Doxology and PLI ““ Will the LCMS Ever be Able to Walk Together? by Pr. Rossow

After our congregation finished hosting a Doxology conference this last weekend it dawned on me that there are two groups offering post graduate training in how to be a pastor in the LCMS and they could not be more different. They are so different that it got me thinking if the pastors and congregations of the LCMS can ever walk in sync.

The question of disunity in the synod is usally approached from the standpoint of contemporary vs. traditional worship, the role of women and open vs. closed communion. Comparing Doxology to PLI (Pastoral Leadership Training Institute) gives us a fresh look at this matter. It is important to note that I have spoken to neither PLI nor Doxology about this post. All quotes are from the extensive material found on the Doxology and PLI websites. Truth be told neither of them would most likely not want to be associated with disunity in the synod. But this website, along with others, intends to be the go to place for confessional Lutheran news and commentary and we believe this comparison is instructive for the on-going discussion of the health of the LCMS.

Both of these groups are very professional and their training sessions seem to be well done. PLI is a four year program where as Doxology can be done in a single year. There are other similarities and dissimilarities based on structure but we are more interested in comparing their content.

A look at the titles reveals much. Doxology is about training pastors to elicit reasonable praise in the church (that is what “doxology” literally means) and the other is about training pastors in leadership skills. Doxology describes its work this way.

The primary purpose of this organization is to provide training, mentoring and consultation services for pastors who desire to enhance their ability to help people struggling with the ever-increasing personal, family and social complexities of contemporary life. The training environment, grounded in Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, ensures that pastors will be emotionally and spiritually refreshed and equipped as a result of their participation. DOXOLOGY strengthens pastors so they can more faithfully pastor others.

PLI describes its work this way.

The mission of PLI is to provide advanced leadership training for pastors whose hearts burn with passion for the gospel and who have exhibited potential for leadership excellence. It is an initiative conceived with the express purpose of supporting a strong, viable church for the next millennium.

So Doxology is geared toward helping pastors to more faithfully pastor others and PLI is geared toward training pastors to be leaders who create strong, viable churches that are winning the lost.

A closer look at the word “leadership” will clarify the difference between these two groups. Understanding what is meant by leadership is the key to understanding the work of PLI. Here is some further definition of the significance of leadership from the PLI website.

The challenge is to move the thinking and operational paradigms of church leaders, both pastoral and lay, beyond shepherd care and administrative efficiency to leadership effectiveness…

Leadership is the critical issue confronting the church as it moves toward the 21st century. The challenge is to move the thinking and operational paradigms of church leaders, both pastoral and lay, beyond shepherd care and administrative efficiency to leadership effectiveness. Leaders must lead! …When you find success in an organization, you find successful leaders. When you find failure, you find leadership failure as well…

What is leadership? Leadership is influence. It is the ability to persuade, to guide, to affect a particular outcome…Most people in churches today do not think of themselves as leaders at all. Consequently the influence they could bring for the advance of the Kingdom of God is dormant.

“Leadership” as used by PLI and other church growth initiatives in the church is a code word. Allow me to break the code for you. It essentially means having the courage to change everything about your grandfather’s church so that your congregation can break free from the traditional shackles of liturgical worship, the forgiveness of sins as the centerpiece of the church and preaching that is built on Law and Gospel. In place of these PLI pastors are taught and mentored to start contemporary worship, programs of “ministry” and relevant/practical preaching.

If you study the scriptures you will see that leadership is not a major theme. As a matter of fact it is not a theme at all. The word “leader” is used 87 times in the scriptures (ESV translation) and only two of those times are prescriptive and they are not prescriptions for leaders but for those following them. The word “leadership” is used only once (Number 33:1) and that likewise is not prescriptive. If you include Jesus’ teaching on “the first and the last” in teh Biblical data on “leaership” then one could say there is indeed a memorable teaching about leadership but it is not positive, but rather is a critique of those who would be leaders.

Looking at the entrance requirements for each group is also telling. PLI limits enrollment to those who have demonstrated competency whereas Doxology’s approach is more evangelical. It is not looking to reward the “best” but instead provides help for pastors who have been judged less than worthy by the world and even their congregations by providing “a safe environment for clergy to reflect on their own spiritual and emotional health and assists them to review and enhance their professional competencies and skills as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred mysteries.”

