LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 434

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

434 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

50 years ago, raised their voice against it, and showed the limits of con-
gregational nghts in call matters, and maintained what we still teach
today: A congregation has no right to call or dismiss a preacher or
teacher by contract.

P. F. Koehneke, “The Call into the Holy Ministry,” in The
Abiding Word (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1946),
1:380.

From the beginning our Synod had 1o lake a definite stand on this
question. Among the conditions of membership in Synod the following
is listed [in the Constitution]: “Regular (not temporary) call of the
pastor.” Chapter V, paragraph 11, we find this statement: “Licenses to
preach which are customary in this country are not granted by Synod
because they are contrary to Scripture and the practice of the Church.”
.. This has been the consistent practice of our Synod since that time
and has been stated again and again in official papers presented at con-
ventions and in our periodicals.

Robert D. Preus, “The Doctrine of the Call in the Confessions

and Lutheran Orthodoxy,” in Church and Ministry Today, ed.

John A. Maxfield (Crestwood, Mo.: Luther Academy, 2001), 33.

The call is always permanent. The notion of a temporary call is in-

conceivable in the nature of the case, and therefore the matier is nol
even considered by Luther or the Confessions or any Lutheran theolo-
gian. The function of the ministerial office, Calov asserts, is to work for
the church as a servant (diaconus), not as a lord, to do the work of an
evangelist to the grave, to guard and be an example to the flock, an
angel of God's revelation of His Word. One never quits such a calling.
As the immediate call in apostolic times was for life (until God Himself
called the person to a new place), so it is with the mediate call. It is
permanent and irrevocable, unless God Himself intervenes.

Dr. Kurt Marquart
Rev. Walter Lehenbauer
April 30, 2003

A Minority Opinion on CTCR Recommendation “To Bring
Discussions with RIM to a God-Pleasing Conclusion”

It should be unthinkable to accept the harmless generalities of
the “Concluding Affirmations and Rejections” as an adequate set-
tlement of the Pentecostal/Charismatic issues raised by “Renewal
in Missouri” (RIM).

The very name “Renewal in Missouri” suggests that Pente-
costalism and its interdenominational form, the Charismatic Move-
ment—started by Dennis Bennet in 1959 within the theologically
bankrupt Episcopal Church—were God’s way of renewing His
church, and should therefore be accepted by the Missouri Synod.
RIM’s official publication keeps advertising and selling books like
Larry Christenson, ed., Welcome Holy Spirit (1987), and Rodney
Lensch, Be All Thy Graces Now Outpoured (1998), which advo-
cate this general perspective. One of the RIM members wrote in its
official publication that he had received a revelation from Christ to
establish a “non-denominational” school in Africa!

RIM represents the inroads of the happy-clappy “Hallelujah
Revolution” (Ian Cotton, 1996) into the formerly confessionally
sound Missouri Synod.

Not just this or that detail, but the whole basic legitimacy of the
Pentecostal/Charismatic movements needs to be questioned. Con-
sider: The first alleged “tongues” speakers since the time of the
apostles were not the Azuza Street Pentecostalists of the early
twentieth century, but the Mormons of New York, in the 1820s!
Since the Mormons reject and deny the only true God, the Most
Holy Trinity, their “tongues”-speaking was clearly not from God.
Yet the Pentecostalists imitated them later. Judged by the marks of
the church, the purely preached Gospel and the rightly adminis-
tered Sacraments (Augsburg Confession VII), “tongues” and the
rest are not a genuine God-given renewal, but a distraction and con-
fusion by him who likes to masquerade as an angel of light!

This issue must not be swept under the carpet. On the contrary,
doctrinal discussions with RIM need to be pursued with renewed
vigor, and brought to a God-pleasing resolution. Anything short of

2004 Convention Workbook

that is an untruthful church-politics unworthy of a confessional
church. As former President Robert Kuhn put it so well: “The bot-
tom line clearly is this: the charismatic movement and the teach-
ings of God’s Word are incompatible. There are some who may
hope to ‘Lutheranize’ charismatic theology, but finally it is not pos-
sible” (Report of the President, Part II, 2001 Proceedings, p. 69).
Dr. Kurt Marquart

Sept. 17, 2003

NOTES

1. Adopted by the CTCR at its meeting of Feb. 17-19, 2003.

2. John 21:16-17 NASB.

3. Good theology begins with clear definitions. In the opening
footnote, the Report adopted by a Commission of the CTCR as The
Theology and Practice of “the Divine Call” (hereafter CTCR Re-
port) declares its dependence upon the CTCR’s 1981 report on The
Ministry: Offices, Procedures, and Nomenclature as a point of de-
parture. Concerns and reservations stemming from the first docu-
ment, therefore, carry through to the second.

Neither Report satisfactorily explains the varied use in Scrip-
ture of the word diakoneoo (“ministry”) and its cognates.
Sometimes the Bible uses the term in a narrower sense, i.e., the one
office of the Holy Ministry, filled by a called and ordained servant
of the Word. Other times diakoneoo refers to the service given by
the church to others. Confusion surrounding this crucial term runs
rampant.

Martin Luther was the biblical exegete par excellence. A good
understanding of Luther’s use of the word “ministry” and related
terms might prove helpful toward resolving this confusion. See Ap-
pendix A for an introductory explanation of the necessary distinc-
tion between the words “ministry” (service) and “vocation” (call-
ing). Clarity in teaching the theology and practice of the Divine
Call will be served when this distinction is introduced, defined, ex-
plained and emphasized.

Another area of confusion remaining from the 1981 report on
The Ministry is the relationship between auxiliary offices in the
church and the one office of the Holy Ministry. Again, confusion
here will lead to confusion regarding the Divine Call. See Appen-
dix B for a brief discussion of this topic.

4. “Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch
over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do
this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for
you” (Heb. 13:17 NASB).

5. Luther’s Small Catechism, “A Short Form of Confession”
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), 219.

6. Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An
Enchiridion, trans. Luther Poellet (St. Louis: Concordia Publish-
ing House, 1981), 29-30. Part 1 of this volume addresses “The le-
gitimate and ordinary cail of ministers of the Word and of the
Sacraments,” and thoroughly treats the subject through 28 ques-
tions and answers that young preachers were expected to commit to
memory in the duchies of Brunswick and Liineburg during the late-
sixteenth century. Theologians, pastors, and laity who gave this lit-
tle volume regular and careful study would benefit greatly from it.

7, Chemnitz, 30.

8. Chemnitz, 31, emphasis added.

9. Chemnitz, 32-33. Chemnitz’s explanations regarding the pro-
cedures for the church to implement the mediate Divine Call have
been included in Appendix C.

10. Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians (1535), Luther’s
Works, Jaroslav Pelikan, ed. and trans. (St. Louis: Concordia Pub-
lishing House, 1963), 26:16.

11. Luther, Galatians, 18.

12. Luther, Galatians, 19-21.

13. CTCR Report Theology and Practice of “the Divine Call,”
“The Biblical Witness,” 6-10.