# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S421
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 421

having been given or being able to provide a rationale for doing them
(doctrine).

... [DJoctrine and practice do not exist in autonomous spheres. ...
Doctrine defines “why” a thing (practice) is the way it is. Practice is
“what” we do.

... Practices contradicting doctrine are unacceptable. Since both
doctrine and practice flow from the same fundamental reality, we can
no more be lenient with one than with the other, We cannot allow for
ourselves a freedom in practice that we would never allow for ourselves

in doctrine. ... The cliché “what you are doing speaks so loudly I cannot

hear what you are saying” has something to do with how practice cor-

Tesponds to our doctrine. ... Even a negligible omission in practice can

signal a larger change in doctrine.'? (Examples and scriptural citations

omitted)

One concise sentence from the Lutheran Church—Canada’s
CTCR nicely encapsulates the point: “Properly understood, prac-
tice is not just what we do, but what is required because of what
we believe.””° In the Commission’s Report, what is permitted
seems to be a more prevalent concern.

Lutheran (and Missourian) theology has steadfastly claimed to
bear the true confession of the catholic (that is, universal) faith, re-
fusing to accept.a sectarian label.?' Consider this question: (without
expecting their agreement with its conclusions) could a Roman,
Baptist, or Presbyterian theologian recognize this document as a
statement of the scriptural and confessional “Theology and Prac-
tice of ‘the Divine Call’ ”?

The strong sense that the answer would be “no” finally con-
vinced this writer that a Minority Report was necessary. One fears
that the CTCR Report’s practical sections could more accurately
be described as “sectarian”—that is, claiming application only
within one particular communion fellowship, and not for the entire
Church. In the Commission’s Report, human considerations that
would permit certain practices appear to undermine and signifi-
cantly erode the theology regarding the Divinity of the Call and the
office, especially with regard to the pastor’s permanent tenure. At a
time when many pulpits are already vacant, the potential implica-
tions for congregations and pastors are very troubling.

(Henceforth this paper’s commentary will cite specific areas of
disagreement with the Commission’s Report, following the CTCR
Report’s outline and employing identical subtitles in most in-
stances.)

The Lutheran Confessions

Any discussion of how the Lutheran Confessions treat the the-
ology of the Divine Call must certainly include Augsburg Confes-
sion V, the primary article on the office of the Ministry, which
emerges theologically from Art. IV.” Art. IV is, of course, the chief
article on justification, the doctrine upon which “‘the church stands
or falls.” To understand the close relationship between the Gospel
and the theology of the Divine Call, one must see the tight linkage
between Art. IV and Art. V. Note the seamless line of expression:

It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin
and righteousness before God by our own merils, works, or satisfac-
tions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous be-
fore God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, -when we believe
that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and
righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and
reckon this faith as righteousness, as Paul says in Romans 3:21-26 and
4:5.

To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is,
provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through
“means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he
pleases, in those who hear the Gospel. And the Gospel teaches that we
have a gracious God, not by our own merits but by the merit of Christ,
when we believe this.

Condemned are the Anabaptists and others who teach that the Holy
Spirit comes to us through our own preparation, thoughts, and works
without the external word of the Gospel.” (emphasis added)

Here in these two articles is the Divine Call emerging from the
Gospel. The office of the ministry was established by God so that
we may “obtain such faith.” Condemned are those who teach that
anyone may take that office of the ministry upon themselves
“through their own preparation, thoughts, and works without the
external word of the Gospel.” Like the call of the Gospel itself, the
Divine Call into the office comes from outside, through an external
word. The Holy Spirit is at work in and through the Gospel, and
also at work in and through the Divine Call, so that He may work
through the office of the ministry, so that He may deliver such faith
to us. The Divine Call is not itself the Gospel, but the Divine Call is
a call of and from God in the Gospel, not the Law.

From AC V we understand that the “Call” is an invitation orig-
inating from God and God’s institution. AC XIV (which the Com-
mission’s Report does discuss) presupposes AC V, which says
“God instituted the office of the ministry.” When God institutes
something, His divine Word gives it permanence. A man receives
the Divine Call into the office established by this enduring divine
Word. Outside of that divine Word, one cannot threaten or remove
the man from the office without doing violence to the office and
the sanctity of the Divine Call itself.

While not making explicit the connections described above, the
CTCR Report’s overview of the Augsburg Confession does pre-
sent an explanation of the interrelationships between its various ar-
ticles. That overview begins thusly:

As we consider Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession, it is im-
portant, firsi of all, to note where this Article appears within the Con-
fession. Articles I through VI set forth the Reformation message based
on the theology of the ancient church and her creeds. That message then
shapes the ecclesiological portion of the AC (Articles VII through
XVI).*4 (emphasis added)

Ecclesiology is a subset of theology. It is a necessary and valid
perspective from which to understand the Divine Call. The CTCR
Report’s reasoning does indeed proceed from church history and
ecclesiology.

Yet the Divine Call concerns much more than the Church. It
concerns the Gospel itself. History and ecclesiology are not the
best starting points for understanding the Divine Call. When the
Gospel is not given preeminence, any reasoning, practical deriva-
tions, and conclusions about the Divine Call are likely to be rooted
in phenomenology more than theology.*> The connection to the
Gospel cannot be presumed. It needs explicit emphasis so that the
Call is understood as proceeding from the Gospel.

At this point, however, we will continue following the CTCR
Report’s reasoning.

The Lutherans were not seeking to establish a new church’®,
and the Augsburg Confession was presented with the hope that
schism could be avoided.’ Several years of negotiations proved,
however, that the Roman Church would not admit its errors. For
this reason, Luther and his allies proceeded in the Smalcald Arti-
cles and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope to
record their final position on their legitimacy as Church outside of
the Roman communion. Effectively, this occurred when Roman
bishops refused to ordain their pastors, and the Lutherans pro-
ceeded to ordain their own. In a significant sense, therefore, the
historical recognition of the Lutheran church as an independent
entity separate from Rome” derives from its theology and prac-
tice of the Divine Call. #

The Lutheran church nonetheless recognizes itself and its min-
istry continuing in an unbroken chain that extends from the origi-
nal apostolic ministry established by Christ. The Call is divine be-
cause it places a man into an office and ministry which are
themselves divinely instituted. Other calls are not divine because
the offices into which they place a man are not divinely, but hu-
manly instituted. *°

2004 Convention Workbook