# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S424
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

424 ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

ences would be unacceptable under such a way of thinking. In a
marvel of ambiguity, the document says: “the Lutheran and
Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to
one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding basic
truths” (40). What does it mean that differences are “open to one
another?” Are all differences open to one another? Are the differ-
ences between Christians and Muslims open to one another? Fur-
ther, why do not the differences referred to in the “Joint Declara-
tion” destroy the consensus? This is not even addressed.

There is a new and dangerous dialogical methodology at work
here. It seems to be possible to affirm both that a theological state-
ment is true and that what contradicts it is true as well. According to
these laws of dialog (or is it lawlessness?), there appear to be no dif-
ferences that matter, none that can be said to destroy “consensus.”

Imprecise theological language

The “Joint Declaration” is filled with imprecise, even at times
meaningless, language. Unfortunately, this is also true of its theo-
logical language. There are many examples of this. But the exam-
ple that is most important, and far-reaching, has to do with the doc-
ument’s use of faith, especially the preposition used to designate
faith’s role in the justification of a sinner.

Faith, of course, especially the sola fide, was the primary point
of disagreement between Lutherans and Catholics in the 16th cen-
tury. The primary way Lutherans expressed the role of faith was
by means of the preposition, “through,” through faith.’ They spoke
this way in order to indicate that faith was an instrument,® a means
through which sinners receive the justification of God, that is, faith,
as opposed to works.

Now, this document uses the phrase “in faith.” Occasionally,
“by faith” is used, especially when alluding to a quote from the
Confessions.9 But, the primary way of referring to justifying faith
in the “Joint Declaration” is “in faith.” Nowhere, not once, does
the phrase “through faith” appear in this document. This is ques-
tionable, not only because it is new, but primarily because it is am-
biguous. What does it mean? How is it appropriate to achieve con-
sensus on the basis of language that is ambiguous?

More importantly, however, this language is dangerous. By fail-
ing to state clearly the instrumental nature of justifying faith, we
fail to identify clearly the cause of our justification as found en-
tirely in God’s saving action in Christ. The cause of our faith is
outside of us, not “in faith,” not in us. When we speak this way,
we rob Christ of all the glory in the justification of sinners and we
deprive sinners of the maximum comfort which can only be gotten
when Christ is the sole cause of salvation. The document’s treat-
ment of the assurance of salvation is also, at best, ambiguous. It is
a good example of how the primary purpose of the “Joint Declara-
tion” is to maximize agreement and minimize the disagreements.
It says that “we confess together that the faithful can rely on the
mercy and promises of God (34).'° This is much softer than saying
that the promises of God are fully reliable. This is evident when,
in the next sentence, it says the faithful “can build on the effective
promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of
this grace” (34). Can it be both that the Promise alone is reliable
and that we can build on it and so be sure?

The section on the good works of the justified is also ambigu-
ous. On the one hand, it says that good works “contribute to growth
in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is pre-
served and communion with Christ is deepened” (38). On the other
hand, it affirms that “righteousness as acceptance by God and shar-
ing in the righteousness of Christ is always complete” (39). Is it
both complete and deepened by our good works? This goes beyond
ambiguity. It also self-contradictory.

Untrue to history

It is especially troubling to note that the “Joint Declaration”
does not take the history of the theological differences with the
Roman Catholics seriously enough. It does not sufficiently honor
the integrity of either side. How can it be true that “nothing is

2001 Convention Workbook

thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations [of
the 16-th century] related to the doctrine of justification” when they
are relegated to the status of ‘““‘salutary warnings’ to which we must
attend in our teaching and practice” (42)? What is this “new light”
(41) which has suddenly been cast upon matters which were con-
sidered by our fathers to have been of the utmost urgency and
which, from the Lutheran side, concerned the “chief article of the
Christian faith”?"!

The “Joint Declaration” declares that “The teaching of the
Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under
the condemnations from the Council of Trent” (41). This is cer-
tainly true. However, the teaching presented in this declaration is
not the teaching of the 16th century. !2 It is misleading, and less
than honest, to suggest that it is.

In our proper search for understanding and unity based upon
theological dialog, we have to be more honest with the historical
theological differences and treat our various theological heritages
with great integrity and respect.

Is this a breakthrough?

President Barry’s final question is: Is this Declaration a signifi-
cant breakthrough in a doctrine that has long divided Rome from
Wittenberg? Again, the answer is easy: No.

First of all, as even the document itself shows, there remain
very significant theological differences, in language, theological
elaboration and emphasis, regarding the doctrine of justification. It
is not a “breakthrough.” In fact, the document shows that very little
headway at all has been made.

Secondly, it cannot constitute a significant breakthrough, since
such a breakthrough will only be achieved through honest dialogue,
each side not only seeking what unites, but also honoring what still
divides. A breakthrough predicated upon a faulty methodology,
upon imprecise theological language and upon an ahistorical treat-
ment of our foundational documents is no breakthrough at all. Those
who in this round of the discussions represented the Lutheran” side
failed. We should not only view this document with alarm for the
potential damage to faith it could cause, but we should seek every
opportunity to enter the dialogue with the Roman Catholics. Other-
wise, who will fairly and with integrity represent the Lutheran Con-
fessions and deal honestly with the condemnations?

Adopted by the Department of Systematic Theology Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis, MO at its regular 9/17/97 meeting.

Dr. Charles Arand
Prof. Jerold Eickmann
Dr. John F. Johnson
Dr. Robert Kolb

Dr. Thomas Manteufel
Dr. Norman Nagel

Dr. J.A.O. Preus

NOTES

1. All references to the “Joint Declaration” are by paragraph
numbers, as indicated in the document itself.

2. The ELCA is, of course, now officially one of these subscrib-
ing Lutheran churches, having voted overwhelmingly in favor of the
“Joint Declaration” at its August, 1997 church-wide convention.

3. Such as the relationship between the Word of God and
church doctrine, ecclesiology, authority in the church, ministry, the
sacraments, all of which are mentioned in paragraph 40 of the
“Joint Declaration.” What is not mentioned at all is the role of
Mary and the saints in salvation. In almost humorous irony, the
very week that the ELCA overwhelmingly approved the “Joint De-
claration,” Newsweek carried a front-cover, multi-page article on
the powerful movement within the church to prevail upon Pope
John Paul to make an infallible declaration making Mary co-re-