CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 49. Numbel-\ 2 and -3 APRIL-JULY 1985 Dedication ...................................... -81 Robert D. Preus:A Bibliography 1974-1984. ............ 83 An Assessment of LCMS Polity and Practice . on the Basis of the Treatise. .George F. Wollenburg 87 The Lord's Supper according to the .. World Council of Churches .Charles J. Evanson 117 Antichrist in the Early Church ............ .William C. Weinrich 135 Spiritual Gifts and the Work of the Kingdom ................ Albert L. Garcia 149 Was Luther a Missionary? ... .Eugene .- W. Bunkowske 161 Sanctification in Lutheran Theology ...................... David P. Scaer 181 Theological Observer ............................ .I99 ................................... Book Reviews .207 Books Received ....... Theological Observer ~~-JNCORDI~ - WHERE DID IT COME FROM9 ~h~ term bbconcordia'~ has become ynOnO~oUs with The Lutheran Church- ~i~~~~ri synod where it is used = fhe muent designation of itS sxni- nanes. hgh schools, publishing company, retirement facilities, some co%rc- gations, and many of its auxiliary institutions. Tracing the use of the aould be a statistician's dream. The word touches the four winds. "COncordia" On the east c~t clearly meansBronxvfle,on the West Coast bdmd, in the and in the nod St. hul. In the Fort Wayne telephone directory appear the follm- ing: Concordia Village, Concordia Cemetery Association. Concordia Oarde*, Con- cordia Church, Concordia High School, and Concordia Seminary, a cradle to grave situation. In between there is a Ralph Concordia, presumably not an KMS-related institution. The term "concordia" has been used in addressing college student bod- ies to urge them to live harmoniously. but beyond that the frequently used verbal sign "concordia" is just that - a sign. It can refer to any number of institutions but for nearly all those who use it, it has no clearly agreed significance. To the un- trained ear, Concordia Cemetery could easily be confused with Concordia Semi- nary and anyone can draw his or her own concIusions from that. The four-hundredth anniversaries of the FormuIa of Concord (1977) and the Book of Concord, the Concordia, (1980) at least gave our church opportunity to review the historical meaning of the term. The church of the Concordia is the church that accepts all of the sixteenthcentury Lutheran confessions as they have been perved in the Book of Concord. Now that five years have passed since the celebration, the term is again lost, it ~t was indeed ever recovered. for the LCMS rank and file. The Small Catechism was intended by Luther to be the people's "Bible" and it serves well as an abridgement of all the Lutheran Confessions for them. Pastors pledge themselves to the Conconlia at ordination and it is the basis for the constitution of our congregations. But why was the name chosen by the authors of the Formula of Concord and then the Book of Concord? Dr. Ono Stahlke. seminary professor emeritus, has called attention to "Luthers Ekklesiologie," an essay by Michael Beyer, published in Leben d Wrk Mam'n Luthers von 15261546 (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983), pages 108-9, for an answer to the question of origin. The term or concept originated with the January 21, 1530 decree of Charles V calling for a convocation of the imperial smtes (i.e., a diet) to bring about reconciliation in matters of faith and church order by Seeking "for one united Christian truth" ("zu qner qnigen crisdichen -,), i.e., agreement on what the truth was. This phrase was taken we into both the Luther- an Augsburg Confession and the Roman Confutation of the Augsburg Confession as "concordia christiana." NearIy half a century later it became the tide of all the confessions as the Concordia, the Book of Concord, sometimes called the Concor- Christ-, the Christian Book of Concord. In the same dele wer d~ out since the Purpose of the imperial convocation was do- agreement, i .e., ''con~rdia,'' it was foredetermined that the Lutheran document, later knawn as the Augsburg Confession, could not have an article on the pop as hi^ slack taken up in the Treatise on the Pomr Md primacy of the ADpe, was an appndix to the Augsburg Confession. The concept of '-concordia79 as agree- ment in Christian truth comes, SO far as can be determined, not from a ~~~h~~~~, from the imperial defender of the Church of Rome, Charles V. David I? Scaer 200 CONCORDIA THEOUXICAL QUARTERLY ALTERNATIVES TO ABOKI'ION Opposition to abortion is not enough, said Surgeon General C. Everett Koop at a White House briefing on Nwember 15, 1984. Alternatives must also be provided, he said, which offer support to unwed pregnant teenagers who choose not to have