# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S402
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS 401

ALC LCMS

It Kasemann is right, then faithiuiness 10 Scripture
would require a modification of our understanding of the
umity of theology and of the church to include a greater
degree of theological diversity than has been customary for
us.” Duane 4. Priebe, “The Historical-Critical Method and
the Method of the Lutheran Confessions.” FODT. 1978, p
a

This means that a passage of Scripture does not have
a single historical meaning. but that different layers of
meaning are discernibie within the Bible itself. For example
a saving of Jesus or incident in his lite may have had one
meaning during his tife on earth. it may have been remem-
bered in a different sense in the tradition of the churchaher
Easter, and may be preserved in the Gospels with still
other meanings. At times Jesus’ original meaning may no
longer be recoverable Ut Ernst Kasemann 1s correct —
which | beleve him to be—in his description of the
theological diversity of the New Testament. then the unity
of Scripture 1s to be understood as a dynamic unity in the
dialogue of the parts, not as the more static unity of
uniformity and noncontradicion.” Duane A. Priebe. “The
Nature of Biblical Linity and Its implications for the Linuty of
the Church,” FODT, 1978, pp. 89-91.

E. “The issue at this juncture which Lutherans must
face and which the church catholic cannot avoid. 1s the
hiatus between the ‘functional’ Christology of the New
Testament and the ‘ontological’ Christology of tater eccies-
tology. Most surely there are ontological dimensions to
New Testament expressions, but that does not elminiate the
factthat myth’ was utilized, Itis the utilization of ‘myth’ and
the ‘ontological convictions’ of the fater church which
impels some contemporary scholars to challenge. once
again, the Nicene and Chaicedonic conclusions about the
true humanity and true divinity of Christ.

“At an earlier time it was liberal Protestant theo-
logians who challenged the thesis that jesus ‘is eternally
begotten of the Father... true Cod from true God... one in
Being with the Father.’ They are willing to deal in Abelardian
Categorres, that he was ‘an ideal man'—‘the ideal man *

Now the debate originates in scholars like Kung
one trom a classic Christian tradition, who also centers on
the manhood ot Jesus. His Christology ts ‘from below’ in
contrast to council dogmas which dealt with Christology
trom above {Cf On Being a Christian by Hans Kung. pp
444-50), And all kinds of storms will rage in consequence

“The point to be made 1s that we may never arrive ata
complete Christology, but we must always work away from
an incomplete or truncated one. Lutherans cannot insulate
themselves from issues which arise in other parts of the
body of Christ, and our theologians will not serve our
constituents well uniess they take the lead in moving
toward completeness, unless they can see the tentative
elements in all Christological expression, and deal with
them. fach of us alone. and all of us together must work
with every major Christofogical theme and question. as
honest scholars, as well as earnest believers.” Walter
Wietzke, “important Issues Facing Lutheranism Today.” pp.
4—5. This unpublished peper was presented to the Com-
mussion on Fellowship on May 23, 1978

APPENDIX A

LCMS/ALC
Commission J Toward Understanding
on Fellowship f One Another

29 FEB. 1980

atthe last meeting of the Commission on Fellowship of ALC/LCMS it was suggested that an
effort be made to identify a few of the important points of differences that seem to keep the two
church bodies from being able to fully and honestly embrace each other in full Christian fetlowship. ft
may be beneficial for us to state such differences in all candor and forthrightness so that we can find
ways to remove barriers to unity. Christian sisters and brothers should be able to be honest and direct
with each other. In the delineation that follows, such an attempt is made. Hopefully the effort will not
appear judgmental.