Another key to the different approaches in advanced training for pastors is to look at the types of books and materials that are read by each group. Here is a list of titles from the Doxology site.

Here is a sample of resources from the PLI website. Notice the emphasis on sociology, business practices and the like.

  • Buckingham, Marcus and Curt Coffman. First, Break All the Rules.
  • Collins, Jim. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t.
  • Knauft, E. B. and Renee A. Berger and Sandra T. Gray. Profiles of Excellence: Achieving Success in the Nonprofit Sector.
  • Maxwell, John C. The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You.
  • Maxwell, John C. The 360 Degreee Leader: Developing Your Influence from Anywhere in the Organization.
  • Quinn, Robert E. Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradox and Competing Demands of High Performance.
  • Rainer, Thom S. Breakout Churches: Discover How to Make the Leap.
  • Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Life.

Both of these groups are doing very good things. PLI however is misguided as to what it means to be a pastor. Their emphasis on leadership is at best out of step with what the Bible says about pastors (since it basically says nothing prescriptive about leadership – leadership is not a key to pastoring according to the Bible) and worst it is a master plan to move the church away from its 2,000 year old, scriptural emphasis on the liturgy, the forgiveness of sins and law/gospel preaching.

Quite simply PLI believes that our seminary training is inadequate and so they seek to fix what is broken by providing sociological and business principles of leadership to form pastors who can break their congregations out of traditional molds. (Is this not an affront to the seminaries?) Doxology on the other hand seeks to complement the very pastoral formation worked by the seminaries by deepening and fine tuning the pastor’s ability to care for souls with God’s word and sacraments. PLI draws the picture of a pastor as a leader who is battling against entrenched traditions in the church. Doxology draws the picture of a pastor as one in the trenches with the laity battling against sin, death and the devil. The fact that these drastically different approaches to pastoral training are going on in the LCMS is a sign of disunity and groups working cross-purposes. The same could be said of different approaches to youth work, mission work, and even men’s groups, as attested to by the Brothers of John the Steadfast.

This denomination cannot thrive in this dis-unified state. President Kieschnick has not been able to bring the two approaches together. It seems logical to let Matt Harrison have a go at it and see if he can bring the two together. He actually addresses this issue in his seminal work on LCMS disunity titled “It’s Time.” Matt Harrison is a pastor’s pastor. His writing and speaking exudes the best of 2,000 years of the church’s preaching and teaching on the Holy Office of the Ministry. And it’s clear that he is not too bad at leadership either, when you consider the masterful and effective way he has led LCMS World Relief and Human Care for the last several years.

About Pastor Tim Rossow

Rev. Dr. Timothy Rossow is the Director of Development for Lutherans in Africa. He served Bethany Lutheran Church in Naperville, IL as the Sr. Pastor for 22 years (1994-2016) and was Sr. Pastor of Emmanuel Lutheran in Dearborn, MI prior to that. He is the founder of Brothers of John the Steadfast but handed off the Sr. Editor position to Rev. Joshua Scheer in 2015. He currently resides in Ocean Shores WA with his wife Phyllis. He regularly teaches in Africa. He also paints watercolors, reads philosophy and golfs. He is currently represented in two art galleries in the Pacific Northwest. His M Div is from Concordia, St. Louis and he has an MA in philosophy from St. Louis University and a D Min from Concordia, Fort Wayne.

Comments

Doxology and PLI ““ Will the LCMS Ever be Able to Walk Together? by Pr. Rossow — 32 Comments

  1. Let us look at classical & historical definitions here, as far as, DOXOLOGY, is concerned.
    Doxa, dokein + logos,
    Hebrew:
    Kaddish, q’dash, qakhosh, Ithqaddash.

    Doxa,”glory, praise”
    Dokein, “to seem”
    Logos, “the Divine Word; “Christ”

    Kaddish, “Holy, Holy One”
    q’dash, “was Holy”
    qadhosh, “Holy”
    Ithqaddash, “was sanctified”

    Now, according to what has been written & defined on paper, long before any of us ever drew breath…
    WHERE IS THE MENTION OF “MEN, MAN, WO-MAN, OR HUMAN” IN THESE?
    Nowhere, both seem, I say, SEEM, to be poorly defined, and sorely misunderstood. Based on the definitions alone, put them all together.

