christ in whom are so many benefits
are conferred on him; and therefore it is the occupation to serve God joyfully
and without thought of gain, in love that is not constrained.”
Luther’s tract on
freedom has rightly been called: “the most perfect expression of Luther’s
Reformation understanding of the mystery of Christ.” As it goes with Christ, so
it goes with the freedom of the Christian. The Freedom of the Christian is a
confession of Christ in a nutshell. Christian freedom is a gift from Christ
Himself, “For freedom Christ has set us free…” (Galatians 5:1). What Christ did
to win salvation in His divine and human natures, He now gives to those who by
baptism bear His name: Christian. God justifies the sinner by faith alone. The
sinner is changed in inner and outer man after the likeness of Christ. The
Christian is at once utterly free in faith and a servant to all in works of love. Christian life is
lived between these twin poles of faith and love. This is the paradoxical
Christian freedom as Luther taught the Church.
Seven Takeaways from the Masterpiece
Decision
By
Rev. Jonathan Lange
LCMS pastor in Evanston and Kemmerer
Wyoming District Life Issues
Facilitator
The Supreme Court of the United States has vindicated Jack
Phillips, proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, nearly six years after the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission subjected him to re-indoctrination and
restrictions that cost him some 40 percent of his business.
His crime, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals, is that he declined to “design and create a cake to celebrate [a] same sex wedding.” This is a far cry from the false accusation that “he refused to serve gays.” As the Court’s ruling details, Phillips was one of four different Colorado bakers who declined to bake cakes conveying a message that was objectionable to the baker. Nevertheless, he was the only one who was punished for it. He was also the only Christian.
On Monday the Court ruled that “[t]he Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."
Phillips contested both his right to free speech and his right to free exercise of religion, but the Court declined to address his free speech claim. It limited the ruling only to the free exercise of religion. Some were disappointed by the “narrowness” of this ruling.
I understand their point, but I also think this limitation is helpful. Deferring the free-speech question to another day allowed the Court’s wide and bipartisan majority (7-2) to nail down the free exercise of religion in seven important ways.
First, the Court declares plainly: “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” This principle is not contradictory to the “general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services.”
At last, the Court has put an end to the false narrative that advocacy for a complementary view of marriage is inherently discriminatory. There is discrimination against persons and there is the rejection of an idea. The two are not the same thing. The first is wrong and the second is not, and the Court has plainly recognized this in a watershed decision.
By settling this issue, the Court is able to focus on making sure that public accommodations law is “neutral and generally applicable” (9). With any luck, this will calm the debate. Only if we can express and hear disagreeable opinions without the threat of personal-claims court can we learn to reason and compromise like adults.
Second, Kennedy wrote on page 10, “When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral or religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony." Public accommodations laws and ordinances are not “neutral or generally applicable” if they threaten anybody for declining to perform a wedding on moral or religious grounds.
If Kennedy had written this decision two summers ago, the Wyoming Supreme Court could not have ruled that the state of Wyoming can compel a judge to perform a wedding ceremony. Of course, "clergy" could be restricted to its narrowest sense to exclude judges and magistrates, but that would also exclude L.D.S. bishops and other plainly religious marriage officiants, obviously contrary to the Court's intent.
Third, the court scolded the Colorado civil rights commissioners who argued that a person can believe "whatever he wants to believe," but cannot live by those beliefs “if he decides to do business in the state." They responded unambiguously, "the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain" is an unconstitutional "hostility” toward religion (12). Free exercise is not just for clergy and private citizens but for businesses as well.
Fourth, Kennedy singled out one commissioner’s statement as especially hostile, saying, "To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways." He added that "this sentiment is inappropriate for a [government] commission."
His crime, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals, is that he declined to “design and create a cake to celebrate [a] same sex wedding.” This is a far cry from the false accusation that “he refused to serve gays.” As the Court’s ruling details, Phillips was one of four different Colorado bakers who declined to bake cakes conveying a message that was objectionable to the baker. Nevertheless, he was the only one who was punished for it. He was also the only Christian.
