LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 398

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

398 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

discussed.” At the same time. it should not be overlooked that The American Lutheran Church has
also questioned developments in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod which have doctrinal
implications. In 1971 the ALC Church Council requested "a formal statement describing the Missouri
Synod’s understanding of the basis for felloswhip” in order to ascertain whether or not the Missouri
Synod had changed its positron since 1969.°: And The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod’s adoption
of ‘A Statement of Scriptural and Contessional Principles’ in 1973 was characterized by the president
of the ALC inan open letter. shared with the Church Council. as. a “narrowing down’ of the Lutheran
Contessions.”*

Thorough and in-depth discussions of these well-known differences in the Commission on
Fellowship and at a meeting ot representatives of the seminary faculties of each body * hase made it
increasingly evident that they are in actuality merely the manifestation of more fundamental
disagreements which exist between the two church bodies on the authority and nature of Scripture.
the attitude toward doctrinal diversity in a confessional church. and the basis of fellowship. It is to
these underlying disagreements that the LCMS commissioners wish to direct the attention of the
Synod in this statement of doctrinal differences

The LCMS commissioners have proceeded with the preparation of this document conscious of
twin pitfalls inherent in the very nature of such an assignment. On the one hand, there is the danger of
caricaturing the positions of the churches involved by oversimplifying their differences. thereby
causing this report itself to become yet another divisive element between them. On the other hand. it
would be easy to attempt to cover up the differences by simply pointing to areas of agreement and
dismissing the very real and fundamental differences between the ALC and the LCMS as being in the
realm of different emphases or as due to the whims of individual! theologians. thereby promoting the

Although ALC representatives to the Commission on Fellowship have emphasized thei church s essentially pro-iite
position the statements on this subject thus tar presented to ALC Conventions have been inconclusive Ct” Christian
Caunseling on Abortion which was adopted by the ALC in 1974 by a vote of 500-379 as a Statement of comment and
counset addressed to the members of the congregations of The American Lutheran Church to ard them in their decisions and
actions ” Reports and Actions, 1974 9 849 This statement “ejects induced abortion as a ready solution for problem
pregnancies, vert also holds that “each person needs to be tree to make this choice m ight of each individual situation
Ct also Dr James Burtness’ "A Statement on Abortion." which was received by the ALC in 1976 and transmitted to the
member congregations of the ALC ' as a statement worthy of study by ther members "Reports and Actions. 1976. pp 1042!
The American Lutheran Church adopted two statements on abortion at its 1980 general convention By a vote of 609-323 it
adopted tor “judgment and conviction a statement recommended by the executive committee of the ALC Church Council
which deplores the alarming increase of induced abortions since the 1973 Supreme Court decision and siews this as an
responsible abuse of God's gift of iife Bur rt also adopted the report of its Task Force on Abortion for “comment and
council.” by a vote of 610-274, which according to the Church Council's execute committee “in effect argues tor elective
abortion ” This document places responsibiity on indiwiduals to make the best possible decision thes are capable of
making in the light of the intormatior available to them and their sense of accountability 10 God neighbor and self
Lutheran World information, Oct 15 1980. op 9—10.

The LCMS holds that “since abortion takes a human lite, abortion 1s not a moral option, except as a tragically
unavoidable byproduct of medical procedures necessary to prevent the death of another human being. viz, the mother
Resolution 3-024, Convention Proceedings. 1979 p 117

+ Reports and Actions. 1972. 0 460
‘The Lutheran Standard April 0 1976 pp 12-13 Cf also Reporrs and Actions 1976. p 361

“The presidents ang two representatives of each of rhe five seminaries of the ALC and LC MS met in Chicago on Jan
12-13 1979, to discuss the ordination of women. Biblical authority and interpretation. the meaning of contessional identity
Scriptural inerrancy and abortion © Altrough considerable agreement was expressed on abortion. there was a large degree
of divergence on other topics ‘LCMS News Release. Jan 18.1979 Ct also The Lutheran Standard. Feb 6.1979 pp. 22-23

