# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S403
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

402 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

ALC LCMS

preted as divinely inspired, as well as historically
written records and testimony of God’s living,
revealing Word.

formation in all areas of human history and
knowledge.

The Gospel

The A.L.C. and L.C.M.5, both claim that the Gospel is the center of the Old and New Testament
Scriptures and that the message of Jesus Christ is the heart of the Gospel. However, when it comes to
the articulation of what the Gospet is, it is obvious there are differences of emphasis:

ALC LCMS

The A.L.C. stresses the Gospel as the viva
vox evangelii and concentrates on the Kerygma
No doubt this emphasis tends to appear to
L.C.M.S. people as though the Gospel ts reduced
to a rather subjective message. Fear of L.C.M.S.
about A.L.C.’s use of the historical/critical ap-
proach in Biblical studies probably stems from
this perception.

The L.C.M.S. lays emphasis upon the Gos-
pel in all its doctrinal articles. To A.L.C. people it
appears that this L.C.M.S. emphasis tends to
reduce the Gospel to an extended set of doctrinal
propositions. it at times appears to A.L.C. people
that in its strong emphasis on doctrinal purity,
the L.C.M.S. comes very close to subordinating
the love principle to the truth principle.

Hermeneutics

Both A.L.C. and L.C.M.S. would insist that they follow the historic Lutheran hermeneutical
method. Both churches insist that the Scriptures should, first of all, be interpreted from their center in
Jesus Christ. Likewise, both insist that Scripture be interpreted by the Scriptures, A.L.C. and L.C.M.S.
both have statements about inspiration as being very essential in their whole understanding of
Scripture, and the word “inerrancy,” which seems to cause so much problem between the two
churches, is used by both, There ts no doubt that both A.L.C. and L.C.M.S. have been influenced by
the fundamentalism of the first half of this century with regard to the use of such terms as inerrancy.

ALC LCMS

The A.L.C. does not advocate an easy
transition from inspiration to inerrancy. From an
A.L.C. perspective it appears that many L.C.M.S.
teachers have, themselves, qualified what they
mean by the term “inerrancy.” However, it
appears to the A.L.C, that these qualifications
mean very little in interchurch discussions.

The L.C.M.S. proceeds from the axia that
Scripture should be interpreted by Scripture;
that inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture need
to be recognized for an adequate understanding
of Scripture; that other interpretive tools, func-
tions, and methods are not useful in the interpre-
tation of Scripture.

In the area of hermeneutics, the most crucial points of difference lie in the use of other

2

interpretive tools, assumptions, and methods. This can be illustrated most clearly by reference to the
word “Irberal” and what that connotes :n the two churches.

ALC LCMS

in the L.C.M.S. liberal 1s usually used in a
pejorative, monolithic way. Tothe L.C.MS. Itber-
al theology proceeds from certain presupposi-
tions like these:

The A.L.C. cannot conscientiously con-
strue libera! as always meaning something neg-
ative. The A.L.C. distinguishes between liberal
theology and !iberal scholarship. A.L.C. people
tend to conclude that liberal scholarship means
using ali historical and etymological and archae-
ological tools to understand texts. A.L.C. scholars
do not attribute evil, or maliciousness. to the
tools per se or to the methods per se. ALC
people. therefore, without deviousness or apol-
ogy understand themselves to be liberal scholars.

1. Jesus was only a man like other men.

2. What theologians must do is get behind the
heterogeneity in all religious expression
down to the psychological elements basic to
all religious expression and there discover
the unifying factors and accessible Common
denominators.

Naturally. L.C.M.S. representatives rightly con-
clude from these presuppositions that I:beral
theology would be destructive to the clear
definite, historical reality of the Gospel

Ordination

Both the A.L.C. and the L.C.M.S. regard the office of the ministry as having a divine institunion
and hoid that there is a distinction between the pastoral vocation and the universal priesthood of ail
believers. Neither the A.L.C. nor the L.C.MS. believe that the pastoral office is a continuation of the
priesthood of the Old Testament, nor that it consists of certain rights and powers vested in the apostles
which only the apostles and their successors can confer on others. Neither church believes that an
indelible character is conferred upon the candidates by ordination. Both church bodies exhibit a
strong sense of the vocation of the pastor being that of shepherd. Both churches stress the pont that
pastors are called by congregations and that it is on the basis of the call from the congregations that
candidates are ordained

ALC LCMS

in the actual exercise of the pastoral
vocation, it seems to A.L.C. people that the
L.C.M.S. draws a more rigid difference between
clergy and laity than prevails in the A.L.C. It may
be that the consciousness of differences is in
terms of expression rather than essence, but it
does appear to A.L.C. people that there is more

Inthe A.L.C. there is alot of emphasis that.
when one is called to the holy ministry, we are
talking about the ministry of the whole church
A.L.C. people tend to emphasize the functional
nature of the pastoral office and lay stress upon
the fact that the pastora! vocation is one that
exists only in the context of the universal priest-

hood of a priestly caste, concern, and mentality in the
L.C.M.S. than there is among the A.L.C. clergy
and laity
21

Conclusion

Lutheran Self-Criticism

Another area that deserves consideration, expressing some of the differences between the
A.L.C. and the L.C.M.S., is that of how we are able to critically look at ourselves. Each of us legitimately
proceeds from our own Confessional self-understanding and identification, but A.L.C. people
believe there is a sharp divergence either in the willingness or capacity of the L.C.M.S. to be rigorously

self-critical.

It is the mark of totalitarianism in both religion and politics to insist on monolithic
understanding, to suppress dissent, to discredit premises which undergird the lives of others, to
protect constituents from other points of view, to entrust guidance to an oligarchy, and to be fearful of
revision. When A.L.C. teachers use language patterns suggesting that repentance encompasses the
whole of life, that means ruing not only moral infidelity but doctrinal inflexibility. A.L.C. people are
not seeking thereby to destroy the truth; they only want to say that all human formulations have a
tentativeness within them. They do not want Christian doctrine to become the occasion for idolatry
Our trust is in God, not in human formulation about Him.

Lutherans have freely criticized others. They have postured themselves as guardians of the
truth~but they err on two counts; they have been loveless in their relationships and they have used

truth as a dividing rather than a uniting tool

Criticism from without will always have some effect. It may reinforce prejudices already in
control or it can generate honest review which eventuates in change. But the desired condition is that
critical self-analysis emerge from within. To have that, a church must not only believe in the
Reformation, but carry through the continuing reformation of the body of Christ. Without this.
churches become sects. While conscious of our own flaws, we would charitably suggest that the
L.C.M.§. has much tojearn in this respect. The best of both worlds would bear much fruit if we would
have vigorous evangelical, academially rigorous self-analysis as a natural part of each church.

22