abortions. This was the general thrust of the "White House Briefing on Alternatives to Abortion and Help for Unwed Mothers." According to Koop, the only chance which the pro-lik forces in the nation have of reversing Supreme Court decision Roe v. Hbde in the next four years will be the President's appointment of new Supreme Court justices to replace those who retire. Hopes for a constitutional amendment reversing Roe v. Wuk were dimmed when Congress killed the proposal in 1981. Pro-life forces were then "in disarray," said Koop. In the meantime, he said, individuals and churches can do much to help save the lives of the unborn. The unwed teenager who finds that she is pregnant is likely to be asked to leave her home when her parents learn of the pregnancy. Unless she loncnvs that there is a place she can turn for support and has a place to stay, she is likely to see abortion as her only alternative. When a group of concerned people offers support and a place to stay, the unwed mother will often accept this life-line and reject the abortion which she usually did not want in the first place. What these vmmen need, said Koop, is encouragement, support, and &n a catalyst to aid in family reconciliation. Often when parents force their daughter out of the home, a reconciliation later results when the parents see the care and support which others will give her. Until such reconciliation comes about,the unwed mother needs the haven best pmvided in a Christian home where surrogate parents are willing to support her, to be her advocate, to give her advice on haw to handle the cost of childbirth, and to present to her the advantages of adoption. Wp said he felt adoption was a better alternative than single parenting in view of recent research. There are no adoption problems for newborn babies, since the demand has grown so high in the last ten years. Adopion therefore "not only saves babies, but also provides a blessing for a childless couple-" Koop's keynote speech was followed by a day-long series of lectures, panels, and workshops dealing with the "how-to'sVof providing support for unwed mothers who wish to choose life for their babies. Presenters gave materials and suggestions to anyone wishing to work toward the establishment of a so-called Crisis Pregnancy Center in his community- It would pmvide the necessary home and support fw unwed mothers for the duration of the pregnancy and in many cases for a time after the birth of the chiid. In general, according to workshop presenter Curtis Young of the Christian Action Council, a board of directors consisting of seven to nine devoted people can learn how to raise the necessary funds and establish such a center manned by volunteer workers and perhaps one full-time salaried director. Young suggested that the best way to raise needed funds is to bid a well-publicized banquet at which donations and pledges are received. Anyone desiring information on how to start and operate a Crisis Pregnancy Center may request the information from the Pear- son Foundation (3663 Lindell Blvd.. Suite 290, St. Louis, Missouri 63108). It was refreshing to see that the present administration is not only opposing abor- tion, but talung positive steps to make it unm. It was readily apparent to those attending the briefing that the American president's firm stance against abortion is more than mere rhetoric. Several observers commented during the recess periods that it appeared clear to them that these issues remain a chief concern of the Reagan White House. That should come as a welcome observation to anyone agreeing with the Missouri Synod's pro-life position. Burnell F. Eckardt, Jr., Our Savior Lutheran Church Wihester, Virginia THEOLOGICAL OBSERVER PR(X'mING A BASIS FOR A CIVIL RELIGION IN AMERICG sd i~ foudis , Lutheran chwh-Missouri Synod (EMS) has *rated def~tive boundaries of church fell~wship- Thou& &Y haw been flexible in certain prids of the Synod's history and remain in some of the church *, bob clergy and people haw not participated in the general ~ligims mwe- merits of be nation. I& comparative isolationism be traced to several *uses, some historical and doc^. But whatever the cam for its fell-p prac- tices may be, the LCMS has not felt an enurunical obligation either to other church bodies or the nation in the sense that other 1- denomiIWi011~ have- Of course, exceptions mq he cid, but LCMS members less likely be found in the halls of power me remd of prayer from the public ~~hools was as traumatic for the WMS as it for other Christian groups- Our church MY had a ~ro~o*ion- ately larger ~rccntage of its children in parochial schools than other similar-sized churches and our understanding of fell~ship which did na allow for Joint services with