I. HOLY Jf Authority
SCRIPTURE: # and Interpretation

THE FODT REPORT*

Ditterences within American Lutheranism on the nature, function, and legitimacy of the historical-critical
methods of biblical interpretation were reflected in this consultation. Representatives of the ALC and LCA
generally affirm the appropriateness of this method and have employed it in their presentations, arguing that it
affords insight into the development of the biblical testimony to Jesus and that it gives solid rooting to that
testimony within human history.' Representatives of the LCMS, while affirming that the Scriptures are to be read
as historical documents and that the best scholarly tools should be employed, reject the legitimacy of the
historical-critical method, arguing that any effort to read the Scriptures precisely ike other ancient literature
not only diminishes their revelatory character a3 the Word of God but frequently results in conclusions that
challenge the authority, truthfulness, and unity of the Scriptures.’ These divergent approaches to the
methodology of biblical interpretation have resulted in widely different conclusions about the legitimacy of
affirming the existence of discrepancies, contradictions, mistaken notions, or diverse theologies within the
Scriptures. (FOOT. pp. 11-12}

The ALC and LCA are willing to speak of a wider range of diversity within the Bible, including the
possibility of different accents and theologies and of apparent contradictions. The unity of Scripture, they argue,
includes this diversity and has a mosaic character.’ The LCMS, white recognizing a variety of images,
conceptions, and emphases within the Scripture, stresses an organic unity which makes suggestions of differing
biblical theologies and apparent contradictions unacceptable.‘ (FOOT. p. 13]

* Ali. quotations from the FODT report are taken from
The Function of Doctrine and Theology in Light of the mity
of the Church 4 Report Plus 15 Papers trom an Offrcra!
Study Conducted by the Division of Theological Studies
Cutheran Council in the USA, During 1972—77. 1978

Documentation

ALC LCMS

continuation of suspicions and misunderstandings in both church bodies.

In order to attempt to avoid both of these weaknesses. the LCMS commissioners discussed this
assignment with the ALC commissioners, and statements of differences were prepared by the
representatives of each church body.’> 1The statement prepared by the ALC commissioners 15
included in this document as Appendix A.1'* As a result of these discussions and in the interest of
fairness and objectivity. the LCMS commissioners have decided not to prepare a new statement of
doctrinal differences but rather to make use of a document prepared by official representatrves
appointed by the presidents of the ALC, LCA. and LCMS which discussed “the function of doctrine
and theology in the light of the unity of the church’ known as the FODT report.” This seemed to be an
especially appropriate way of proceeding for three reasons: The FODT report was prepared by official
representatives of both of our churches ‘along with LCA representation): precisely the differences
between the ALC and LCMS which were delineated in this document are those which have emerged
in the Commission on Fellowship discussions: and it has already received widespread distribution
and study throughout Lutheran churches in the United States.? In the report which follows
therefore. the LCMS commissioners rave limited themselves to providing documentation from the
official resolutions, statements. and representatives of the ALC and LCMS which illustrate the
conclusions of the FODT Report on Hols Scripture. confessional subscription. and the basis of
fellowship.»

nunal drafts of A Statement of Differences Between the ALC and the LCMS” were prepared by the ALC ard the
LCMS representatives to the Commission on Fellowship and discussed on Feb. 29-March 1. 1980 On the basis of this
discussion the LCMS representatives prepared a second and a third draft which were both discussed at a special meeting of
the Commission on Fellowship held in Minneapolis on April 30. 1980

‘although the LCMS commissioners did not agree with many of the ALC commissioners’ formulations ot the
ditterences between their two churches. especially with those sections which present the position of the LCMS. this
document 1s appended to this report for the sake of the record and also to show that the ALC commissioners likewise
recognize areas of serious disagreement between our two church bodies

“The Function of Doctrine and Theology in Light of the Laity of the Church,” a topic assigned by the LCLSA 5
Division of Theological Studies, was discussed bv official representatives appointed by the presidents of the ALC. LCA. and
LMS at eight conferences heid between 1972 and 1977. The final report of these consultations. together with 15 papers
which were presented and discussed. 1s avatlable from the Division of Theological Studies. 360 Park Avenue South, New
York. ¥. 10010