On Monday the Court ruled that “[t]he Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."
Phillips contested both his right to free speech and his right to free exercise of religion, but the Court declined to address his free speech claim. It limited the ruling only to the free exercise of religion. Some were disappointed by the “narrowness” of this ruling.
I understand their point, but I also think this limitation is helpful. Deferring the free-speech question to another day allowed the Court’s wide and bipartisan majority (7-2) to nail down the free exercise of religion in seven important ways.
First, the Court declares plainly: “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” This principle is not contradictory to the “general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services.”
At last, the Court has put an end to the false narrative that advocacy for a complementary view of marriage is inherently discriminatory. There is discrimination against persons and there is the rejection of an idea. The two are not the same thing. The first is wrong and the second is not, and the Court has plainly recognized this in a watershed decision.
By settling this issue, the Court is able to focus on making sure that public accommodations law is “neutral and generally applicable” (9). With any luck, this will calm the debate. Only if we can express and hear disagreeable opinions without the threat of personal-claims court can we learn to reason and compromise like adults.
Second, Kennedy wrote on page 10, “When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral or religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony." Public accommodations laws and ordinances are not “neutral or generally applicable” if they threaten anybody for declining to perform a wedding on moral or religious grounds.
If Kennedy had written this decision two summers ago, the Wyoming Supreme Court could not have ruled that the state of Wyoming can compel a judge to perform a wedding ceremony. Of course, "clergy" could be restricted to its narrowest sense to exclude judges and magistrates, but that would also exclude L.D.S. bishops and other plainly religious marriage officiants, obviously contrary to the Court's intent.
Third, the court scolded the Colorado civil rights commissioners who argued that a person can believe "whatever he wants to believe," but cannot live by those beliefs “if he decides to do business in the state." They responded unambiguously, "the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain" is an unconstitutional "hostility” toward religion (12). Free exercise is not just for clergy and private citizens but for businesses as well.
Fourth, Kennedy singled out one commissioner’s statement as especially hostile, saying, "To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways." He added that "this sentiment is inappropriate for a [government] commission."
I hope that Wyoming’s Commission on
Judicial Conduct and Ethics takes note and apologizes for its own statement
about Judge Ruth Neely. It stated in the public record that Neely’s belief
in the Scriptural definition of marriage is “repugnant,” and that “somebody
with that attitude really should not be on the bench.”
This is exactly what the Court said, “is inappropriate for a [government] commission.” Neil Gorsuch spelled out the consequences of such governmental hostility: "No bureaucratic judgment condemning a sincerely held religious belief as 'irrational' or 'offensive' will ever survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment" (Gorsuch, concurrence 7).
Fifth, Kennedy also explained that it is impermissible for the government to characterize a man’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” as “merely rhetorical—something insubstantial, and even insincere.” This is to “disparage his religion,” he wrote (14). As one who has been on the receiving end of such libelous language, I especially appreciate the Court’s respect for the personal integrity of those whose religion is consistent, historical, and deeply held.
Sixth, going back to the question of what is a “neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,” the Court noted that the Civil Rights Commission applied differing standards to four different bakeries who declined to make specific cakes. In the case of the three that refused scriptural quotations about marriage, the Commission ruled that since the baker was personally offended by the message, he was free to decline without legal consequence. In Phillips’ case, however, they ruled that his personal offence was irrelevant.
This is exactly what the Court said, “is inappropriate for a [government] commission.” Neil Gorsuch spelled out the consequences of such governmental hostility: "No bureaucratic judgment condemning a sincerely held religious belief as 'irrational' or 'offensive' will ever survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment" (Gorsuch, concurrence 7).
Fifth, Kennedy also explained that it is impermissible for the government to characterize a man’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” as “merely rhetorical—something insubstantial, and even insincere.” This is to “disparage his religion,” he wrote (14). As one who has been on the receiving end of such libelous language, I especially appreciate the Court’s respect for the personal integrity of those whose religion is consistent, historical, and deeply held.
