 Last week, Part 1 raised the basic question of whether Christians should still take demonic affliction seriously; this week turns to the harder follow-up: if evil is real, who is actually authorized to confront it? You do not have to read the first essay before this one, but it is worth going back to after you finish.
Most Protestant traditions, Lutheranism included, do not have a formal answer the way Rome does; this essay is written for serious lay readers and pastors who need a safer, more accountable way to think about deliverance ministry. The real dividing line running through everything here is not which tradition you belong to, but whether authority comes from an office, appointed and accountable from above, or from individual initiative, taken up by someone convinced of their own readiness to act. That distinction matters because spiritual confidence without pastoral accountability can quickly become spiritual recklessness. Rome answers with the first. They developed a canonical exorcist role over centuries precisely because untrained intervention is clearly dangerous — spiritually, psychologically, and sometimes even physically. Authority to carry on this work is not left to whoever feels called. It requires a bishop's appointment, ongoing supervision, and increasingly formal medical or clinical consultation, because the differential diagnosis between psychiatric illness and spiritual affliction is real, and error in either direction can harm someone. I have spent time training alongside men preparing for that ministry, under the sponsorship of a priest with direct experience in the field. What struck me was not the drama and special effects that Hollywood assumes is at the center of it all. At the core, it was the discipline. The insistence on ruling out the medical — and the merely spiritual-sounding — before treating a case as demonic. The refusal to let one person act alone. Years of formation before anyone is handed authority to act. There is considerable wisdom in this approach. In recent times (within the last 100 years), there have been serious efforts inside Lutheranism to build a comparable formation without creating a parallel magisterial structure. Kurt Koch (1913-1987), a German pastor and theologian, gives the movement its documentary backbone by publishing case files where mental or physical illness appeared to have a demonstrable spiritual root. Robert Bennett gives the discussion a more explicitly confessional Lutheran footing after fieldwork in Madagascar, where Lutheran pastors casting out demons were not importing a Catholic or Pentecostal practice but exercising ordinary pastoral ministry in that context. Harold Ristau carries the retrieval into the present: an LCMS pastor and former military chaplain whose My First Exorcism treats deliverance ministry as a serious pastoral discipline, with a foreword from John W. Kleinig, whose liturgical scholarship carries real weight in confessional Lutheran circles. This is not a fringe curiosity being smuggled in from elsewhere. It is Lutheran pastors and scholars publishing through recognized presses and endorsed by seminary faculty, doing the slow work of historical and liturgical retrieval. That said, the case should be made with precision: the problem is not that Lutheranism has no resources, but that many Lutheran institutions have not yet worked those resources intentionally into pastoral formation, supervision, and lay ministry training. The Other Model Formal ecclesial authority is not the only serious way to handle this. I have also spent time with healing ministry in charismatic-renewal streams — under Mike Flynn, an Episcopal priest and Vineyard pastor (mentored by John Wimber) whose own mentorship shaped how I think about this. Additionally, pastors such as Francis MacNutt, Dennis Bennett, Sam Storms, Charles Kraft, and Neil T. Anderson approach the issue from a different angle: spiritual gifts of discernment before intervention, a team rather than a solo operator, and a theology built around authority in Christ rather than technique against an enemy. There are fewer rules, permissions, and protocols in this way of operating, and that distinction matters. At its best, the charismatic-renewal model moves quickly, prays boldly, and relies on discernment in community; at its worst, it tempts the inexperienced to find a demon behind every symptom and to confront situations that may be medical, psychological, relational, or simply ordinary. You cannot “cast out” something that is not there. The people most likely to need a real answer to the question are often the ones least likely to receive it from their own pastor, because most clergy formation does not address the question directly. That leaves people improvising — reaching for whatever they can find and MacGyvering together something at their own kitchen table that no seminary, synod, or bishop ever authorized, simply because no one taught them there was a slower, safer, more accountable way to ask for help. The Insight From the Margins There is a population inside the church that knows this territory better than most seminary faculties: people who have lived through addiction, incarceration, and homelessness rarely need convincing that both psychiatric and spiritual affliction are real. Many have experienced something that closed in, took hold, and had to be broken, not merely managed. This is the bridge between high ecclesiology and real-world pastoral life — the place where the abstract question of authority meets concrete suffering. A congregation shaped by that community can hold a serious conversation