other Christians would hardly permit religious Services to Serve the secular purposes of the state. Even where this has been done in the last generation or so, as with military chaplains, it hardly established a pattern. Luther's doctrine of the m kingdoms, as it was commonly understood, divided church and state into tufo separate realms. If the secular state (for Lutherans this dd be tautology) wanted to become even more secular by prohibiting prayers and other religious exercises in state supported and controlled schools, the state would only be acting according to its inherently secular nature. The necessity and benefit of a civil religion are hardIy of paramount importance. In fact, the prohibition against a school prayer might even remove the possibility of embarrassing ''unionism" for KMS children who might otherwise be tempted to say the brd's Prayer outside of the ordinary fellowship of the Lutheran church. Regardless of EMS scruples about prayer in public schools, such prohibition of religious activities is seen by many observers of the public scene as a growing secularism and hardly as concern for the fklluwship principles of any one Christian group. Secularism does not mean the existence of a plurality of religions, all with an equal right to carry out their activities, but the elimination of religious principles from the political scene. Religion is at best toled, but not protected and fostered. With the growth of secularism, defined as the absence of religion from public life, there has been in America paradoxically grwMh in religious interest, including, surprisingly enough, among college students. Decl* church attendance figures have reversed themselves. While religious influe= in the gme-ent can be seen as a god of such gmps as the Fbm Catholics and Evangelicals (i.e., the conservative Protestants), it also bemme a conam of some who 1.8cog- as belonging to these gmps. Hv COX, who & hr hklf a mputa- tion as a radical in the 1%0'~, says that without som of ahcdad nligious priociples1 the ~ithXls an left to the mercy of me brute power of the st*. Erst- while LCMS Pastor Richard Neuhaus has funha catapulted into prominence criticiz% the absence of religion in public wiul his hrhd mIiC Squnre (Eerdrnans, 1984). In European cwntries, including the &Wia-~~i~~t~d ones, the inmlvcmnt of =ligion in the public sphere is less problemtical, ss th sm pmvides for chuxhinvolvement.~n certain C- ecclesiastics are appohd by the gwem- merit and in other Cases direct financial aid is provided. ~~rda~ the sa~arjes of theolqid faculti~ are Paid the public C~R aicdy eBtiC govern- CONCORDIA THEOLDGICAL QUAmERLY ment in East Gennany (DDR). In the western European countries the ecclesiastical establishment may serve as a conscience for the state. The situation in our country is a bit more problematical. In Europe the church remains as a permanent fixture in the cultural-political life, even when theology loses a clear Christian orienta- tion. The church saucture can be" re-Christiaikied,"This has frequently happened. This cannot happen in America since the churches have no explicitly defined role and function toward the government. At least until the 1960's it was an implicit rela- tionship and no need for anything more explicit was seen. A secular interpretation of the church-state relationship has argued that such a relationship in fact has no basis in law. The amendment prohibiting religious establishment has been interpret- ed to mean that each must wrk independently of the other. A number of court cases, several proposed prayer amendments to the constitution, and proposed bills for tax credits for church supported or related schools are in one way or another attempts to establish church-state reIations in some areas more clearly. The search for a once and for all determination may be a long way off, as in our system it is being carried out on various levels of government. What might not be clear to the American people is the Reagan administration's commitment to the restoration of religion as an influencing factor in the public life. This is a bit different from the Carter administration where this was done through the personal force of an avowed "born-again Christian" president. President Rea- gan is less candid about his religious commitment than President Carter, who made personal witness an agenda item in his talks with heads of other states. President Reagan seems to support a more formal role for religion. The current administation is on record as supporting some sort of benefits for the parents of children in reli- gious schools and a prayer amendment. What might not be known is that the ad- ministration has been meeting with several religious groupings: Roman