Sixth, going back to the question of what is a “neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,” the Court noted that the Civil Rights Commission applied differing standards to four different bakeries who declined to make specific cakes. In the case of the three that refused scriptural quotations about marriage, the Commission ruled that since the baker was personally offended by the message, he was free to decline without legal consequence. In Phillips’ case, however, they ruled that his personal offence was irrelevant.
On this point, the split was 5-4 with
Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan arguing against the majority. But after
weighing their arguments, the majority rejected them. It ruled that there
must be a uniform standard of judgment. "The [state] cannot ... apply a
more generous legal test to secular objections than religious ones"
(Gorsuch 6).
Seventh, the Court reaffirmed long-standing case law that it is never the place of the government to decide matters of religion. Citing cases from 1943 and 2017 it said, “Just as ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,’ …it is not …the role of the State to prescribe what shall be offensive” (16).
Whatever else the state of Colorado did to Phillips, it “elevate[d] one view of what is offensive over another and sen[t] a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs” (16). This is a clear violation of the free exercise of religion. It should never have gotten this far. Now that an overwhelming majority of the Court has struck it down, America are reassured that the government has no place in deciding matters of faith.
These seven takeaways put to rest many unconstitutional arguments that have been made in Wyoming over the past several years. For this alone we should be grateful. The Court’s ruling is guidance for all public servants from the school board to the president. It clarifies that the government simply cannot run roughshod over the full and free exercise of religion in laws, ordinances, or policies.
Seventh, the Court reaffirmed long-standing case law that it is never the place of the government to decide matters of religion. Citing cases from 1943 and 2017 it said, “Just as ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,’ …it is not …the role of the State to prescribe what shall be offensive” (16).
Whatever else the state of Colorado did to Phillips, it “elevate[d] one view of what is offensive over another and sen[t] a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs” (16). This is a clear violation of the free exercise of religion. It should never have gotten this far. Now that an overwhelming majority of the Court has struck it down, America are reassured that the government has no place in deciding matters of faith.
These seven takeaways put to rest many unconstitutional arguments that have been made in Wyoming over the past several years. For this alone we should be grateful. The Court’s ruling is guidance for all public servants from the school board to the president. It clarifies that the government simply cannot run roughshod over the full and free exercise of religion in laws, ordinances, or policies.
LCMS Stewardship Ministry July 2018
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do
not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1).
We celebrate this month
because of the freedoms and liberties our country has afforded us. We are right
to do this. We should be thankful for these liberties: the freedom to gather
together to worship and to live out what we believe in our daily lives.
But freedom and liberty in our age has
devolved. It has become a freedom from duty instead of a freedom for it.
Indeed, freedom and liberty in our age has turned into licentiousness: a
license to do what we want, when we want.
This license is a submission,
again, to a yoke of slavery. For freedom as license to do what we desire when
we desire it means we are slaves to our desires, slaves to our passions.
Christ died to set us
free from our sinful desires. In Holy Baptism, our Old Adam is drowned and put
to death along with all sin and evil desires so that a new man may arise and
live before God in righteousness and purity.
In Christ, we are a new
creation. We are set free from the passions of the flesh so that we are free to
do our duty and bear fruits of the Spirit.
Our duty is what God
calls us to do as members of a family, society, and the church.
God calls us to believe
in His Word and gladly hear and learn it. He calls us to pray for all people.
He calls us to live in faith toward Him and in fervent love for our neighbor.
He calls us to put the gifts He gives to us in His service. God calls parents
to provide for their children and raise them in the fear and admonition of the
Lord. And God calls children to honor their parents and provide and care for
them when they are no longer able to do so themselves.
God calls the government
to punish those who do evil and to reward those who do good. He calls citizens
to pay their taxes and honor the governing officials as God’s servants. He calls
pastors to preach and teach the Gospel as well as repentance for the
forgiveness of sins. And He calls hearers to support those who teach them with
every good thing.
