LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 415

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 415

transmission in its institutions of higher learning of “the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Dr. David Scaer

Dr. Kurt Marquart

Rev. John Nunes

April 29, 2003

NOTES

1. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1950), 1:46-51.

2.

With respect to the first question addressed to the CTCR in this
request, it is evident that the Scriptures do not speak about who can
or cannot teach when it comes to the areas of philosophy, geogra-
phy, ecology, archaeology, and the like. In fact, one might say that
biblically speaking the subjects that have little to do with theology
are not an issue. This is because they are secular in nature and only
peripherally and incidentally overlap the teaching of theology. Hav-
ing said this, however, we must state that the Scriptures and the
Lutheran Confessions do have something to say about the teaching
of theology proper in the public arena.

The Commission’s report correctly points out that in the Scrip-
tures and Confessions the terms “teaching” and “preaching” are
often used interchangeably and it cites passages such as the fol-
lowing: 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 2:11; Ap
IV 234; VII 48; and Treatise 27, 67. However, the report fails to
mention the obvious reason why the Scriptures and the Confessions
speak in this way. In these texts the Scriptures and Confessions
make it evident that the teaching of theology is quite different from
all other branches of science, and that those who preach and teach
theology publicly are to be duly ordained. Thus, St. Paul tells the
Corinthians: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to
you” (1 Cor. 11:23; cf. Gal. 1:2). That is precisely why Scripture
has these words of warning: “Let not many of you become teach-
ers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter
judgment” (James 3:1 NASB).

Furthermore, when a pastor who teaches and preaches every
day in his particular parish is also asked to teach at the university
level, he will be able to relate to students in a way remarkably dif-
ferent from someone teaching who has no parish experience. When
we place a nonordained teacher into the classroom to teach future
pastors, we are in essence asking the students to settle for some-
thing less than we expect them to do as future pastors. And we are
asking the teacher to do something that he cannot be equally qual-
ified to do, since he has never experienced the daily joys and bur-
dens associated with the pastoral office. This is under the very best
of circumstances unfair to the students and teachers alike. In the
worst case scenario and tragically for the whole church, we there-
fore do not make use of pastors who are natural teachers of theol-
ogy simply by virtue of what they do day in and day out in their
parishes. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that the Confessions
underscore the fact that the public teaching and administration of
the Sacraments are to be carried out in the church by those who
have been regularly called (AC XIV).

In connection with the second question addressed to the Com-
mission, the Response makes reference to Acts 18:28 ff. There we
read about Apollos, a man of eloquence who made extensive use of
this gift in the proclamation of God’s Word. Yet, when it came to
the issue of Baptism, Apollos did not have all the facts and was
sorely lacking, knowing only about the baptism of John. It is evi-
dent from the context that God indeed used a woman to set Apollos
straight on Baptism. However, it is imperative that we take notice
of the following two important facts recorded in these verses: (1)
Priscilla is not doing any teaching by herself, but in the presence

and with the aid of her husband Aquila; (2) This teaching is not
done in the public arena, but privately, as verse 26 clearly states.

Theology is clearly not like other fields of study. Instead, if the
examples of the Scripture passages above are to be our guide, we
must continue to uphold the office of the holy ministry, especially
in the public arena. This is particularly applicable in the Synod’s
institutions of higher learning, where educators oftentimes are
teaching those who are considering entry into the office of the holy
ministry. We must not delegate this great responsibility to those
who are not the properly called teachers of theology in the church.
When it comes to our universities, we dare not maintain that merely
because it might be more expedient or convenient to hire a particu-
lar teacher—man or woman—this person can also be expected to
teach theology classes. In so doing our institutions of higher learn-
ing would clearly be abandoning our long established practice. Fur-
thermore, in a church that has several thousand pastors, many of
whom would welcome the opportunity to teach at one of our uni-
versities, we dare not despise the gifts God has so freely bestowed
on us all. We must not ask those who have no personal stake in the
teaching of theology to do the very thing pastors are so well trained
to do and for which they bear the full responsibility that comes with
their office.

For these reasons, I would earnestly urge the presidents and fac-
ulty of our CUS not to forge ahead with such a major and most sig-
nificant change to our long-established requirement for theological
instruction in the Synod’s institutions of higher learning. The Com-
mission’s report has cited one debatable precedent from our more
than 150-year history and only one other example from the entire
history of Lutheranism. In my mind this is hardly enough to jus-
tify changing our practice, since it does not even begin to provide
adequate rationale for challenging the traditional interpretation on
this issue. To proceed with this radical change would not only be
parting ways with the Synod’s long-established practice but also
bring into question whether the CUS still wants to follow what it
was originally designed to do. The CUS exists to serve the church.
That is to say, far from undermining the teachings of the LCMS,
and particularly the office of the holy ministry, the CUS was es-
tablished to be an aid to the church and to support unapologetically
the doctrines that have bound us together. If that is no longer a pri-
ority for our CUS, then its presidents and faculty must be honest
in explaining to the church why they now wish to depart from our
traditional interpretation of Scripture and follow their own course
of action. And if that is indeed the case, then the CUS and the
church together must consider the serious implications of this
change for all of us in the short and long term.

Rev. Walter Lehenbauer

April 29, 2003
3.
I agree with the CTCR’s Response at three crucial points:
1. The Commission states: “... all those who are privileged to

teach theology at a Concordia University System school do so
within and for The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. ... Theol-
ogy instructors submit willingly to professional and theological ad-
monition and discipline from their peers, from their university pres-
ident and District President, from their boards of regents, and from
the duly elected officials of the church at large.”

These theology professors are teaching within the church and
for the church. They are also responsible and accountable to the
persons listed for their assigned teaching duties. A position on the
CTCR is presumably reserved for “‘a member from the faculties of
the synodical colleges” because these share the responsibility for
maintaining the Synod’s doctrinal unity and integrity along with
the seminaries, pastors, teachers, and laity.

The seminaries, universities and colleges of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod certainly ought not be considered as

2004 Convention Workbook