LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1971, Page 52

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

52 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

In other words, this argument permits the Confessions
to muzzle the Scriptures.

Actually, this problem is not a new one. One hun-
dred years ago, many Lutherans contended that all mat-
ters not settled by the Lutheran Confessions must be
considered open questions. Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the
president of the Missouri Synod, vigorously opposed
this notion. In 1868 he wrote a lengthy scholarly article
entitled “The False Arguments for the Modern Theory
of Open Questions” in which he emphasized that noth-
ing taught in Scripture on any matter can be considered
an open question, whether it is treated in the Confes-
sions or not. Dr. Walther’s words are so contemporary
in their application to our own situation that I cite his
work at great length in Appendix A, together with his
“Fifteen Propositions on the Modern Theory of Open
Questions.”

Dr. Walther’s words of wisdom can guide us today in
our own understanding of the role of synodically adopted
doctrinal statements and resolutions. On the one hand,
he reminds us that we do not establish doctrine, but
merely confess the faith taught by the Scriptures. On
the other hand, we learn from Dr. Walther that we can-
not be bound only by that which is explicitly stated in
the Confessions. The Confessions provide invaluable
service as they focus on the central aspects of our faith,
namely sin and grace, Law and Gospel, and the person
and work of Jesus Christ. They give us a correct and
proper interpretation of Holy Scripture on all doctrinal
matters which they treat. But our confessional commit-
ment does not mean that only in the Confessions do we
have what is truly doctrine — and that therefore all
other matters taught in Scripture are open questions or
matters which might not become divisive of fellowship.

In the third place, we must continue to emphasize
the fact that the Word of God rules in our church; that
the church can confess its faith on the basis of the Word
of God; that the church of today, as in the days when
the great creeds and the Lutheran Confessions were
formulated, can interpret the Scriptures and expect its
members to hold to a particular interpretation of the
Scriptures. The creeds and confessions are interpreta-
tions of Scripture which we believe to be correct, as for
example in their statements regarding Christology, the
Trinity, the Lord’s Supper, and Justification.

Today in the church there is confusion and contro-
versy concerning many doctrinal matters, including the
doctrine of Holy Scripture itself. If we are to be faith-
ful to our Confessions, our church needs to confess its
faith on these matters with clarity and with the convic-
tion that what we are saying is based on the Word of
God. Furthermore, we have a right to expect our pro-
fessors, pastors, teachers, and congregations to teach
according to our understanding of the Word of God.
Such a concept grows right out of the Confessions them-
selves, and, far from making us a sect, it is a way of
demonstrating that we are truly a confessional and con~
fessing church. Any other kind of “confession” by
a church which subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions

could only be arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately self-
defeating as well as untrue to the Lutheran Confessions
themselves.

It needs to be understood that the contemporary
church must also confess its faith in order to be com-
pletely faithful to the Confessions’ own understanding
of the nature of confessional subscription.

Furthermore, Lutherans subscribe to the Lutheran
Confessions because they agree with the Scripture. The
Lutheran Confessions see themselves not only as con~
fessions of faith but as expositions of Scripture. The
claim, therefore, that it is un-Lutheran to insist on
unity in the interpretation of any Scripture passage is
not only contrary to the Confessions themselves, but
would in practice amount to a vitiation of the very
essence of confessional Lutheranism, namely, that doc-
trine — pure, immutable, clear doctrine — can be drawn
from the Scriptures and formulated in confessional
statements and unanimously subscribed to by Chris-
tians. In the Lutheran Church, all doctrine, of necessity,
involves exegetical conclusions; for any teaching not
based on Scripture cannot even be considered a “doc-
trine.” An evangelical church, if it is to be faithful to
Christ and His Word, must be able to express the teach-
ings of God’s Word to its own day, and to do so in the
spirit of the Augsburg Confession when it says, “Our
churches teach with great agreement” (cum magno con-
sensu). This conviction, which serves as a powerful
antidote to doctrinal latitudinarianism, has characterized
our Synod since its founding in 1847. It is this kind
of thinking that underlies Article II of our synodical
Constitution.

In the fourth place, we can see then that Article II,
far from prohibiting us from adopting doctrinal state-
ments as a Synod and asking our people to adhere to
them, actually compels us to adopt such statements as
the course of events and the needs of the church de-
velop. We must assert more than that doctrinal state-
ments adopted by the convention merely “reflect how
successfully a delegate convention applied the doctrine
of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions to issues and
problems of the day.” This really says very little.

Moreover, this assertion appears to reflect an inac-
curate understanding of the nature of a synodical con-
vention. Our Synod, as an organization composed of
pastors, teachers, and congregations, can legislate only
through representation. Since the size of our Synod
makes it impossible for every member to participate in
a convention, or even for every congregation to be rep-
resented by at least one of its members, the synodical
Constitution provides for delegates elected by groups
of congregations. When these representatives meet in
a regularly called convention, they, in effect, are the
legislative body of the church; and the resolutions
adopted by these representatives, even though they
constitute only a small group in proportion to the total
membership of our church, must nevertheless be con-
sidered as the expression of the church body and must