Catholics, the Jewish community, Evangelicals, mainline denominations associated with the National Council of Churches, and others. Selected church leaders have been meeting with White House officials for brief- ings on administration policies and, in turn, to offer their opinions. The impression that this is limited to Jerry Falwell is erroneous. Perhaps Roman Catholic bishops have had an equal amount of access. For the first time leaders representative of the religiously plural American culture are being invited to participate in public policy- making. This culture is identified as JudaeuChristian without providing a precise definition for this concept. In European countries such involvement is made pas- sible in most cases through the minisay of culture which may make mmrnenda- tions concerning bishops and theological faculties and may provide and maintain houses of worship. While such direct support of religion is not possible in the Ameri- can structure, a silouette or shadm of such a system may be reflected in the current administration. President Reagan has appointed personal liaison representatives to some of the major religious groupings. Note that these liaisons are not official contacts with offi- cial church officers. The government's purpose is not involvement in church struc- tures, but to dete- a commonly agreed religious basis for political-gmrnmental actions. This is a delicate task, since previously the relationship between the state and church has been implicit, without fi,d structure, in America. The problem facing both the government and the churches is providing a structure hr restoring a religious basis for political actions, which was self-understood up until the 1960's. The liaison &cers for religious matters have been assigned to the Department of Health and Welfare. Such an assignment is at first slightly startling, but one can draw his own conclusions. This department is pmbably closest to what THEOWICAL OBSERVER 203 the Europeans call the ministry for culture. It does recognize in a way that man does not live by bread alone. A real concern might be raised if such activities were more closely aligned with the Department of Education. It may be that no philosophical thought went into the decision to place the liaison officers in the Department of Health and Welk and that this was the easiest option. It was perhaps just a payroll matter. Clearly it is an attempt for the current administration to recognize religion as an intricate and vital part of American cultural life and to reintroduce its voice into the political arena. The question remains of how will the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod with its doctrinal stance and history involve itself in reintroducing religion into the public life. It is not a question to which an answer will be attempted here, at least not in a definitive way. We could evoke our tradition and stay out of it. But in a way we have aldy involved ourselves in it. In the abortion issue we have already been drawn into the question. The rank and file of the Missouri Synod are probably more opposed to abortion than any other major Christian denomination, including the Ro- man Catholics. Our low public profile, resulting from fellowship principles and his- tory, has failed to reveal to the public just how much we are opposed to abortion. Our anthropology, derived both from the Bible and the Lutheran Cod&sions, equates abortion with downright premeditated murder of the worst kind. Man may be con- ceived in sin, but he is still man, whose life is not only sacred to God but redeemed by the Son of God. The Son of God was once a fetus (to use the abhorrent clinical terminology often used to mask the personhood of the unborn child) and made the womb holy. Lutherans may have a difficult time participating in reinstatement of a public reli- gious co~nsus in America, simply because we do not have the kind of history that easily involves us in this sort of thing. The Church of Rome has understood itself as being as much a political institution as a church. Lutherans interpret this as be- longing to its identification as the kingdom of Antichrist. We do not, however, deny that it is still church. Non-Lutheran Protestants, whether they are of the more con- servative EvangelicaI stripe or the more politically active NCC stripe, attribute some sort of redemptive significance to the state and society. Lutherans recognize the smte as having divine functions and even as God's surrogate on earth, but clearly deny it any ultimate or even mediating saivific significance. Tke final manifestation of a's kingdom will not be associated in any way with any government, state, or human rule, including the modem state of Israel. The