    “praising, glorifing, glory, praise, to seem the Divine Word, Christ, was Holy, Holy, was sanctified”. Where does any HUMAN REFERENCE appear in this? NOWHERE WHAT SO EVER!
    He is Holy, He is Divine, under Him are all things, and nothing can be placed, anywhere NEAR, what is so clearly defined as, Doxology. All creation, gives it, the created, that mean everyone & everything KNOWS THE AUTHOR & IT’S CREATOR, where is that in either definition above?
    Look at the definitions above, compared to the classical & historic. Human beings, rate where exactly? In case anyone has forgotten, if you are reading, you are human.

  2. Paul B,
    Just sayin’, as in just, ME, sayin’. I ain’t such a much. If oceans, mountains, rocks, valleys & plains shout & WILL SHOUT, HIS DOXOLOGY, we, truly aren’t such a much, are we? Better were those who came before, as we seem to have forgotten from whence we came. I pray we right the ship.

  3. IS is not stating a fact to say that both Seminaries allow classes from PLI to be counted toward some advanced work at the two sites. Pastor Rossow, perhaps you could find out for sure.

  4. Rev. Sterle,

    It is true. Each seminary accepts some PLI courses for D Min credit.

    It should be added that training in administration and organization (elements of “leadership”) can be helpful for pastors. It is the re-defining of “leadership” by PLI that is most troubling and ought to be kept out of our synod.

    TR

  5. You should also be aware that one of Dr. John Johnson’s first accomplishments at CU-Chicago was to offer an MA to pastor’s wives who complete PLI training with their husbands.

  6. The blog post says:
    ““Leadership” as used by PLI and other church growth initiatives in the church is a code word. Allow me to break the code for you. It essentially means having the courage to change everything about your grandfather’s church so that your congregation can break free from the traditional shackles of liturgical worship, the forgiveness of sins as the centerpiece of the church and preaching that is built on Law and Gospel. In place of these PLI pastors are taught and mentored to start contemporary worship, programs of “ministry” and relevant/practical preaching.”

    I went through the PLI program.
    I’m sorry, but this paragraph is uninformed and was in no way my PLI experience. It makes assumptions that aren’t based in any real experience.

    I’m also saddened to read “It is important to note that I have spoken to neither PLI nor Doxology about this post.” and then go on to read the claim that PLI is teaching pastors to “break free from the forgiveness of sins as the centerpiece of the Gospel”. A) How do you know this? and B) This simply isn’t true.

    On the contrary, my PLI experience emphasized personal spiritual growth supported by a collegial group of other pastors, proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins to a world in desperate need of hearing it, and leading/motivating/organizing the baptized to speak God’s Word of grace and forgiveness in words & actions.

    I visited PLI congregations that practiced what many would call contemporary worship. I ALSO visited PLI congregations that practiced what many would call a “historical” liturgical worship out of one of the LCMS hymnals. Quite frankly, the benefits or merits of one worship style over another never was mentioned in 4 years of my experience.

    I think any pastor could benefit from both continuing ed. experiences. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

  7. Z,

    Thanks for your comment.

    Why is the list of resources that are read for the program filled with folks who define leadership as thinking outside the box?

    Why is it that so many who have been associated with the program through the years and are currently so speak and write elsewhere about the need to adjust worship and other elements of the church to match the needs of people and the culture?

    How many of the PLI mentor congregations practice exclusively traditional, liturgical worship?

    Can you point us to an article written by a current PLI instructor that says that traditional, liturgical worship is the proper style for the church?

    I am not writing anything earth-shaking here. This is not new. This is the standard fare of the church growth movement.

    Concerning your comment about “the forgiveness of sins,” when preaching is encouraged to be “relevant” and “practical,” this is a radical departure from traditional homiletics which is all about preaching absolution to God’s people.

