# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S50
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

50 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

participants declined to include the statement of the LCMS
representatives in the official minutes of the dialog proceedings.

So far as future conversations are concerned, the repre-
sentatives of the Missouri Synod agree that in the pursuit of
a God-pleasing fellowship it will undoubtedly be more fruitful
and productive to conduct such discussions between individual
church bodies on a one-to-one basis. The participating Re-
formed bodies represented too wide a spectrum for effective
dialog, while some of the Lutheran representatives occasionally
engaged in condemnation and even ridicule of Missouri's doc-
trinal position rather than focusing on pertinent theological
emphases of the Lutheran Confessions that all Lutherans pro-
fess to hold in common.

Of course, The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod is eager
to attain, if possible, God-pleasing harmony among the splin-
tered divisions of Christendom. Our prayer is that by God's
grace and blessing the unity the church already possesses as
the body of Christ may by His blessing and guidance be fur-
thered among the fractured bodies named after His name. But
we believe the only valid basis for such external union is unity
of faith and confession. (Eph. 4:3: 1 Cor. 1:10; Rom. 15:5-6)

We believe that the Synod should be ready at all times “to
continue participation in all interchureh dialog that permits
a clear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth in Holy
Scripture and explicated by the Lutheran Confessions’ !Con-
rention Proceedings. 1969, Resolution 3-12). But the Synod must
also measure carefully its energy and resources in such a way
that these are used most effectively for the task of evangelizing
the world with the precious Gospel. Dialog that does not lead to
the true unity of the faith and doctrine ought not to divert our
time, strength, and vigor from fulfilling the church’s primary
mission. ‘Matt. 28:19-20)

Ralph Bohlmann
Howard W. Tepker
Eugene F. Klug

App. 3-01E

GUIDELINES FOR LCMS PARTICIPATION
IN ECUMENICAL DIALOGS

The Lutheran Church -— Missouri Synod carries out ecumen-
ical studies and participates in dialogs with other denominations
for the purpose of identifying areas of agreement and of dis-
agreement and for the sake of giving a Lutheran witness to the
truth as it is revealed in the Scriptures and confessed in the
Lutheran Symbols.

The President of the Synod is the chief ecumenical officer
of the Synod. He is to “represent the Synod in official contacts
with other churches and Synods.” (Handbook. 2.27 g)

The CTCR is to assist the President at his request in dis-
charging his constitutional responsibilities, specifically ‘‘in
dealing with other church bodies: in initiating and pursuing
fellowship discussions with other church bodies.” (Handbook.
2.109 b 2 bb, cc)

Consonant with the above, the CTCR at the request of the
President of the Synod suggests to him the following guidelines
for participation in interchurch dialogs:

1. Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod representatives in
ecumenical dialogs shall be appointed by the President of the
Synod. The CTCR is prepared to assist the President, at his
request, in selecting LCMS representatives and suggests that
consideration be given to the appointing of at least one CTCR

member to each dialog team.

° Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod representatives in
ecumenical dialogs shall be appointed after the convention of
the Synod for renewable terms of 2 years.

3. The main value of interconfessional dialogs is found in
the joint study of the Word of God on theological issues. Ordi-
narily the Synod does not consider “consensus statements”
essential to the purposes of interconfessional dialog. If ‘“‘con-
sensus statements” are contemplated, LCMS representatives
shall seek the advice of the President of the Synod in consulta-
tion with the CTCR.

4. Each Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod dialog team
shall report in writing to the President of the Synod after each
dialog meeting and shall submit a comprehensive report of its
activities during the biennium to the President of the Synod and

to the CTCR for review and report to the convention of the
Synod.
Adopted by the CTCR. January 1975

App. 3-01F
REPORT OF BIBLE VERSIONS COMMITTEE
Comparative Study of Bible Translations and Paraphrases
Preface

Recent years have witnessed the publication of a number of
new translations and paraphrases of the Bible. Some of these
are being widely used, at least in certain instances, because
of an appealing style and easy readability.

The proliferation of (available) translations and paraphrases
of the Holy Scriptures has given rise to some confusion. Mindful
of the Synod’s request to continue to give guidance in such
matters (Res. 2-07 and 2-08, Convention Proceedings. 1969:
Res. 2-09, Convention Proceedings. 1973), the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations requested the Bible Versions
Committee, an auxiliary committee of the CTCR, to undertake
a study of some of the translations and paraphrases being used
in the Synod today.

The committee considered and discarded a number of ways
to carry out this assignment:

1. An intensive study and critique of all versions.

OBJECTION: Such an investigation could not be completed
in time to meet the current need.

9. An intensive study and critique of one recent, modern
version.

OBJECTION: a. It would require more time than is available.
b. Guidance in evaluating all versions is necessary.

3. An intensive study of one Biblical book in all translations.

OpJEcTION: A wider sampling of a given version may be
necessary to make the test valid.

Explanation of the Second Article

The committee decided to base its findings on an examina-
tion of the Bible passages cited in the synodical Catechism
(A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism,
St. Louis: CPH, 1943) under the questions dealing with the
person and work of Jesus Christ. (Questions 121-159)

A study of these prooftexts in the various translations sug-
gested itself for the following reasons:

1. It could be completed in time for a report to the Synod.

2. It allows for an intensive examination of passages based
on the Hebrew and Greek texts.

3. It would not be restricted to an evaluation of only one
Biblical book.

4. It would provide an opportunity to test the translations for
doctrinal content. For, in the final analysis, a version is either
good or bad in the measure that it says in English what the Bible
teaches by means of Hebrew and Greek words. Other criteria,
such as style and readability, are secondary considerations.

5. It would examine passages expressing a cardinal doctrine
of Scripture: who our Savior is and what He did to save us. The
manner in which a version transmits these central truths of the
Christian faith should give the reader an answer to the crucial
question whether a translation can be trusted to teach “the
one thing needful.”

Procedure and Results
The following ten translations and paraphrases were studied:

Translations
KJV The Holy Bible — Authorized King James Version.
RSV The Holy Bible—Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas
Nelson & Sons, 1969.
NASV Neu American Standard Bible. La Habra, Calif.: Foundation

Press, 1971.
JB The Jerusalem Bible. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966.
NEB The New English Bible—The Old Testament. Cambridge U.
Press, 1970.

The New English Bible—The New Testament. Cambridge U.
Press, Revised Edition, 1970.
Beck Beck, William F. The New Testament in the Language of Today.
St. Louis: CPH, 1963. (Only the translation of the New Testa-
ment is presently available)