Christ died to set us
free from the works of our selfish flesh, giving us the freedom and liberty to
do our duty. Stand firm, then, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Wyoming District Roundup
The
Year of the Formula of Concord
“...REMEMBERING
YOU IN MY PRAYERS...” (Eph. 1:16)
For
Krista Grams, daughter of Rev. Jeff and Kim Grams. Her persistent
headaches continue, but a new diagnosis and treatment has resulted in great
improvement.
For
Rev. Claude and Deloris Constable, who are in assisted living with
health issues.
For
Rev. Phil Grovenstein, undergoing treatment for cancer.
For
Rev. Jeffery Grams, in thanksgiving for his healing and returning
strength and stamina.
PASTORS
AND CONGREGATIONS
Trinity,
Rock Springs and
Emmanuel, Green River are nearing completion of a multi-point parish
agreement. Trinity is being served by Rev. James Martin (Emmanuel, Green
River) during the vacancy.
St.
James, Scottsbluff and
Mount Calvary, Bayard have formed a multi-point parish. St. James, who
has been served by Rev. Kenneth Humphrey (Trinity, Morrill) during the
vacancy, has called Rev. George Naylor (Mount Calvary, Bayard),
to serve as their pastor in the dual parish.
The
parish of Zion, Grover and Grace, Pine Bluffs are working their
way through the pre-call process and are considering their options. The parish
is being served by Rev. Richard Boche during the vacancy period.
Rev.
Daniel Hinton (Trinity,
Cheyenne) is considering a call to Christ Lutheran Church, Lubbock, Texas.
THE BRIDE CONFESSES
CHRIST: THE FORMULA OF CONCORD
Article Six of the Formula of Concord (on The Third Use
of God’s Law), warns against an error that “harms and conflicts with
Christian discipline and true godliness” (FC Ep.8). This error is displayed
today when Christians or churches reject or change clear teachings of God’s
commandments, or when they dismiss them as unimportant in their own lives and
congregations. We confess here that “the Holy Spirit uses the written law for
the instruction” of Christians. “By this [written Law] the truly believing also
learn to serve God, not according to their own thoughts, but according to His
written Law and Word. This is a sure rule and standard of a godly life and
walk.” We further confess that God’s Law is not a random collection of
arbitrary rules, but that it is “God’s eternal and unchangeable will” (FC SD
VI.3).
Status of the Controversy
“The Law was given to people
for three reasons: (1) that by the Law outward discipline might be maintained
against wild, disobedient people [curb]; (2) that people may be led to the
knowledge of their sins by the Law [mirror]; and (3) that after they are
regenerate and the flesh still cleaves to them, they might on this account have
a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole
life [rule or guide]. A dissension has arisen between a few theologians about
the third use of the Law, namely, whether it is to be taught to regenerate
Christians. The one side has said Yes; the other, No.
Theses (Affirmative
Statements): The True Christian Teaching about This Controversy
“1. We believe, teach, and
confess that, even though people who are truly believing in Christ and truly
converted to God have been freed and exempted from the curse and coercion of
the Law, they are still not without the Law on this account. They have been
redeemed by God’s Son in order that they may exercise themselves in the Law day
and night. Even our first parents before the fall did not live without Law.
They had God’s Law written into their hearts, because they were created in
God’s image.
“2. We believe, teach, and
confess that the preaching of the Law is to be encouraged diligently. This
applies not only for the unbelieving and impenitent, but also for the true
believers, who are truly converted, regenerate, and justified through faith.
“3. Although believers are
regenerate and renewed in the spirit of their minds, in the present life this
regeneration and renewal is not complete. It is only begun. .
“6. The Law is and remains—both
to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate people—one
and the same Law. It is God’s unchangeable will. The difference, as far as
obedience is concerned, is only in the person. For one who is not yet
regenerate follows the Law out of constraint and unwillingly does what it
requires of him (as also the regenerate do according to the flesh). But the believer,
so far as he is regenerate, acts without constraint and with a willing spirit
to do what no threat of the Law (however severe) could ever force him to do.”