about these matters. It is often the more comfortable, more credentialed wings of mainline Protestantism that have lost the category altogether — not because the affliction is absent, but because the people with formal training have stopped expecting to meet it. Where That Leaves You As a layperson, you do have real authority, but only within your own sphere: your household, minor children, property, and business. That is the authority Scripture gives you under the Fourth Commandment. Inside that sphere, you are not powerless and you are not required to wait for permission to pray, bless, or renounce evil over your own home and family. But when something feels larger than your actual standing to address, the decision path should be simple: pray faithfully within your sphere, involve your pastor early, and resist the impulse to search the internet for a rite you were never given authority to use. A responsible pastor should investigate the claim, pray with you, and help distinguish spiritual affliction from medical, psychological, or household factors that require other forms of care. If an initial visit settles the matter, good — that is the system working as designed. If it does not, the next step is not private escalation but accountable pastoral escalation: a second visit, a stronger rite if warranted, the Eucharist if appropriate, consultation with experienced clergy, and clinical discernment where necessary. What you should not do is keep trolling the internet for advice and tools to “try out.” Improvising past the point where you have actual standing to act is dangerous because sincerity does not create authority, and spiritual authority should never be performed in isolation, panic, or curiosity. If this essay has one practical conclusion, it is this: pray where you have been given responsibility, involve the church where the burden exceeds that responsibility, and do not mistake access to online rituals for a call to use them. Rev. Dr. Steve Stutz Ordained Lutheran Pastor · Intentional Interim Minister · Certified Spiritual Director La Porte, Texas · Houston Area [Contact] · [LinkedIn] · [The Marginal Note on Substack] The Marginal Note — Theology for people who are still paying attention. Free monthly newsletter. Subscribe at Substack. ©2026 Steve Stutz. All rights reserved. Brief quotes welcome with attribution; full reprints require permission. Details at https://www.stevestutz.com (bottom of page)
1 Comment
 Our culture preaches a gospel of radical autonomy wearing the mask of freedom: “My life, my business. If no one gets hurt, what’s the harm?” We like to imagine our sins are private — personal, contained, no one else’s concern. As long as a sin stays hidden or feels small, we feel no urgency to name it.
But Scripture tells a different story. Sin is never only your problem. What we keep in the dark doesn’t stay hidden — it festers, and it does not stay contained to the one carrying it. This is Law-work, and I want to be honest about that before going any further: this piece isn’t going to tell you how to fix it. That’s not what the Law is for. The Law’s job is to tell the truth about what’s actually happening when we sin — and the truth is harder, and stranger, than “I made a mistake.” The Illusion of Radical Autonomy Someone will object: “You’re telling me that some stranger’s sin halfway across the world lands on me? That if I lash out at my spouse, I’ve somehow wounded people I’ve never met?” Yes! That objection is exactly the autonomy the Law is here to expose. You are not your own. You were bought with a price. You were baptized into a Body — not a symbol, not a metaphor, but the actual crucified and risen Body of Christ. And in that Body, Paul writes, “if one member suffers, all suffer together” (1 Corinthians 12:26). That is not poetic exaggeration. It is the most literal thing Paul says about the Church. When you sin, the wound is not contained to your own conscience. It is a tear in the communion of saints. Our connection in Jesus is not sentimental — it is, as St. Cyril of Alexandria put it, that we are “blended together with one another and with God.” (In Jo. ev., 11,11:PG 74,561.) Picture a family gathered for a meal, and one member is down with the flu — coughing, sharing the serving spoon. Only one person is sick, but everyone at that table is affected. The mood shifts. Others may catch it. The celebration is marred, whether or not anyone names why. That’s a rough picture of what unrepented sin does inside a congregation: it doesn’t announce itself, but it changes the air everyone is breathing. The Weakest Link and the Air We Breathe Paul makes the same point to the Ephesians from the other direction, urging them to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3) — as though unity were something that has to be actively guarded because it is just as actively threatened. A chain holds only as well as its weakest link. Ninety-nine sound links don’t save the chain when the hundredth gives way. In a congregation, the sins we think of as small or private are those fraying links. They erode trust slowly, but just as surely:
The High Cost of Hidden Sin Jesus prayed that his followers “may be one... so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). That means our disunity isn’t a private failing either — it’s evangelically costly. The world is watching whether the people who claim to be one Body actually act like it. And the sin of one member doesn’t stay isolated even when it stays hidden, because, as St. Paul warns the Galatians, “a little leaven leavens the whole batch of dough” (Galatians 5:9):