existence of the "Christian" state does not guarantee more or better Christians. The big question is what, if any, role will Lutherans play in bringing back religion into the public sphere. For the three centuries that Lutherans have lived in the colonies and the TJnited States, they have clearly benefited from the pluralistically religious American socie- ty. We have exploited this situation as much as any other group has. What might have been an exclusively German immigrant group in the 1830's has grown in the 1980's into an American church for which German is just as foreign as any other European language.The Missouri Synod has enjoyed not only governmental protec- tion, but certain be-, e.g., freedom from property taxes and parsonage allawances. Someone from outside could possibly ask: If your church has benefited from the favorable religious climate in America, does it have some sort of obligation to make a contribution to it? ?b say that we pray for the president, governors, courts, and legislative bodies hardly quahfies as a My adequate response. Wd it not be strange if we left to those church bodies with whom we do not find ourselves in fellowship the task of determining the religious and cultural life from which we would ulti- mately benefit? Civil religion is a given of a11 cuItural Iife, whether that be pagan Rome, Christian 204 CONCORDIA THEOLXX;ICAL QUARTERLY Europe, or even atheistic Russia. Is there a role for our church to play as govern- ment officials wrestle with the problem of determining a religious consensus? The question does take on crucial significance when some are saying that such a consen- sus is not allowed by the constitution. Is it possible to oppose state-sponsored secularism and not involve ourselves in reaching a common religious consensus for governmental action? We cannot have it both ways. David P. Scaer POLITIKGESCHICHTE UND URGESCHICHTE While rejecting critical claims of an evolution of theology within the Old Testa- ment, we are prepared to speak of an evolution of Old Testament theology itself during the course of the past two centuries (so long as one understands that we in- vest the word "evolution" with no connotation of progress). Indeed, higher criti- cism has undergone a process of metamorphic variation of constantly accelerating rate. First to emerge from the primordial ooze of rationalism was historical criti- cism; which bore within it the germs of literary criticism; which, in turn. gave birth to form criticism; which. in its turn, spawned redaction criticism and tradition criti- cism. In recent years, however, the mutations of modernism have multiplied so rapidly as to make it rather difficult to disentangle the branches of the evolutionary tree. One approach to the OId Testament which has gradually emerged as a distinct spe- cies of hilhor criticism is"po1itical criticism." This approach assumes the validity of its ancestors previously mentioned and, of course, the basic presupposition of all forms of highcr criticism-~-the fallibility of Scripture. Yet ornc critics arepredis- posed to find a political background to the words of the Old Testament as opposed to the mythological or sociological or etiological explanations which may occupy the minds of othcr critics. Walter Wifall provides an example of political criticism in an article entitled "Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh-The Politics of the Yahwist" (Currents in 7he- ology ad Mission, X, pp.176-183. There he builds upon previous proposals made by himself and Walter Bmeggemann concerning the interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3. Both work, of course. from the usual source-critical assumption that these chap- ters basically consist in preliterary Israelite folklore crafted into a literary unit by the theological genius called the Yahwist (by adherents of the documentary hypothe- sis of the origin of the Pentateuch). Broadly spealung. Brueggemann has argued ("David and His Theologian," Catholic Biblical Quarterly XXX (19681. pp. 156-181) that me Yahwist shaped both primeval (Gen. 2-11) and patriarchal accounts (Gen. 12-50) "for the political purpose of lending legitimacy to the Davidic monarchy in Jerusalem and warnrng the House of Davia against unwarranted political ma reli- gious ambitions." The Yahwist supp)sedlv 'discerned the path of all history th~0ue.h the specitics of the history of the Davidic royal family." WifaII differs from Brueggernann. however. in two respects. In the first place, he is more inclined to ascribe a mythological background as well as a political back- ground to the various figures of the Yahwistic narrative, asserting that "both the actual history of the Davidic monarchy and the