    TR

  8. I KNEW my grandfather & AND HIS CHURCH, & PREFER IT TO THE SMALL ARTICLE (Brit reference) OFFERED BY THOSE WHO WOULD ERIDICATE IT. Look up these hymns, read the lyrics, very carefully, THE CHURCH’S ONE FOUNDATION, I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVES, OUR GOD OUR HELP IN AGES PAST, ALL HAIL THE POWER OF JESUS’ NAME, A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD, THE LAW OF GOD IS GOOD AND WISE, & MOST TELLINGLY,
    MY HOPE IS BUILT ON NOTHING LESS.
    Google them, should you not have a hymnal handy. I will let those hymns speak on my behalf, as they did for my grandfather & his Church. Oh, I forgot, that is no longer wanted anymore.

  9. Oh, please pardon & forgive me, I forgot one more thing.
    HARK THE VOICE OF JESUS CALLING
    As that, “old & dusty” hymn tells us what MISSIONS are to be. The opportunity is PRESENTED TO YOU, not made BY YOU.
    You must first be found WORTHY OF AND FOR THE TASK.

  10. Two questions:

    1) Re the statement “President Kieschnick has not been able to bring the two approaches together. It seems logical to let Matt Harrison have a go at it and see if he can bring the two together.”

    Why would we want such a thing?

    2) Why should we give any credence to the word of somoene who signs themselves, “Z”? PLI is the Prince Charming of the LCMS. Surely you are not embarrassed and have nothing for which to apologize as a PLI alum.

  11. Kurt,

    Pt. #1 – Good point. It is not unity for the sake of unity but unity under the truth of the Gospel.

    TR

  12. Thank you Pr. Rossow. That is it exactly. The two are oil and water. They do not and should not mix. The one thoroughly undermines the performance of the other.

    PLI is all about what man brings to the table to help the Gospel do its work so men can be saved. Doxology is all about what the Gospel brings to the table to help the man do his work because he is saved.

    PLI–Please Leave It, because it sure does not mean Pastoral Lutheran Institute.

  13. And in two years (80 –EIGHTY!!! verbatims duly critiqued) of CPE wherein I was able to not lose [or be in mortal fear for] my confessional Lutheranism (unlike that pore ol’ soul in Herman’s rag) I found that “post- Graduate” work, if it is not purely academic, should be about one’s own miserable (in need of repentance) self. “Wir sind all Bettler.”

    Likewise, to learn more of system theory might help the combatants hereupon this narrow field grow where they need to. But, of course self differentiation is not exactly the stock in trade of any of us. Save the LORD.

  14. I have an honest question: Would somebody please explain for me what post #14 says? I simply don’t understand it. I am not trying to be sarcastic or humorous– I just don’t get it. At all.

    Help!

  15. Upon further reflection on the comments and experience of those who have attended PLI and the reading list they have been given, what have they read, marked, learned and inwardly digested that has strengthened them in their calling as ministers of the Gospel? What kind of “leadership” has come forth to fulfill the vision of PLI? To compare and contrast with Doxology would be most helpful.

  16. Anonymous,
    JA, GENAU, DU BIST SEHR RIGHTIG in dieser gespracht! Wir ALLES Bettlerin. Zu oder mit Gott in Himmel ya?
    (Yes, exactly, you are right, in what you said. We are all beggers, to God or with God in Heaven, yes?)
    Aber, auf Englisch bitte, in our most important & private thoughts we may have, should they be used to make a point,must be spoken plainly, simply, and let your IDEAS speak for you, rather than the “verbage” used. I would hate to see your thoughts lost in translation. I knew your german reference, but could understand little else.

  17. THE CHURCH’S ONE FOUNDATION, I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVES, OUR GOD OUR HELP IN AGES PAST, ALL HAIL THE POWER OF JESUS’ NAME, A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD, THE LAW OF GOD IS GOOD AND WISE, & MOST TELLINGLY,

    MY HOPE IS BUILT ON NOTHING LESS.

    Google them, should you not have a hymnal handy. I will let those hymns speak on my behalf, as they did for my grandfather & his Church.