This is what St. Augustine meant when he called the Church the Corpus Christi mysticum — the mystical Body of Christ — and preached to his congregation, “You are the body of Christ and his members... Be what you see; receive what you are” (Sermon 272). That sermon was preached at the altar, about the bread they were about to receive. It was not a pep talk about trying harder. It was a description of what they already were, true whether they felt it that morning or not. So here, for now, is where this has to sit: you do not get to sin privately, because there is no private compartment in the Body of Christ for it to stay in. That is simply true, whether or not it feels fixable. Next time, the other half of this: what the Body does with a wound it cannot heal by trying harder — which is not nothing, and is not what you’d expect. How have you seen seemingly “private” actions shift the spiritual air in your own communities? Let’s discuss in the comments below. Rev. Dr. Steve Stutz Ordained Lutheran Pastor · Intentional Interim Minister · Certified Spiritual Director La Porte, Texas · Houston Area [Contact] · [LinkedIn] · [The Marginal Note on Substack]  Image: freepik.com I read Sam Rainer’s material when it drops in my inbox. Earlier this month, writing for Church Answers, he laid out the demographic mathematics of congregational decline with the kind of clarity that makes council members uncomfortable in the best possible way. The numbers are not complicated. A congregation loses roughly one percent of its membership to death every year. It replaces that loss with approximately one birth per year. In a congregation of 200, that means losing two to death, gaining one by birth, and losing two more quietly each year. If it loses just two additional people annually — to relocation, to disaffiliation, to the quiet exodus that never announces itself — it would still take twenty-five years to lose half its membership. The decline is real, continuous, and almost completely invisible until it isn't.
Rainer's point is that the slow death of established congregations is not dramatic. It doesn't announce itself with a crisis. It accumulates across decades while the offering plate still circulates, the core group shows up, and the council still meets, and nobody says the thing that everyone is beginning to suspect. One congregation he consulted with lost an average of eight people per year for forty years before anyone fully registered what was happening. What had been a congregation of five hundred was now a congregation of one hundred eighty. Four decades. Nobody noticed. The problem is not that congregations don’t see the decline. It’s that they ask the wrong question when they finally do. I have sat in enough council rooms to know that Rainer is describing something real. The demographic mathematics are accurate and the pattern is recognizable. Every interim minister has walked into a version of this situation — a congregation that has been declining gradually for longer than its current leadership has been alive, now facing the fact of its diminishment for the first time with any clarity. But demographic analysis cannot tell a congregation what it is for. It can only produce one prescription: reverse the trend. Get younger. Attract new families. Change what needs to change before the math catches up completely. That prescription is not wrong. But it is, by itself, insufficient — and in the hands of a congregation that doesn't yet understand why it's in the room it's in, it can actually foreclose the more important conversation. The congregation that knows only that it is declining will spend its interim period trying to stop declining. It will hire consultants, rebrand its signage, launch new programming, and call a pastor who, the search committee hopes, will finally be the one who turns things around. I have watched this cycle repeat itself across three decades of ministry and thirty different congregations. The turnaround strategy is not the problem. The problem is that it is attempted without the prior question having been honestly engaged. That question is not: How do we reverse this trend? It is: What has God been doing in this congregation, and what is God making us for now? Those are not the same question. The first is strategic. The second is a question about the work of the Spirit — one that cannot be answered by demographic analysis alone, no matter how accurate the analysis is. The Spirit who was breathed into the church at Pentecost did not promise congregations numerical growth or institutional survival. The Spirit promised presence, purpose, and a commission that does not expire when the membership rolls shrink. This is not complacency. The interim period is not a crisis to be managed. It is a kairos — a charged, particular moment that carries within it exactly the questions a congregation needs to have answered before it calls its next pastor, restructures its governance, or decides whether it has a future at all. A congregation that enters that season trying to stop decline will use the interim period to search for a solution. A congregation that enters that season asking what God has been doing in it — in its neighborhood, among its people, across its history of faithfulness and failure — will use the interim period to discern a calling. Those two processes produce different congregations and call different pastors — one looking for a fixer, the other for a discerner of vocation. Rainer is right that the slow death of established churches is often invisible until it's nearly complete. But that invisibility persists because the congregation has