Anyone at all familiar with recent developments in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod—knows at least something about the ongoing and intense conflict in that large church concerning divergent views on the Bible. As managing editor of THE OUTLOOK, T was permitted to sit in at a Theological Convocation held at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, April 14–18. It was a most interesting and informative experience for me to be able to be present at the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday meetings, April 16, 17, 18. Dr. J. A. O. Preus, the by-this–time well-known President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, delivered the Keynote Address which is herewith reproduced in part. For the CRC as well as for others there is much to learn from the LC-MS controversy. JVP

We are gathered together at this convocation as members of the body of Christ and as representatives of various constituencies of The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Our task is to attempt to rediscover with joy the doctrinal consensus which has prevailed and to a great extent still prevails among us under the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions through the blessings of the Holy Spirit.

Since the controversy, which has so grievously troubled each of us individually and all of us as a church, has centered in the doctrine of Holy Scripture, it is most appropriate to begin our deliberations together with a review of certain portions of God‘s Holy Word.

We believe, as the Scriptures so clearly instruct us, that God created man in His own image (Gen. 1), blessed him with a condition of perfect happiness and holiness, but that man fell into sin, thereby losing his first estate (Gen. 3). Nevertheless –and such an astonishing “nevertheless” it is—God sent forth His Son to die on the cross and to rise again, in accordance with the Scriptures that, as in Adam, all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (I Cor. 15). Since we are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, we have peace with God. We rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. And we know that hope does not disappoint us, for God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us (Rom. 5).

Moreover, it is God who sends us into the world as His workers. It is He who empowers us through His Word and Spirit. He says, “All power is given unto Me in heaven and on earth; therefore you go.” He says, “You shall receive power after the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and you shall be my witnesses” (Matt. 38, Acts 1).

Not only is He with us, not only does He empower us, but He also gives us the message. He says, “Preach the Gospel,” not the message of men, not the wisdom of the world, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He says, “Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mark 14; I Cor. 1 and 2; Matt. 28) . . . .

It is my firm conviction that we gather as those who have a very greal degree of doctrinal consensus existing among us already. We gather as those who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, as those who find Christ in the Scriptures, and as those who recognize that without Him and His grace and His blessing we can do nothing and we arc nothing.

These truths, presented to us in passages of Holy Writ along with hundreds and thousands more that each of us could quote, give a general summary of God‘s dealings with His fallen people and His desire to restore them, help them, and bring them unto eternal life . . .

So we begin this convocation in His name—aware of our terrible sins, our failures, and our weaknesses but also knowing that in the Holy Scriptures we find a gracious God and believing the promises of His Word that He will be gracious unto us also.

Now, having said this in the honesty of confession and of conviction, let us also be honest in admitting the presence of doctrinal differences which do exist among us. These differences have resulted in controversy. and we are bound to acknowledge the existence of that controversy. But let us remember that controversy is something out of which the hand of God can create good. Controversy can even be productive if it is carried on in a constructive and positive way. The entire history of the church is the history of controversy. Every creed and every confessional document has been preceded by a controversy.

1t took the church centuries of controversy before it finally reached consensus on the doctrine of the Trinity and on the person of Christ. The doctrine concerning the work of Christ was not really brought to full understanding and fully developed until the time of the Reformation.

When Lutheranism came into being, controversy did not stop even within the Lutheran fold. Some of the most violent controversies within Lutheranism occurred after the death of Luther. These controversies were settled by the Formula of Concord, a truly notable document. The year 1560 saw the end of one doctrinal controversy, the continuation of three others, and the beginning of two new controversies. Yet as we study the history of these, we would have to say that none of them was unimportant. None of them was something that was merely a quarrel about words or a personality conflict or a squabble among theologians . . . .

However, the church of all ages not merely indulged in controversy or rejoiced in controversy or wrung its hands over controversy. The church of all ages has attempted to do something about it in a constructive and positive way.

One method has been used is the calling of a church council While we of the Missouri Synod perhaps would not be so vain as to say that what we are doing really constitutes a church council, nevertheless what we are doing at this convocation is to say before the whole world that we are concerned about doctrine, that we are concerned about resolving our controversies, and that we arc concerned about the biblical admonition to seek consensus and peace in our midst.

In calling such a convocation, we are indeed standing on high and historic ground. The history of the church is filled with accounts of important and significant church councils. While we may not accomplish everything in the five days of this meeting that we hope to accomplish, we are setting a course and we are undertaking a process which may, in the long run and under the blessings of God, bring not only peace to our church but great blessings to the church at large.

