# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S420
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

420 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

ians boast, but through the mouth of a man who is carrying out his law-
ful right.'' ...

... The call, therefore, is not to be despised. For it is not sufficient if
a man has thé Word and the pure doctrine. He must also have the as-
surance of his call, and whoever enters without this assurance enters
only in order to kill and destroy (John 10:10). For God never prospers
the work of those who are not called. Even if they teach something good
and useful, it does not edify. Thus in our time the sectarians? have the
vocabulary of faith in their mouths, but they do not produce any fruit.
Their chief aim is to attract men to their false opinions. To remain in
their saving task, those who have a sure and holy call must often bear
many severe conflicts, as must those whose teaching is pure and sound,
against the devil with his constant and endless wiles and against the
world with its attacks. In these conflicts what is one to do whose call is
unsure and whose doctrine is corrupt?

Therefore we who are in the ministry of the Word have this comfort,
that we have a heavenly and holy office; being legitimately called to
this, we prevail over all the gates of hell (Matt. 16:18). On the other
hand, it is dreadful when the conscience says: “You have done this
without a call!” Here a man without a call is shaken by such terror that
he wishes he had never heard the Word he preaches. For by his disobe-
dience he sullies all his works, regardless of how good they are, so that
even his greatest works and deeds become his greatest sins.

Thus you see how necessary it is to boast and glory in our ministry

this way. In the past, when I was only a young theologian and doctor, I

thought it was imprudent of Paul in his epistle to boast of his call so

often. But I did not understand his purpose, for | did not know that the
ministry of the Word of God was so weighty a matter. I did not know
anything about the doctrine of faith and a true conscience. In the schools
and churches no certainty was being taught, but everything was filled
with the sophistic trifles and nursery rhymes of the canonists and com-
mentators on the Sentences. Therefore no one could understand how
forceful and powerful is this holy and spiritual boasting about a call,
which serves first to the glory of God, secondly to the advancement of
our own ministry, and also to our own benefit and to that of the people.

When we boast this way, we are not looking for prestige in the world or

praise from men or money, or for pleasure or the good will of the world.

The reason for our proud boasting is that we are in a divine calling and

in God’s own work, and that the people need to be assured of our call-

ing, in order that they may know that our word is in fact the Word of

God. This, then, is not a vain pride; it is a most holy pride against the

devil and the world. And it is a true humility in the sight of God.'*

Clearly, the divinity of the Call was for Luther a matter of the
utmost importance. A proper understanding of the Call enables
both preacher and hearers to recognize the gifts delivered in Word
and Sacrament as God’s own. This is simply a specific application
of an undercurrent throughout Luther’s theology: certainty is found
within and from God’s Word, and no where else.

(Anyone seeking to understand the Theology and Practice of
“the Divine Call” will want to be familiar with the foregoing quo-
tations and comments, which were not included in the Commis-
sion’s Report.)

The CTCR Report’s Approach:

“Sectarian” Practice Disconnected
from “Catholic” Theology?

In accordance with the assignment from 1992 Res. 3-09A, “To
Study Theology and Practice of ‘the Divine Call,’ ” the CTCR Re-
port was produced through the collaboration of the Commission,
the Council of Presidents, and the Synod’s two seminaries. Unlike
some other documents prepared by the CTCR alone, this Report
pieces together several differing (if not competing) theological and
institutional interests.

On the whole, the introductory sections on “Theology” are com-
mendable, but one crucial connection requires a more clear and ex-
plicit discussion (like that presented in the next section of this opin-
ion). The fine summary and discussion of scriptural texts entitled
“The Biblical Witness”? concludes with two points crucial for crit-
ically assessing the CTCR’s Report:

2004 Convention Workbook

The New Testament appears to be more concerned with the qualifi-
cations and characteristics of the individual called to serve than with
the procedure for placing him into office. It also seems more important
for the church to know that the man who occupies the pastoral office
has been placed there by God.'4

This would indicate that the CTCR Report’s discussion of the
“Practice” .of the Divine Call (containing three-fourths of its con-
tent) derives primarily from human reason and observations of past
practice. These later sections on practice certainly do not naturally
and cogently emerge from the prior sections of theology, but ap-
pear to employ them only as required points of departure.

The astute reader of the Commission’s Report may easily gain
the impression that matters of internal synodical polity and struc-
ture weigh heavily upon the latter part of the document.'S These
considerations are unlikely to establish the legitimacy of the Re-
port’s theological conclusions and practical proposals.'*

That is unfortunate at a time when whatever common theologi-
cal understanding and shared “Practice of the Divine Call” that
once existed seems to be dissipating. A participant in the discus-
sions described the need for clear teaching on the subject:

Serious theology needs constantly to call the church’s practice back
to the pure standards of her doctrine. It is a mark of decline when the-
ologizing is used instead to justify loose, pragmatic practice. In this way
unsound practice ultimately leads to unsound doctrine, instead of sound
doctrine being allowed to cure the ills of unsound practice. It is easy for
the church, especially in an age of pragmatism, to drift into loose prac-
tice. In call matters all sorts of practical anomalies have arisen, and have
been accepted apparently without any serious theological analysis.’”

One excellent paper on the Divine Call begins from this essen-
tial connection: “According to the Lutheran Confessions theology
and practice are a complete and inextricable unity. ... In respect to
any and all articles of faith, if the doctrine, practice or worship is
errant or not in joint, all will be errant and out of joint.”'® Another
printed essay, distributed to attendees of the CTCR’s August 2002
Model Theological Conference in Phoenix, describes doctrine and
practice as “two sides of one coin.”

Doctrine expresses itself in certain practices and embedded in our
practices is what we believe, often before a particular doctrine is for-
mulated. ... Both doctrine and practice derive their content from the un-
derlying realities of the inner Trinitarian life and the salvific events of
Christ’s life, which include his sending the Spirit. These divine reali-
ties are conveyed through, preserved authoritatively and are accessible
to us in the Scriptures (norma normans). In point of time both doctrine
and practice existed before the Scriptures, but these inspired writings
are our only source of doctrine (FC Ep Para 1). ...

Doctrinal formulations arose not only as a response to misformula-
tions, as with Arius, (e.g., the Nicene Creed), but also because certain
practices like indulgences were judged to contradict the foundation of
faith, which then may not have been fully formulated. ... People often
did the right or the wrong things (practice) long before theological ex-
planations for doing or not doing them were given (doctrine).

In beginning our theology with the cause (doctrine) and moving to
the effect (practice), we follow the examples of Paul in Romans and the
Augsburg Confession and the Apology. Practice flows from our doc-
trine and reflects it. ... This biblical order is logical, but it can give the
impression that core beliefs can be isolated from practices and so we
might conclude that our practice can really be something different from
what we believe. We might further assume we can be freer with our
practices than with our doctrinal formulations. But since both doctrine
and practice derive their content and form from the same reality, which
is the Trinitarian God in His saving acts, then the strictures for one are
also required for the other. (Cf. AC and Ap)

Schleiermacher is notorious for reversing. the traditional dogmatic
order and beginning with the life of the Christian community (practice;
ethics) as the norm of church doctrine. What Christians are observed
doing (practice) was key in determining doctrine. ... In spite of
Schleiermacher’s negatives, in both our secular and religious lives we
experience the effects before we know (determine) the causes. We ob-
serve and do things (practice) before we understand the things in them-
selves (doctrine). Many Christians do the right things (practice) without