LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 410

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

410 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

God’s Word and Sacraments, God’s people support and encourage
each other through a common confession of faith, prayer and mu-
tual service, growth in love and sound doctrine, exhortation and
forgiveness, and the sharing of a wide variety of God-given gifts
for the edification of all, so that the church as a whole may be
equipped and energized for participation in God’s mission.

As it carries out God’s mission, therefore, the church needs to
guard against focusing solely or one-sidedly on an individual’s
“personal relationship with Christ,” while ignoring or downplay-
ing the scriptural reality of the believer’s incorporation into the
body of Christ by the Spirit’s work through the means of grace. As
the church reaches out to individuals with the Gospel, it must also
recognize and emphasize the corporate character of the church,
both congregationally and extra-congregationally, and the crucial
importance of ongoing catechesis of its new and existing mem-
bers—both of which are strongly and properly emphasized in
FSCC.

At the same time, this proper and scriptural emphasis on the
unity of Christ’s church in its confession and worship must not be
played off against the freedom granted to the church in both Scrip-
ture and the Lutheran Confessions for God-pleasing diversity in
worship forms and other ecclesial rites and practices, so long as
this diversity does not compromise or undermine God’s Word. St.
Paul’s own testimony is instructive here: “I have become all things
to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all
this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings”
(1 Cor. 9:22-23). FSCC warns against recent trends toward diver-
sity in worship, but it is important to emphasize that a keen sense of
balance is needed when addressing this difficult and sensitive issue.
According to its own Constitution, “the Synod, under Scripture and
the Lutheran Confessions, shall encourage congregations to strive
for uniformity in church practice, but also to develop an apprecia-
tion of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in
harmony with our common profession of faith” (Art. III 7).

With reference to the Church Growth Movement, perhaps the
deeper concern (also addressed forthrightly in FSCC) is the need
to maintain the centrality and objectivity of the means of grace in
the church’s worship. ECG agrees:

The fact that many Church Growth advocates do not regard the
sacraments as means of grace has its effect also on the worship services
that are conducted. They recommend that a congregation use hymns
and structure its services in a way that will conform to current cultural
patterns. While Lutherans grant that God has not prescribed a specific
order of worship, they recognize that the orders of worship that are used
in the Lutheran church have been designed to accent the objectivity of
the Gospel proclaimed in the Word and communicated in the sacra-
ments, not the subjectivity of the hearers or their emotional response.
The ‘divine service’ is primarily God’s service to us, not our service to
Him. Consistent use of subjective hymns and emotional orders of ser-
vice cannot help but undermine that accent. The pastor will be sensi-
tive to the needs of unchurched visitors, but he will be just as concerned
with the spiritual growth of those who are already members. This means
neither slavish, ritualistic adherence at all costs to traditional orders of
service, nor arbitrary substitution of ‘crowd-pleasers.’ Precise worship
forms are adiaphora (neither commanded nor prohibited) indeed, but
careless appeal to this principle may fall into the pitfall of acting as
though worship forms can be entirely value-free. (ECG, 41-42)

Some forms of worship may better express our theology than other
forms. In evaluating and developing worship forms, we need to re-
member that as Lutherans we are heirs of Luther and not Karlstadt.

Similar observations might be made about FSCC’s criticisms
of changing and varied approaches toward catechesis and other
forms of Christian instruction. While one can certainly resonate
with FSCC’s concern that “this is not a time to turn Bible classes
and the Sunday school into ‘sharing times,’ rather than training in
God’s Word,” some may get the impression that acceptable cate-
chesis means choosing between one of two “either-or” approaches.
It seems reasonable and theologically defensible to hold that Chris-
tian instruction in today’s society can be enhanced by an appropri-

2004 Convention Workbook

ate balance between formal instruction and informal discussion,
without having to make a “choice” between the two. As the formu-
lators of FSCC would undoubtedly agree, great care must be taken
to distinguish clearly between change and diversity in the church
that is appropriate, God-pleasing and even necessary for the sake of
Christ’s mission and changes in the church that are wrong and sin-
ful because they contradict or undermine the unchanging truths of
God’s Word and the divine realities conveyed through God’s
means of grace.

God’s Mission Is My Mission

The mission is God’s, and it is the church’s. It is also “your mis-
sion” and “my mission.” Every believer is called to be involved in
God’s rescue mission in Christ.

Our personal involvement in God’s mission 1akes place wherever
we are—wherever God has placed us. Each of us, in our “station” or
“calling” in life, is called to serve God and bear witness to his grace—
whether as child, parent, husband, wife, citizen, employee, employer,
government official, soldier, police officer, teacher, construction
worker. (TSM, 27)

God calls some to be pastors, to serve him and his church in the di-
vinely instituted office of the holy ministry: to preach the Gospel,
to administer the sacraments in the stead of Christ and in behalf of
the church, to teach and admonish and counsel and comfort with
God’s Word. Others assist the pastor in carrying out this multifac-
eted work, whether as professional church workers or as members
of a local congregation. “Whatever you do,” says Paul, “in word
or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks
to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17).

As it carries out God’s mission, therefore, the church must
guard against any and all tendencies to despise or denigrate the
calling or vocation of any Christian, no matter how simple or hum-
ble it may be or seem, or to pit “the pastoral office” against “the
priesthood of all believers” rather than exalting both as precious
and glorious callings of God, each vital in its own way in the ac-
complishment of God’s mission. FSCC is to be commended for
clearly confessing the necessity and distinctiveness of the pastoral
office as a divine institution. Also commendable is its affirmation
that “God’s people are a glorious priesthood” and its encourage-
ment to God’s priests to serve in their “daily vocation (i.e., the
work of one’s earthly calling, Christian witness in daily life,
parental teaching in the home, etc.)” (444).

At the same time, especially in view of the historic Lutheran
emphasis on Christian vocation and the gifts and responsibilities
of God’s “royal priests,” one might have expected more discussion
in FSCC about the many positive ways that the laity can contribute
to God’s mission within the life and ministry of the congregation it-
self and in support of the pastoral office. Few would disagree with
FSCC that it is “spiritually harmful” to view the “primary purpose”
of the pastor as “‘to train laity to do the real pastoral care” (444),
but more might have been said about the proper training of laity
for appropriate participation in leadership roles in worship, evan-
gelism, teaching, mission, human care, and other vital congrega-
tion tasks in support of the office of the ministry. It surely is “spir-
itually harmful...when ‘spiritual gifts’ are substituted for the
Means of Grace” (443), but congregational consideration and dis-
cussion of the proper place and use of spiritual gifts can also be ap-
propriate and helpful. Depending on what is meant, one might res-
onate with FSCC’s concern that it is “spiritually harmful” when
“small groups (meta groups) are viewed as foundational in mis-
sion” (443), even while being open to the possibility of appropriate
and Scriptural use of “small groups” (or other organizational mod-
els or methods) within the congregation.

There is certainly nothing new—at least to Lutherans well-
schooled in historic Lutheran theology—about the principle that
“lay people play a vital role in the church’s mission and ministry.”
Yet even the most obvious and familiar truths need to be repeated,