“!The FOOT report was specificaliy discussed at several meetings of the Commission on Fellowship, and there was
general agreement among all representatives that this document presents the tundamental ditferences between the ALC
and LCMS fairly and accurately

“+President). A. O. Preus sent a copy of the FODT report to all pastors in the LCMS.in June 1978 The availability of this
report was announced to the pastors of the ALC in ACTS. a monthly publication of The American Lutheran Church which
goes 10 its congregations

*The LCMS commussioners have expressed grave concern about a number of statements published by prominent
ALC theologians on such issues as the doctrine of the Trinity. Christology. and other fundamental areas of the Christian faith
These statements have not been inciuded as documentation for the conclusions of the FOOT report, The ALC
representatives to the Commission on Fellowship have stated that these theologians, in Making such statements. are
speaking only for themselves and notin behalf of the ALC. However, these statements do illustrate the extent of the doctrinal
diversity evident in the ALC. Cf e g.. Harold Ditmanson, “New Insights on the Nature of Man and Implications for
Christology.” The Lutheran Quarterly 23 (November 1971), pp. 336. 350: Paul Jersild. Invitation to Faith (Minneapolis
Augsburg Publishing House. 1978). pp. 36. 99-101, Warren Quanbeck. “The Formula of Concord and Authority in the
Church.” The Sixteenth Century fournal 8 (1977), p. 54, and Gerhard O. Forde and James 4. Nesugen. Free to Be 4
Handbook to Luther's Smal! Catechism (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House. 1975), pp 101—102

1A. “if theology 1s to be faithful to a stect commit:
ment to the normative function of Scripture in is literal
grammarical-historical sense, then in our day the historical-
critical method 1 not optional but necessary” Duane A
Priebe.’ The Historical-Critical Method and the Method of
the Lutheran Confessions.” FOOT. 1978.p 81

B In contrast to the LCMS position the ALC-LCA
representatives deny that the historical-critical method 1s a
direct transcript of the secularistic ideology 0 the Enlighten-
ment Hals writes (| find all the various methods of
inter pretation emploved and discussed here to be essential-
iy neutral and their results open to revisron  Quanbeck
refers 10 the intercontessional character of present-day
biblical scholarship. The methodological objectivity of
exegesss requires that one’s findings and arguments be
veritiable by other scholars as independently as possible of

JA, “When we insist that Scripture must interpret
Scripture. thatss. provide 1s own basic paradigm. we are by
no means excluding all use of eaternal evidence. such as
that richly provided bs archaeologs. and even history of
religions for fuller understanding of vocabulary meta-
phors. and secondary symbolism While it 1s historically
demonstrable to a certain degree. the Bible s uniqueness is
ultimately a matter of confession. The question is whether
external :bistorical: evidence may be used to test wherher
or not the Bible 1s true or whether its legitimate uses
limited to helping us better understand what truth 1s
revealed there. as defined by the canon’s own internal
self-testimony ~ Horace D Hummel. “The Influence of
Confessional Themes on Biblical Exegesis. Studies in
turheran Hermeneutics 1979. p 221

B. “It 5 easy. I believe to see some of the assump-

ALC

the exegete s own particular convictions Thus the value ot
‘one’s work will rest upon one's competence as a scholar
Current exegesis 1s therefore a cooperative venture and 15
no longer branded with denominational markings. “Harold
H Ditmanson ° Perspectives on the Hermeneutics Debate
Studies 1p Lutheran Hermeneutics. 1979. p. 87

C. The hustorical-ceitical study of the Bible. set in
motion by the Renarssance and the Reformation. has made
great Contributions to the understanding of the biblical
message. ft has underscored and reinforced the teaching of
the Reformers at many points, but it has also added new
perspectives and insights and. at some points, even cor-
rected the Reformers’ interpretations For example. the
Reformers did not know how to interpret apocalypric
Iterature. and Luther confesses that his spirit could not feel
at home in the Book of Revelation Modern studies have
shown what apocalyptic literature «s and how it 1s to be
saterpreted. so that while much remains obscure the
message of apocalypiic hrerature in the Scriptures 1s clear
New techniques of study. form. tradition. and redaction
crmicism. for example. have given an ampier understanding
of the way the Scriptures have come into being and it
would be foolish to deny ourselves the benefits made
available in this way.” Warren A Quanbeck. “The Con-
fessions and Ther influence upon Biblical Interpretation.”
Studies in Lutheran Hermeneuncs. 1979. p 182