(FC Ep.VI)
Next month we will look at our
theses and antitheses for Article Seven, The Holy Supper of Christ. In
this article we recognize and confess that the devil and world and our own
sinful flesh rage against the Lord’s Supper and seek to deny it, destroy it, or
tear it away from us by false teaching and false faith. To our great sorrow, we
have all seen this among those of our family and friends who do not know or
believe what Jesus teaches and gives in His Supper.
Status of the Controversy
“Question: In the Holy Supper,
are the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (a) truly and essentially
present, (b) distributed with the bread and wine, and (c) received with the
mouth by all those who use this Sacrament—whether they are worthy or unworthy,
godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving? Are they received by the
unbelieving for consolation and life, but by the unbelieving for judgment? The
Sacramentarians [i.e. those who oppose the Lutheran doctrine] say No. We say
Yes.
“To explain this controversy,
it must be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians.
Some are openly crass Sacramentarians. They declare in plain, clear words what
they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and
wine is present, distributed, and received with the mouth. Others, however, are
crafty Sacramentarians. They are the most harmful of all. In part, they talk
very fancy, using our own words. They pretend that they also believe a true
presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy
Supper. However, they say that this happens spiritually through faith.
Nevertheless, under these fancy words, they hold precisely the former crass
opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with
the mouth except bread and wine.” (FC Ep VII.2–5)
REFORMATION 500: 1518 in Review
500 years ago this summer the
heresy trial of Martin Luther began in Rome. We will have much more to say of
his trial in the coming months. However, it was during these months of 1518
that something far more important was happening. Much is made of the so-called
“tower experience”—that as Luther wrestled with the doctrine of Holy Scriptures
in his tower study, he finally understood, believed, and began to teach that
God justifies the sinner by His grace through faith in Christ.
Luther had clearly made much
progress in understanding the Holy Scriptures, as we see in his Ninety-Five
Theses. Luther was teaching that man is a sinner, and that man the sinner must
justify God— reckon and declare God to be righteous—by confessing his sin and
becoming humble before God. But, as Luther later confessed, such a God was a
God of the Law, a God who terrified him and gave him no comfort or joy.
The discovery of 500 years ago
was a recovery of the teaching of Scripture that God justifies the sinner
through faith in Christ. That is, God reckons and imparts to the sinner His own
righteousness, for Christ’s sake. “For the righteousness of God is revealed in
the Gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, ‘He who is righteous by
faith shall live’” (Romans 1:17). The righteousness of God is the righteousness
won for man by the God-man Jesus Christ in his atoning death and resurrection,
the righteousness which becomes ours by believing this very Gospel of Jesus
that is preached to us.
Philippians Workshops for
Stewardship
Rev. Heath Curtis from LCMS
Stewardship Ministry is presenting Philippians Workshops to help with teaching
stewardship: Immanuel, Alliance on July 31 and Our Savior, Cheyenne, on August
1. See wylcms.org/events for more information.
Lander Camp August 5–9
All youth ages 10–18 are
invited to the annual Lander Youth Camp August 5–9. Information and
registration is found at wylcms.org/events.
Teacher Search
Trinity
Lutheran School, Riverton, is searching for a 1st Grade teacher for the
2018–2019 school year. If you are interested or have a candidate to recommend,
please call 307-857-5710. Trinity
Lutheran School, Riverton, is searching
for a 1st Grade teacher for the 2018–2019 school year. If you are interested or
have a candidate to recommend, please call 307-857-5710.
NEXT ROUNDUP…
… will be delivered to
congregations around July 20 (August 2018 issue). Watch for it!