The proceedings of the great church councils of the past indicate that each was opened with a recitation of the Nicene Creed, as the base on which all agreed and on which all would build in the matters under discussion. We build on our common faith, Scripture, and our Lutheran Confessions.

Councils of the church have likewise nearly always concluded their work by adopting certain documents. Sometimes we call these creeds, sometimes we call them confessions. sometimes we give them other names, but they do represent the fruit of deliberation and discussion. At this convocation we are beginning a serious and earnest discussion of issues that have long troubled us. Notable theologians. some of the best in our Synod, are on hand to help us as we deliberate about these important matters . . . .

Several benefits can come from our convocation. In the first place, perhaps out of our discussions, our Synod may develop a climate for peace and harmony among us which will bring us great blessing and help us be a blessing to many others.

Today we live in an age when the doctrine of Holy Scripture is under discussion and enveloped in controversy throughout almost every denomination. For almost 200 years, the church has been wrestling with the question of the nature of the authority of Holy Scripture. In our own Synod in recent years we have been especially caught up in this controversy. I personally believe that The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is in an excellent position to render a great contribution to Lutheranism and to all of Christendom if we can discuss this basic doctrine in a manner which will be productive and beneficial for ourselves and for others. The truest love we can ever have is toward God’s Holy Word, which brings us our Lord, Jesus Christ, and which makes us always anxious to contend for the faith. From its very inception, sola scriptum has been vital to Lutheranism, for our confessions of faith are not based on papal authority, emotionalism, or human reason. Therefore, for the Lutheran Church to depart from the Scripture is most serious, as we have no other place to seek refuge, nor would we desire any other sanctuary.

As the Confessions state, “Holy Scripture remains the only judge, rule, and norm according to which as the only tombstone all doctrines should and must he understood and judged as good or evil, right or wrong” (FC Ep Pref. 7).

Furthermore, the authoritative Word for the church is the canonical Word, not pre-canonical sources, forms, or traditions—however useful the investigation of these possibilities may on occasion be for a clearer understanding of what the canonical text intends to say.

In our day, historical criticism presents itself to us as a valid approach to investigating Scripture. Yet, the advocates of this method have stated that it is revolutionary in its implications, and some have even admitted that it is sterile in its conclusions. We cannot compromise the authority of Scripture as witnessed to by the Confessions. We do well to be mindful of the warning expressed in a statement attributed to Luther:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the Truth of Cod except precisely that little point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefields besides, is mere Aight and disgrace, if he flinches at that point.”

Finally, may I add one more quotation, the well-known paragraph from the Formula of Concord (SD XI, 95–96):

“We have no intention (since we have no authority to do so) to yield anything of the eternal and unchangeable Truth of God for the sake of temporal peace, tranquility, and outward harmony. Nor would such peace and harmony last, because it would be contrary to the truth and actually intended for its suppression. Still less by far are we minded to whitewash or cover up any falsification of true doctrine or any publicly condemned errors. We have a sincere delight in and deep love for true harmony and are cordially inclined and determined on our part to do everything in our power to further the same We desire such harmony as will not violate God‘s honor, that will not detract anything from the divine truth of the Holy Gospel, that will not give place to the smallest error but will lead the poor sinner to true and sincere repentance, raise him up through faith, strengthen him in his new obedience, and thus justify and save him forever through the sole merit of Christ.”

This is a very important section of our Lutheran Confessions. There are those who always see in contending for the faith only the spirit of polemics and dead orthodoxy, legalism, and lack of love. I do not agree with this assessment. Such contending has been and can still be productive if we try to settle it in a proper way. True orthodoxy can never be dead. Legalism, as a way of salvation, must be absolutely opposed, but there must be order and regulation among Christians as they carry out their work. Lovelessness must never have a place among us.

A second possible result of this convocation, and may God grant that the present controversy results in this, is that we and our children will have a firmer conviction that the Scripture is indeed God’s infallible Word to man for all times.

As the third benefit of this convocation, we should also determine that one of the final results will be the acknowledgment of our desperate need of the grace and mercy of God. To say that God can use controversy is right. We have all said and done things for which we have been sorry, and we should be willing to confess our wrongs.

