Synod

Consider this quotation I found in Christian News (which I don't generally read through, so I'm glad this caught my eye) from Rev. Daniel Preus about the "A Statement" or "Statement of the 44," which was issued in the LCMS of 1945:

Completely apart from the issues involved, the fact that a statement of faith and conviction which had been made and mailed to all LCMS clergy and was contrary to official church doctrine and practice was simply withdrawn from discussion without retraction was a very bright green light to those who wished to see Missouri embrace a more open fellowship practice. But the implications do not end there. When people were permitted to publish a position statement contrary to our doctrine, and were not disciplined or required to retract, it became apparent that people would be able to publish or set forth other statements contrary to our doctrine. To many who believed Missouri too rigid, the 44 became a heroic example of a new permissiveness which would slowly invade the synod and lead eventually to the deplorable positions held by the St. Louis Seminary faculty majority in the early 1970s.... The fact remains that these men were able to flaunt the doctrinal practice of the church body to which they belonged with no significant consequences...

(Quoted from the 1999 paper The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod: Holiday from History.)

This is possibly an eye-opening revelation of the thought process behind the suspension of Pastor Rolf Preus from the ELS. It could be that the decision was based upon the notion that Preus' paper "Clarifying the Issues" was equivalent to the "Statement of the 44."

Let's consider the merit of that notion. Do you think that the quote from Daniel Preus above speaks to the suspension of his brother, Rolf Preus? I don't, and I'll give you a reason right off the bat. First, a few supporting observations.

Observation

According to the Daniel Preus quote, the Statement of the 44 was aimed against a certain conservative rigidity of the synod, particularly on the doctrine of fellowship.

Observation

The paper "Clarifying the Issues" is not about fellowship, but about the doctrine of the ministry.

Observation

Daniel Preus points out that the LCMS president in 1945 failed to demand a full retraction of "A Statement."

Observation

In 2006, the ELS president would accept nothing short of a full retraction of "Clarifying the Issues."

Observation

Since the issue advanced in the Statement of the 44 was lax fellowship, the LCMS president's failure to put that very same doctrine into practice was a virtual capitulation to "A Statement."

Observation

However, "Clarifying the Issues," by contrast, did not advocate laxity of any kind, but instead noted an unacceptable doctrinal laxity on the part of a synodical doctrinal statement.

Conclusion from the foregoing

In several ways, the positions in 2006 were reversed from the positions of 1945. The difference is that Pastor Preus did not soften his position as the LCMS president had done.

Another conclusion from the foregoing

Furthermore, a demand from the president to retract "Clarifying the Issues" was not needed in 2006 to avoid a capitulation to its position (as happened it 1945), because it did not advocate a permissive doctrine of fellowship. It could have remained on the table as raising some serious issues for public consideration, requiring close scrutiny and defense.

I wasn't around in 1945. My grandfathers were still on their way back from the war. So maybe I don't know what I'm writing about. If that's the case, then please educate me.

We close this chapter with Luther's oft-repeated admonition never to substitute a human interpretation for the "text," i.e., for the words of Scripture themselves. He says: "With the text and from the foundation of the Holy Scriptures I have silenced and slain all my opponents. For whoever is well founded and practiced in the text will become a good and fine theologian, since a passage, or text, from the Bible has more weight than many commentators and glosses, which are not strong and round and do not help in the controversy." (Erl. 57, p. 7) Again: "When the fathers teach anything, they do not trust their teaching, fearing it to be too obscure and uncertain, but they go to the Scriptures and take a clear passage out of it to shed light on their teaching. How should they have overcome the heretics if they had fought with their own glosses? They would have been regarded as fools and madmen; but when they brought forward clear texts which needed no glosses, so that reason was brought into captivity, the evil spirit himself with all his heresies was completely routed." (St. L. XVIII: 1293.) And so Luther further admonishes: "It must be the prime concern of a theologian to be well versed in the text, a bonus textualis, as it is called" (St. L. V:456). He complains about the many "commentaries and books," through which "the dear Bible is being buried and covered up so that no one takes note of the text." He refers to his own experience: "When I was young, I familiarized myself with the Bible, read it often, and became well acquainted with the text; so well acquainted that I knew where every passage that was mentioned was to be found; thus I became a good textualis. Not till then did I read the commentators. But finally I had to disregard them all and put them away because the use of them did not satisfy my conscience, and I had to take my stand again on the Bible; for it is much better to see with your own eyes than with another's." (St. L. XXII:54 f.) Thus Luther and his conscience stood on the bare text of Scripture, excluding all human interpretation. Pieper's Dogmatics, volume 1, p. 366-367.

One of the troubling things about some doctrinal statements -- indeed, even some with official standing in the ELS -- is when they cite scripture passages that don't quite demonstrate the doctrinal point. It's as though we are building our doctrinal expressions upon the glosses or commentaries of such passages, and then citing only the passages themselves, as though they obviously teach what was in the gloss. But often, they don't.

Can I in good conscience claim that scripture teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary? Scripture doesn't necessarily contradict that pious belief. But what if I made such a claim and cited Isaiah 7:14? It doesn't quite prove the claim, does it? That's what I'm talking about. The citation, by its very presence, claims scriptural support. But when you go look it up, something's still missing. In fact, you could on that basis say that such a teaching is unscriptural.

Luther was wise to let his conscience be trained only by the Bible itself. Otherwise we run the risk of erring gravely with a clear conscience. That would still be sin, and all the more tragic.

To accept a commentary or interpretation as the basis for an article of faith, instead of what the scriptural passage obviously says on its own, could also become a trap into what Jesus described as "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Every Christian should be wary of this, not just pastors or teachers of the church.