RURAL AND
SMALL TOWN MISSION
STRONG
FAITH, FERVENT LOVE
Pastor Todd Kolbaum
“
Leading youth ministry in rural and small-town congregations (or
just about anywhere for that matter) is a challenge. We are challenged by
numbers, time, money, help, leadership and most likely any number of other
issues. However, the Lord of the Church has given us this great opportunity for
ministry whether we have a lot of youth or none at all. That is, sharing His
message of hope to those around us, including young people. When we view it as
just one more struggle, we may determine that it just isn’t worth the fight and
give up. In fact, I’ve seen that over and over. Yet, when we reframe your
various challenges as opportunities, we might just find that the Lord opens up
for us something we never expected. This is why I share the following, (taken
from LCMS Youth Ministry’s youthESource (youthESource.com): “The more available
religiously grounded relationships, activities, programs, opportunities and
challenges are for teenagers, the more likely they will be religiously engaged
and invested. In other words, ‘congregations that prioritize youth ministry and
support for their parents, invest in trained and skilled youth group leaders
and make serious efforts to engage and teach adolescents seem much more likely
to draw youth into their religious lives and to foster religious and spiritual
maturity in their young members. This appears to be true of local
congregations, regional organizations such as district conventions and entire
religious traditions.’ Stated negatively, churches that do not invest in their
youth find that youth are unlikely to invest in them.” God’s blessings to you
as you look for those opportunities to share Christ’s love with the youth among
whom you have been sent.
LWML NEWS
Trinity
Lutheran Women’s Society LWML Minutes
Wednesday,
June 13, 2018
Trinity Women’s Society
met Wednesday, June 13, 2018. Pastor led Bible Study: “Are the Scriptures About
You or For You?”
The meeting was called to
order by President Sandy Heine in the name of the Triune God with 6 members
present and one guest. Minutes from the
May, 2018 meeting were not available and will be read and approved at the next
meeting. The Treasurer’s Report was read
with a society balance of $1,067.57 and Morrill Elementary Backpack Program
$2,288.28. The Treasurers report was
filed for audit.
Committee
Reports:
Kari Heimbouch was
welcomed.
Sandy Heine made more
School Bags. We will need to see what
school supplies are in the back and then ask for donations for any other items
needed to fill them.
Correspondence:
Information from Lutheran
World Relief was received. It will be
placed on the back table for anyone interested in reading through it.
Unfinished
Business:
Father’s Day: Kari
Heimbouch will pick up rolls and submit a bill to LWML.
LWML District Convention
in Cheyenne the 23rd & 24th: Members made recommendations for
mission grants.
New
Business:
There will be no meetings
in July & August. Members are encouraged to assist with Bible School if
there is one.
Closing Devotions:
Jean Strauch provided
closing devotions.
The meeting was adjourned
with the Lord’s Prayer and the common table prayer.
Hostesses: Roxane
Humphrey
The next LWML meeting will
be Wednesday, September 12, 2018.
The September meeting is
no host, with everyone bringing a snack.
Yours in Christ,
Susan Williams, Secretary
DATES TO REMEMBER FOR JUNE
June 7 Karen Ritz Birthday
June 9 Bob Schledewitz Birthday
June 11 Bob
& Sharon Schledewitz Anniversary
June 13 Joyce Warnke Birthday
June 16 Harlan Kurtz Birthday
June 16 Gloria Gibbs Birthday
June 16 Virgil Ritz Birthday
June 20 Jace Hendren Baptismal Date
June 22 Manual
& Jean Strauch Anniversary
June 26 Susan Williams Birthday
June 27 Linda Hartwig Birthday
June 30 Lisa Kaufman Birthday
If your name
does not appear, it is because these were taken from Trinity’s calendar
directory for which we have permission to use names and dates.
Please notify
the office to have a date added.
Usher schedule for the Summer months:
July 1: Don B; James B; Levi B; Wes B;
July 8: Rudy and Elders
July 15: Virgil R; John W; Dallas E; Dan K;
July 22: Rudy and Elders
July 29: Rudy and Elders
August 5: Gerald R; Logan A; Bill A; Leo J;
August 12: Rudy and Elders
August 19: Keith K; Gerald R; Burke S. Bruce S;
August 26: Rudy and Elders
Please note: if you cannot make your scheduled turn, please find
someone to fill in for you or contact Wes Bowlin. Thank you very much for your
willingness to serve!
Flavor of the summer for the community food bank is canned
fruit
