LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 414

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

414 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

erences. Trust among LCMS pastors, congregations, and leaders allows
everyone to carry out their commitment to fellowship practices to which
they have mutually agreed. This trust is undermined when these com-
mitments, as they are set forth in the official documents of the LCMS,
are openly violated. Public knowledge of such violations strains rela-
tionships and makes reasoned discourse of real issues difficult. This in
turn hinders pastors from exercising discretion in unclear situations.

The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship clearly de-
scribes what is at stake on this point:
Paul’s words, “A little yeast leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9),
allow no deviation from the Word. False teachings merit God’s wrath
(Gal. 1:69). (p. 7)

The mutual commitments contained in our Bylaws and other of-

ficial documents have been called “covenants of love.” When these

are violated in a public manner, the Report on Synodical Discus-
sions anticipated “strained relationships” and “difficulty in con-
ducting reasoned discourse.” Pain and suffering result when love
is betrayed and unfaithfulness becomes manifest.

Discretion is permitted to express and fulfill one’s commit-
ments—never to abandon or be disloyal to them. When an LCMS
pastor exercises discretion unhindered by his commitments to the
congregation and Synod he represents, charity cannot and must not
be understood as tendering acceptance or endorsement of the error.
Such would distort the reminder that “charity must prevail” into
Just another expression for ‘‘anything goes.” Charity moves us to
remain faithful to our Lord and to one another. “But the Helper,
the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will
teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have
said to you” (John 14:26). Through God’s Word He leads us to
confession, repentance, and forgiveness, which brings healing. May
our Lord protect us from caring so little for an erring brother and
the people he teaches as to grant him permission to lead them
astray!

“Interfaith” prayer services involve the worship of other gods.
Our “renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every descrip-
tion” requires us to boldly condemn and reject those false gods and
proclaim the Gospel of the only true God. For this reason, the faith-
ful LCMS pastor will almost certainly find it impossible to partic-
ipate in such events. Indeed, our “covenants of love” (Constitution,
Art. VI, Section 2) call upon him not merely to avoid such an
event, but to renounce it. The Lutheran Understanding of Church
Fellowship emphasizes this point: “A confession of the truth in-
cludes rejecting the contrary errors.” (p. 11)

Certainly no “cases of discretion” can excuse a violation of the
First Commandment. Those who assemble at a “‘civic” or “civil-re-
ligious” event to worship other gods will not be able to pray with
Christians, as Paul explains in Rom. 10:14: “How then shall they
call upon Him in whom they have not believed?” The Christian
who invites them to pray with him when they cannot deceives them
with false comfort and assurance. “Cases of discretion” can have
only Christians in view—never unbelievers. We seek never to con-
firm others in their unbelief.

The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship describes
the relationship that exists between Christians as they are related
to Christ. United with Him and one another, we proclaim the mes-
sage He speaks to lost and condemned sinners for whom He died.
Mr. Paul Nus
Rev. Walter Lehenbauer
Feb. 19, 2003

Minority Opinions to the CTCR’S Response to Questions from
BHE/CUS on Lay Teachers of Theology
1.

We agree with the CTCR’s response to the two questions in this
request when the answers given repeatedly tie “the proclamation
and transmission of the church’s authoritative ‘public teaching’ ”

2004 Convention Workbook

the one divinely given ministry or office of the Gospel. We do not
agree, however, that the Synod’s official university system could
responsibly aim in its theology courses at anything other than “the
proclamation and transmission of the church’s authoritative ‘public
teaching.’ ”

The CTCR’s Response to the first question cites as an example
of ‘“‘a wider sense” of the term “teach,” Col. 3:16: “Let the word of
Christ dwell in you richly, as you teach (didaskontes) and admon-
ish one another in all wisdom.” What is clearly meant here is the
mutual edification among Christian brothers and sisters, not the re-
lation between public teachers and their hearers or students.

The same Response goes on to talk about “the broader task of
instruction and explanation of theological matters,” which then may
be carried out by persons not in the public ministry of the Gospel.
That “broader task,” however, is left totally undefined. Either this
“broader task” involves “the proclamation and transmission of the
church’s authoritative ‘public teaching’ or it does not. If it does, it
is clearly the responsibility of properly called and ordained ministers
of the Gospel. If it does not, what rightful place can it have in the
Synod’s official educational or university system?

Whatever may be said, prudentially, about various more or less
ancillary courses, actual theology—the transmission of the divinely
revealed evangelical truth or doctrine—ought to be entrusted to
those who through “prayer, study, and affliction” (Luther) have re-
ceived theology as “God-given practical aptitude”! and have been
recognized by the church as “able ministers of the New Testament”
(2 Cor. 3:6).

The CTCR’s Response to the second question attempts to show
that “teacher of theology” could refer to something “analogous to
the instruction that takes place in, for example, theology depart-
ments in secular or church-affiliated universities or in congrega-
tional Bible classes or Sunday school classes.” This is to mix ap-
ples and oranges. Christian education in the congregation is the
responsibility of the local pastor. As for secular universities, virtu-
ally “anything goes” in their “theology” or religion departments.
Any faithful Lutheran man or woman who can competently teach
in such a setting deserves our utmost admiration and support. Nor
are “church-affiliated universities” the point at issue. “Affiliated”
suggests no more than a loose connection, and actual examples of
such universities are not encouraging. Some of the most prestigious
secular American universities were once “church-affiliated” (James
Burtchaell, The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges
and Universities from Their Christian Churches [Grand Rapids:
Wm B. Eerdmans, 1998)). If the LCMS wished to follow the gen-
eral plunge into secularization, it could hardly do better than to re-
place “the authoritative transmission of the church’s public teach-
ing” with a free-lancing sort of theologizing by private individuals.

Further, contrary to the CTCR’s Response to the second ques-
tion, the example of Aquila and Priscilla, who “expounded (ek-
tithemi) to him (Apollos) the way of God more accurately,” is not
relevant to the issue of public teaching in universities owned and
operated by the church. The NIV translates Acts 18:26, “They in-
vited him to their home [literally: took him to (themselves)] and
explained to him the way of God more adequately.” Any informed
Christian could and should do this sort of thing. The term for “ex-
pound” or “explain” used here means “set out” or “set forth.” (It is
used literally in Acts 7:21 of the putting out or “exposing” of the
baby Moses.)

Finally, the CTCR’s Response cites the examples of Philip
Melanchthon and Martin Franzmann. The case of the former was
unique. Despite Luther’s urging, he did not join the theological fac-
ulty, but remained on the liberal arts faculty. As for Dr. Franzmann,
he was listed on the synodical clergy roster and was finally or-
dained in Cambridge, U.K. If our Synod is to resist the tide of sec-
ularization, it needs to hold on to its historic practice of making use
of God’s gift of the Gospel-preaching ministry for the authoritative