    HARK THE VOICE OF JESUS CALLING

    THE CHURCH’S ONE FOUNDATION – Anglican hymn, not Lutheran; unknown to your German grandfathers

    I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVES – Baptist hymn

    OUR GOD OUR HELP IN AGES PAST – English Non-Conformist

    ALL HAIL THE POWER OF JESUS’ NAME – Methodist hymn (Methodist hymns were specifically rejected by C.F.W. Walther, but it’s ‘so pretty’ that the LCMS spat on his memory and put it in her hymnals

    A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD – Yikes! This one’s actually Lutheran!

    THE LAW OF GOD IS GOOD AND WISE – Also, Lutheran; though the synod from which it came (Ohio) is now in the ELCA, Loy was decent for the most part

    MY HOPE IS BUILT ON NOTHING LESS – Baptist

    HARK THE VOICE OF JESUS CALLING – Congregationalist

    All of which leads one to ask:

    1) (facetiously) Of which of those churches was your grandfather a member?

    2) With that mish-mash of hymnody as the background of the LCMS, is it not easy to see how the LCMS got to the point that a thread such as this is necessary?

    Seriously, the rejection of Walther’s advice about using the hymns of false teachers is what has now led to this lady who earnestly desires to be faithful to God’s Word and the Confessions of His Church to start citing hymns from various backgrounds as the hymns that are historically Missourian. If Missouri has been taught for so long by the Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, and Anglicans (75% of the above list is NON-Lutheran), why would anyone decry that now in PLI’s reading list? They’re simply advocating that the same sort of theologians enlighten your clergy as have been enlightening your laity for generations.

    If you wish to have authentic Lutheranism, you need to reject your grandfather’s church every bit as much as Kieschnick and Co. have bidden you to do. Just because Jerry’s not got it right doesn’t mean that he got everything wrong.

    EJG

  18. I think that Z’s objection is a good one. This is a helpful and informative article, but the paragraph that editorializes and speculates about what PLI might be teaching is ill informed at best.

    My guess is that PLI considers liturgy to be pure adiophora and a matter of style, and thus doesn’t address it much at all, pro or con. If the pastor’s vision is to be traditional, I think the PLI model would accomodate it, in theory anyway.

    My bigger problem is twofold. Where did they get the idea that we are so good at “shepherding” that PLI can treat it as an afterthought? The rich Lutheran concept of “seelsorge” is at the very heart of Christ-like ministry, not a detail to disdained on the way to ideas of leadership that our Savior never talked about.

    Secondly, what is the entrance requirement for PLI? I’ll bet it boils down to one word: growth. You have to show a record of numerical growth in your congregation to get in, so that you can learn how to provide more growth.

    This is the false gospel of growth: everything in the church is adiophora, except growth. If you don’t pack ’em in, you are a failure as a pastor. If you trade away every doctrine of scripture and every good tradition of the church to get there, no big deal.

    Like all false gospels, this leads to hell.

  19. I happily and willingly yield the floor and the main point of the article to the gentelman (lady?) from the Northeast.

    TR

  20. Having said that (comment #22) allow me to further defend the post against the thoughtful critique of Z.

    The main point of the post is that “leadership” is not a biblical metaphor for pastoring. If by leadership is meant oversight of doctrine and practice then I am all for it but that is not what PLI is about.

    Also, I did not say that PLI rejects the forgiveness of sins, traditional worship, and law/gospel preaching. I asserted that these are not put at the heart of the parish. Instead, contemporary worship is touted as a way to win souls (Z – can you really claim that this is not a theme of PLI?), discipleship replaces the forgiveness of sins as the primary work of the church and relevance in preaching gets as much attention if not more than properly distinguishing law and gospel.

    TR

  21. Many things I could comment on, but I will pick one. Regarding the entrance requirement being growth, that is wrong. I am taking part of PLI and my congregations have usually remainded about the same. However, as any pastor will tell you, there needs to be a certain amount of growth to just stand pat. (Funerals, transfers, lost contact, etc.) And good pastoral work can be done and is done in congregations that are losing members. I have heard this said at PLI and I know many (I do not say all because I do not know everyones beliefs) also believe it. This does not lead to hell.

    The primary entrance requirement for PLI, as can be found on the web-site, is a recomendation by someone in PLI or by a District President who believes that the pastor could grow in his calling as a pastor through work in PLI. It is assumed that LCMS Pastors are wise enough and trained well enough to read many books and take the good and leave the bad.