A good deal has been said about this of late. We hear expressions implying that you should repent for the sins that I lay at your door, while I defend myself against the charges that you lay at my door. When we talk of repentance, we need to make sure that we are repenting of our sins, not someone else’s. likewise, we should repent of what God calls sin. Not everything that we may call sin actually is sin. We do not repent of actions that are pleasing to God, even though we have to admit and confess that all of our actions are tainted with sin and are affected by the fact that we are sinful. It is not a sin to contend for the faith (Jude 3); it is a sin to be contentious. It is not a sin to ask that God’s Word he preached in its truth and purity; it is a sin to be proud, arrogant, or to think that we are saved by pure doctrine. It is not a sin to have a tender conscience and to call upon our conscience; but it is a sin to he stubborn, and it is also a denial of the Gospel to imply that we are saved by our consciences. All of us, even those with the tenderest consciences, are saved only by the grace of God through faith in Christ alone. Thus we are not saved by clear consciences, by pure doctrine, by contending for the faith, or by anything that we do or by any thoughts or contentions or attitudes that we have . . . .

However, the point in time may arrive at which even the most resilient organization no longer can endure the constant buffeting and the constant bickering which has characterized our activities of late. Perhaps a slow-down in financial support is one indication of the fact that we are nearing the end of our day of opportunity. One cannot help but feel that what happens at this convocation, and what happens at the convention at Anaheim, may have very permanent results.

In times of controversy, it becomes evident that, in seeking early solutions, various courses of action are proposed. For example, a leader of one of our organized groups stated recently that there are three streams within the membership of that group. One stream declares that Missouri is no longer a viable institution and not worthy of further struggle. A second stream would like to reform the Synod, while the third stream is not concerned about the Synod at all but is committed to its own faithful ministry and witness. Stating it briefly and bluntly, the options laid before us, according to this analysis, are: split, reform, or ignore.

It is a curious fact that, on the other end of the spectrum there is a group to match each of these. The onc is declaring that the only way to solve our problems is to run the opposing faction out of the Synod and that we should cleanse our ranks. A second would be most interested in reforming the Synod and would be working for it, while the third would be as unconcerned about the Synod as its counterpart at the other end of the spectrum.

If this situation is allowed to continue, and if it reaches a grand crescendo at Anaheim, we could be in for far greater difficulty than we have witnessed thus far.

It is quite obvious that the philosophy of rule or ruin is not going to succeed, but it is possible that this philosophy could do a great deal of damage and set the Synod back in many ways . . .

A sixth bene6t of this convocation is our witness to the world. Very few churches today would either have the interest in doctrine or the willingness to risk as much as we are risking when we hold a convocation such as this. The whole world is looking at us. It would be very easy to brush things under the rug, or to hold a meeting in which we would dodge the issues by finding all of the things on which we agree and then talk only about them. Let us not, therefore, seek only consensus but also sound Lutheran doctrine; let this convocation be a launching pad for intensive Bible study, so that we may grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and in a greater appreciation of the sacred Scriptures which testify of Him . . . 

We always need to remember that God’s work goes on even if we do not. The needs which God laid at the door of His church continue to be there and continue to mount. Within the calendar year of 1975, the population of the world is crossing the four billion point. Three billion of these people are without Christ and therefore without hope. God has not only given us the command to bring His Gospel to these people, but He has given us as a church the opportunity to do so. This opportunity is still there and we must be about it. We cannot let the quarrels of small elements, the egos or the ambitions of certain individuals stand in the way of accomplishing our mission. Not only is the need there, but the solution is also there in the Gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ, as we have it contained in God’s Holy Word, with which our heavenly Father has blessed our Synod so bountifully. Let this be our ongoing task: that we make known the whole counsel of God in our pulpits, teach it in our schools, meditate upon it in our homes and in our private devotions, support it with our gifts, our prayers, our example, and in our synodical walking together bring the saving Christ to a world lost in sin.

And now, let us be about our business here. Today, we will give attention to the subject of “Inspiration and Inerrancy.” On the following day, the presentation of the “Historical-Critical Method” will be made, as your schedule indicates. On Wednesday, we will have two presentations of the same topic entitled, “The Church Under the Scriptures.” On Thursday, we are scheduled to hear the document entitled, “Gospel-Scripture Relationship.” Other plans relative to the orders for the day you either have in your possession, or you shall receive them.

Finally, brothers, let us be genuinely repentant for our sins and filled with the spirit of forgiveness. Let us begin this convocation and deal one with another in honesty and with integrity. May God, the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, grant us His Holy Spirit to the end that our days together will be blessed with hearing and confessing the Truth that makes us free.