The presentation simply attempts to raise a few points. There probably are issues at every point
of doctrine that could be disputed and debated. The points that are discussed are prefaced with a
General statement about the wide basis of agreement out of which the difference grew

{In accord with the above procedure it is important to recognize that we come froma common
confessional background. We are of the same Lutheran lineage. There, of course, are historical factors
that have made us what we are and some of the historical conditioning factors arey

Ethnic/Historical Conditioning Factors

ALC LCMS

The A.L.C. isa merger of churches coming The L.C.M.S. isachurchthat comes froma
from Lutheran origins of different ethnic and rather homogenous German ethnic background
ecclesiastical/contessional backgrounds. There- and has experienced a consistent, strong eccles-
fore its synodical loyalties are seen in light of — iastical/confessional loyalty of over 12S years and
wider ecumenical possibilities. therefore has an intense synodical consciousness.

Understanding of Authority

Both A.L.C. and L.C.M.S. affirm that they accept the Holy Scriptures as the only and true
authority in all matters of Christian faith and life. But it is obvious in intersynodical relations that there
is a definite difference in the way authority itself is understood by each church.

Before we describe the differences between the A.L.C./L.C_M.S., it probably will be helpful to
quickly review what the phenomenon expressed by the word “authority” actually means.

From the viewpoint of religion in general and Christian theology in particular, authority is quite
generally understood as the right and power to declare what is obligatory in doctrine and practice.
This idea of the right and power to determine ultimate beliefs has traditionally been coupled with the
presupposition that there must be one voice through which supreme authority is expressed. The

18

CONCLUSION

This report provides documentation from the official resolutions, statements, and representa-
tives of the ALC and LCMS which confirm the conclusions of the FODT report.

Section | demonstrates that theologians of The American Lutheran Church generally affirm the
appropriateness of the historicat-critical method for use in the study of Holy Scripture, whereas The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has rejected this method because it is inconsistent with the
Scriptures’ revelatory character as the Word of God and frequently results in conclusions that
challenge Biblical authority, truthfulness, and unity. Section !1, on “The Lutheran Confessions:
Subscription and Diversity.” illustrates the position of the LCMS that the entire doctrinal content of
the Lutheran confessional writings remains valid today because it is drawn from the Word of God, as
well as the tendency of ALC theologians to maintain the possibility of dissent from confessional
Positions. The final section shows that whereas ALC theologians generally understand agreement on
the Gospel in a narrow sense as the sufficient basis for church fellowship, the LCMS holds that because
all articles of faith are integrally related to the Gospel in its narrower sense, agreement in doctrine and
all its articles is necessary for the establishment of church fellowship.”

The divergent official positions of The American Lutheran Church and The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod on the legitimacy of ordaining women to the pastoral office is perhaps their most
visible disagreement. This significant difference cannot be considered apart from the divergent
attitudes of the two church bodies toward diversity in doctrine and the use of historical criticism in
interpreting Holy Scripture.

The assignment given to the LCMS commissioners in 1979 Resolution 3-03 was to distribute to
the Synod ‘‘a clear and documented statement on the existing areas of doctrinal disagreement
between the two church bodies,” not to draw conclusions nor to make recommendations regarding
future relationships between The American Lutheran Church and The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod. Responsibility in this area belongs to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.”?

Together with the ALC representatives to the Commission on Fellowship, the LCMS
commissioners are persuaded that it can be ‘beneficial for us to state such differences {as exist
between the ALC and LCMS] in all candor and forthrightness so that we can find ways to remove
barriers to unity. Christian sisters and brothers should be able to be honest and direct with each
other.” 4 “Iris in this spirit and with the prayer that this report may contribute to understanding and
thereby promote ultimate consensus between the ALC and LCMS that it has been prepared and is
being shared with the members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.”