    A little history would be good for those here. PLI was first put together to help pastors who were pastors of large congregations. Why? There are different skills and ways of going about things in a congregation of 2,000 and a school than in a congregation of 200 or 20. They are all going about the Lord’s work, but the manner of working as a pastor is different in each instance. Some of the skills, especially in large congregations, are not taught at the Seminaries as the Seminaries focus is on giving a strong foundation in the Scriptures and how to bring that to God’s people. This is as it should be. After several years PLI saw that many of these same skills in leadership were useful in all size of congregations. Thus, it was opened up much more broadly. Please take this as it is meant, giving some further understanding about PLI. Personally, I think both groups can do great work and could work in harmony as they each have a different emphasis.

  22. Pastor Rossow,
    Forgive me getting off topic here, but back to books I go.
    Now, I just read the “about us” page on PLI, I read it a few times. Don’t those or would that, given those descriptions listed on the “about us” page, don’t those kind of, impair the definitions & actions given in the Office of the Keys &/or the vows of ordination for the Divine Office? If not, why, if so, how? Be kind & gentle, I am just learning this stuff.

  23. Pastor Rossow,
    UG. I don’t know how to do that! The little scissors & glue bottle aren’t pictured on this new software, so even as badly as I would like to, I DON’T KNOW HOW! I am self taught on this contraption, and that IS VERY MINIMAL.
    All I did was go to the site/home page, & click on the “about us” section. All I can say, from what I read, is me thinks I smell something rotten in Denmark, or rather, Deutschland, notwithstanding.

    ps- I made REAL SURE, to type out the whole exact title given in the article above, ’cause WOW, there are some mighty nasty apostate things if ya don’t.

  24. Dutch, to clarify.

    The PLI website is here

    This does not have an “about us” section, it has a “about PLI” section, which has a brief intro from the “executive leader” then their vision, mission, and purpose statements.

    I don’t see anything obviously questionable there.

    Other than of course the head of the organization is called an “executive leader” .. in other words they have a business mindset from the get-go …

    Is there some way to tell us what you are looking at?

    When you say to “type out the exact title of the article” it makes me think that perhaps you are somewhere completely different …

  25. Pastor Rossow & Mr Fisher,
    BINGO!!!! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAW IN THIS!! Executive, organization, leader, business. I KNOW business, & it has not part or shouldn’t in the Church. If ya look at Mollie’s recent post, which I did, & go to the J.F. home page, there is an article posted there. By David Luecke-
    Congregation-Led Entrepreneurship Is Necessary

    HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!! Entrepreneurship? Does anyone know what the definition let alone practice & execution of that word is?
    THIS THE BUSINESS OF BUSINESS, & that is what I saw that was wrong on the PLI site. My job was TO TRAIN EXISTING & NEW EMPLOYEES, I CAN SMELL THAT A MILE AWAY!! & THIS IS WHAT I DID FOR A LIVING OUT THERE, THE WORLD. THE PART OF OUR EXISTANCE WE ARE NOT TO BELONG, UNDERSTAND, OR POLLUTE HIS CHURCH WITH.
    To my mind (small indeed I confess!)some of the most CONVICTING & REBUKING WORDS CHRIST EVER SPOKE WERE FOR THOSE WHO WERE IN & OF THE TEMPLE, AS THEY
    RAN IT LIKE A BUSINESS!!! There really isn’t anything new under the sun is there?

  26. FYI about the Temple comment. I feel rather free to say thus, as I come from a Jewish background on my father’s side. I GET that, & agree, as I know my history, both Biblical & ancient. Alexander the Great brought Greek culture to Jerusalem, but he brought alot more (darker aspect), that they didn’t need, should have seen, & never should have allowed in a back door, let alone the front. Again, can we all say, there is nothing new under the sun?!

  27. (Re EJG’s comment) Yes, it is quite true that our English hymnody comes from a wide spectrum of theological backgrounds. Also, it is dangerous to use hymns to teach either doctrine or practice, and not build our foundation on the Word of God. However, all truth is God’s truth. And if a hymn writer captures truths of the Scriptures and expresses them in a compelling way, I care not whether he or she is Baptist, Anglican, or (shudder) Lutheran.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.