D. “When systematic theology deciares thar Scrip:
ture. tradion. and experience are relative authorities, it
goes on to Observe that they are relative. that ss, related 10
something or someone. So matter how muted or misused
they may have been, seen from a larger perspective they
clearly point bevond themselves and in the same direction
They ail bear witness to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. The
agreement of the three primary witnesses is very important

Associated with the convergence of these authorities on
a single center 1s the fact of ther interlocking character
Scripture, tradition. and experience can be isolated only for
the sake of analysis. in practece they interlock because each
erercises some interpretive control over the others... The
interdependence of Bible. tradition. and experience ought
10 Caution us against ascribing finality fo any single witness
and it should remind Lutherans in particular that the
problem of biblical authority cannot be cleared up 10
rsolation The authority of the Bible ts intertwined with
other authoritres—church, liturgy. conscience, reason Yet
It 5 a distinctrvely Lutheran and Protestant move to insist
that among these relauve and interdependent witnesses
one has prority Protestants have been quite unself-
conscious in their possession of tradition and quite unreals-
tin their disavowal of it It seems clear that the principle of
sola scriptura has never actually worked © Harold H. Ditman-
son. “Perspectives on the Hermeneutics Debate.” Studies
on Lutheran Hermeneutics. 1979, pp 100—104

LCMS

tons underlying this method of approaching Scripture—
assumpuions regarding revelation Scripture. and history.
The hustoricai-critical method was tirst concerned and
worked our in the 17th and 18th centuries by scholars wo
either denied the possibility of a divine revelation or denied
at least that Scripture was such a tevelation These ear’
developers of the method denied also the divine origin and
inspired nature of Scripture. thus depriving Scripture aiso 0”
its divine authority in the sense understood by the Retorm-
ers They furthermore belteved that ail history was lined out
according to principles of universal correspondence. anal:
ogy. and undormity within history and that all historica
records including Scripture, must be criticized according
to such principles Far-reaching changes have taken place
In respect to the method over the past two centuries—e &

form cencism has been invented. but the same assumptions
underhe the use of the method today by all reputable and
Consistent practitioners of it The results of the historical.
critical method hase at crucial points contradicted the
doctrine of the Lutheran Contessrons Robert Preus. The
Hermeneutics of the Lutheran Contessions and the Histor-
rcal-Critical Method FODT, 1978. p 73

C. As a stimulus tor discussion and as a way ot
testing the thesis presented in this paper | offer the
following svllogism

1. The historical-critical method 1s by definition
iMappropriate tor application to the Word of God
Scripture 1s without Qualification Word of God

3 Theretore the historical-crtical method ts by detir=
ion appropriate for application to Scripture

Disagreement regarding the conclusion is the result. t
believe. of disagreement regarding not the major premise
but the minor one” Samuel H Nafzger. ‘Scerpture and
Word of God.” Studies in Lutheran Hermeneutics. 1979 p
123

D. “Whereas, The historical-crinscal method makes
decisions about the origin, nature. and nterpretanon of the
Biblical Iterature on the basis of a historical reasoning
which by definition 1s @ procedure unable to deal with
supernatural intervention and operations. and

“Whereas. The use of such historical reasoning in
accounting for the origin of the Biblical literature tends to
minimize the ‘connection between the Spirit and history
*CTCR Document ‘Revelation. Inspiration. and inerrancy
page 3. par 91 and fails to take ito account that im histor
the Spirit creates that which 1s not of thrs world. and

“whereas, The use of such historical reasoning not
only obscures the Spirit's connection with the history of the
Bible's origin but at the same time emphasizes the human
factors in the production of the sacred Iterature in such a
way that the Bible is virtually reduced to a product of merely
human thought and experience. and

“Whereas, Such historical reasoning. by accounting
for the production of the Biblical literature chiefly in terms
of merely historically conditioned responses to a series of
needs and situatrons among God's people in the Old and