mythology of ancient Near Eastern kingship seem to be reflected in the Yahwist's description of 'Adam."' At another point Wifall describes his approach in a picturesque tmpe: "Behind the figure of 'Adam' as the 'man' lurks the 'king' as a member of the 'ruling class: just as behind THEOIDGICAL OBSERVER 205 the figures of the 'man' as 'husband' and the 'woman' as 'wife' there lurk myal figures. . ." In this respect, WiM seems to remuve himself even further than Brueg- gemann from the ~neutics of the Rehnnation by &be (at least) two mean- ings to a statement and so renouncing the cardinal principle of Lutheran eltegesis ("sensus literalis unus est"). WWs second divergence from Brueggemann is his identification of the exact - point in the political history of the Davidic monarchy to which one must assign the work of the Yahwist. Brueggemann sees the four stories of Genesis 2-U as reflec- tions of four episodes in the liEe of David himself-with David and EWhsheba (2 Sam. 11-12) appearing as Adam and Eve; Amnon and Absalom (2 Sam. 13-14) ap pearing as Cain and Abel; the account of Noah's flood reflea& &he relationship between David and Absalom (2 Sam. 15-20); and the problems of Solomon's suc- cession (1 Kings 1-2) fkaturing in the story of the Tawer of Babel. Wa, on the other hand, considers these padels insufficiently exact and so ar- gues for a political background of Genesis somewhat later in the history of Judah, namely, the time of Athaliah. Thus, the "man" of Genesis 2 is Jehoram'and the "woman" is Athaliah, whose &qe cemented the alliance between the Southern and Northern Kingdoms forged by Jehoxiun's Edther, Jehoshaphat, and Athaliah's bher, Ahab (2 Kings 8:16; 2 Chron. 18:18). The description of the woman as a "helper suitable" for the man (Gen. 2:18) WiU takes to mean that Athaliah was an "dy" who was the "social equal" of Jehoram. WiEdH understands the man's depiction of tbe wornan as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gen. 2:23) as a hrmula reflecting a poIitical alliance based on consanguinity, while the term "this woman" indicates the Yahwist's contempt for Athaliah, the alliance, and the associated mar- riage. This hostility like manifests itself, according to WifaI1, in the following verse (24); the leaving of father and mother refers to Jehoram's abandonment of the godly ways of his father Jehoshaphat through his dewtion to Athaliah-as a result of the marriage alliance which made the myal houses of Judah and Israel 'one flesh." This same revulsion emerges in the next verse (25)' says WiEal, who understands the nakedness without shame as domestic immorality in which Jehoram and AthaIiah engaged. The interpmation, therefbre, which Wifall puts upon these three verses of Genesis 2 provides a signal example of the way in which the application of the critical method to Scripture yields mults which are the exact contmq of those flowing from the historical-grammatical hermeneutic of the Refonnation. For in each case the critic sees odium in the precise place where the Reformers saw divine benediction. The doctrinal implications of this political approach to Genesis are, of course, sweeping. For one thing, such an interpretation of Genesis razes the foundations of the divine origin of the orders of don in general and of marriage in particular. Suffice it to say here that confessional Luthmmkrn, contrariwise, takes its cue from our brd and the Apostle Paul in seeing Genesis 2 as the primary Iocus of its doc- trine of divinely ordained natural orders, incluclmg the institution of marriage (Matt. 19:3-8; 1 Tim. 2:12-14; 1 Cor. U:8-9). The political approach, however-like the critical inethod generally-erodes the Biblical basis not only of the law but, more importanly, of the gospel as well.Wi propounds this explanation of Genesis 3:15 : "The lone remaking me 'seed' of David, Jehoash (Gen. 3:15; 2 Kgs. 12-I3),would soon crush Baal and his devotees (the serpent and his seed)." This exposition at least identifies the mman's seed in this verse as an individual. In this respect, the in- terpretation is superior to Calvin's collective understanding of the "seed" as the hu- man race generally (and so refemng to Christ only in an indirect manner). An exegesis, on the other hand, which follows the hermeneutical rules of the Lutheran Confessions immediately recognizes the woman's seed as the God-man who wits 206 CONCORDIA THE0LIX;ICAL QUARTERLY to achieve the salvation of sinners. Joash and his destruction of sinners do not come into the picture. The promise that the woman's seed would crush the serpent's head was a proclamation not of the law, but of the gospel without adulteration; it was the pmtoewngelizun (F.C. S. D. VZ:23). Douglas MacCallum Lindsay Judisch