spent those decades answering the wrong question — optimizing institutional survival rather than inhabiting missional identity. Decline is not the problem to solve; it is the symptom that reveals a deeper question. The congregation that finally sees its situation clearly — that can look at the arc of forty years with honesty rather than denial — has something that the congregation still in denial does not have. It has the beginning of self-knowledge. And self-knowledge, in the context of a congregation in transition, is not a liability. It is the essential precondition for everything the interim period is designed to accomplish. A congregation that can name why it is dying is closer to resurrection than one still trying to outmaneuver the numbers. That is not a demographic observation. It is a theological one. And it is the kind of claim that no amount of church growth data can either confirm or refute — which is precisely why it needs to be made by someone who has sat in those council rooms and watched what actually happens when a congregation finally stops pretending. If your congregation is in that kind of season, the work is not first to fix it, but to understand it. That is the work I help congregations do. Find out more here. Rev. Dr. Steve Stutz Ordained Lutheran Pastor · Intentional Interim Minister · Certified Spiritual Director La Porte, Texas · Houston Area [Contact] · [LinkedIn] · [The Marginal Note on Substack] The Marginal Note — Theology for people who are still paying attention. Free monthly newsletter. Subscribe at Substack. The Missional Secret to a Successful Interim: What Frost and Hirsch Got Right  Image: freepik.com Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch wrote The Shaping of Things to Come in 2003. It is a book about the "missional church"—about what happens when a congregation stops asking “how do we get people to come to us” and starts asking “who are we sent to be for the people around us.” It has been influential in church planting circles for twenty years, but it is not widely read in interim ministry circles.
It should be—especially for congregations in pastoral transition and those guiding them. The "Field of Dreams" Problem The central argument Frost and Hirsch make is that most Western congregations have drifted into what they call an “attractional” mode—a Field of Dreams ecclesiology: build it and they will come. The problem is not only that this mode is evangelistically ineffective in a post-Christendom culture. This is not simply a question of outreach method; it is a question of what the church believes itself to be. The deeper problem is that it produces congregations that have organized their entire identity around their own preferences, their own programs, and their own comfort. They gradually lose the capacity to ask the harder question: What is this congregation for, beyond its own perpetuation? The Anxiety of the Vacancy That question—what are we for?—is exactly the question that comes loose during a pastoral transition. Yet, it is exactly the question most congregations in transition never get around to asking. They are too busy managing the anxiety of the vacancy to sit with anything that uncomfortable. I have served four congregations as an intentional interim pastor. In every single one, the presenting question from the leadership was some version of “Who should our next pastor be?” But in every case, there was a more important question that had to be answered first:
Most congregations assume the first question is practical. In reality, it is the second that determines whether the first can be answered truthfully. Identity Precedes the Search Frost and Hirsch provide a framework for that second question. They call it “incarnational” ministry—the idea that a congregation’s identity is not self-referential but is always defined in relation to its context, its neighborhood, and the specific people it is positioned to serve. A congregation that has done that work knows what kind of pastor it needs. A congregation that hasn’t will almost inevitably call the wrong pastor—or call the right pastor into a situation structured for failure. The Gift of Disruption The interim period is the moment to do this work. Not because the interim pastor has a program for it, but because the departure of a pastor creates a natural disruption of the status quo. This entrenched habit of ecclesial introversion is best addressed when things are already shaken. In that sense, the interim is not merely a gap to be managed but a moment of discernment given by God. When the status quo is disrupted, the question of identity becomes accessible in a way it rarely is when things feel stable. People are already asking who they are; the interim pastor’s job is to ensure they ask it seriously, with good theological tools, before the anxiety of the vacancy pushes them toward a premature answer. Frost and Hirsch may not have intended to write a book about interim ministry, but they diagnosed the very thing that good interim ministry exists to address. Interim ministry, at its best, is the work of helping a congregation recover its sent identity before it seeks its next leader. If your congregation is in transition, the vacancy isn't a problem to be solved—it’s an opening to be seized. Are you looking for a pastor to maintain the “Field of Dreams,” or a leader who will help you walk into the neighborhood you’ve been sent to serve? Rev. Dr. Steve Stutz Ordained Lutheran Pastor · Intentional Interim Minister · Certified Spiritual Director La Porte, Texas · Houston Area [Contact] · [LinkedIn] · [The Marginal Note on Substack] |