The LCMS Commissioners
October 1980

The interrelatedness of these three areas of disagreement 1s suggested by statements such as the following by
Wenzel Loh: “The decisive difficulty has proved to be historical-critical scholarship, which ts becoming increasingly
decisive in theology This is true because this approach has dismayingly demonstrated the historical variety of understanding
the faith in the history of the church and already in the New Testament itself, and also because it showed the historical
conditionality of every credal formulation. In this way there has been an increasing erosion of contidence to be able to make
any binding statement at all in view of the universal historical relativity of thought and speech. This also called into question
confidence in the capacity of credal formulations of a specific ume, e.g., the councils of the ancient church or the sixteenth
century, to obligate the whole church." Wenzel Lohft. “Legitimate Limits of Doctrinal Pluralism According to the Formula of
Concord,” The Sxteenth Century Journal 8 (1977), pp. 26—27. Ct. also John Reumann, “The Augsburg Confession in Light of
Biblical Interpretation.” LWF Report 9 (June 1980), pp 3—34.

2 The Commission on Theology and Church Relations was given the assignment in 1977, which was renewed in 1979.
“to prepare a comprehensive study and report on the nature and implications of the concept of fellowship.” Cf. 1977
Resolution 3-02A and 1979 Resolution 3-03. tt rs anticipated that this report will be completed early in 1981

2"Toward Understanding One Another,” an initial draft of the differences between the ALC and LCMS which was
prepared by the ALC representatives to the Commission on Fellowship tot discussion at its Feb. 2—March 1 meeting in St
Louis. See Appendix A, p. 18.

7

Papacy is built upon this concept of authority

One of the main points of the Reformation protest was against the above concept of papal
authority. Luther and subsequently the Lutheran Confessions, however, not only disavowed the
legitimacy of papat authority but more importantly came out clear and strong for the final and
exclusive authority of the Gospel. The right and power to determine matters of Christian faith and life
is the Gospel as the preached and living Word

There is some difficulty with this understanding of authority in that such a view of authority
does not satisfy people who want clear and definite external order as well as a quick and easy way to
solve doctrinal disputes. Obviously it will make a difference in a person's as well as a church's concept
of the Gospel, Scriptural authority, and hermeneutics, as to the presuppositions that are subsumed
about authority. The following is an attempt to isolate the overarching similarities and then to state
some of the significant differences of the A.L.C. and L.C.M.5. ,

Both A.L.C. and L.C.M.S. are obviously and totally committed to an evangelical understanding
of authority. Neither church body would like to be thought of as a narrow, exclusivistic, authoritarian
church body. But in spite of the pervasive commitment to a Gospel-centered understanding of
authority, clear differences are apparent

ALC LCMS

The A.L.C. tends to understand religious
and doctrinal authority as something that can
only be exercised in a broken human manner.
A.L.C. does not believe that such a stance leads
to relativism but that it does demand a posture of
certain open questions.

The L.C.M.S. tends to understand religious
and doctrinal authority as something that is
perfect and absolute. This stand tends to lead
L.C.M.S. people to a posture that requires total
consensus on all issues.

Holy Scriptures

The L.C.M.S. and the A.L.C. both stress, with great emphasis, that the Holy Scriptures are truly
the Word of God and the only jnfallible authority in all matters of faith and life. When one remembers
the many discussions representatives of these two church bodies have had with each other (during the
past two decades alone} about the Word of God and Scripture, it becomes obvious that both church
bodies are genuinely committed to a rigorous Biblical basis to all of their theology. A reflection on
developments since pulpit and altar fellowship was first declared in 1969 also makes clear that there
are great differences about the church bodies’ view of the Holy Scriptures:

ALC

To the A.L.C., it is important to compre-
hend the Word of God as means of grace as well
as ultimate authority. The A.L.C. tooks upon the
Holy Scriptures as the Word of God of divine
origin, but likewise the Scriptures are human
documents coming out of a variety of identifiable
historical circumstances. Consequently the Scrip-
tures are to be studied, translated, and inter-

LCMS

The L.C.M.S. has a tendency to sub-
ordinate the Word of God as means of grace to
Word of God as ultimate authority. The L.C.M.S.
stresses the identity of the words of the Holy
Scriptures and Word of God. Indeed recognizing
the human, historical dimension to the sacred
Scriptures as the inspired Word of God and
without error, they convey only accurate in-

19