Synod Panel Revokes Doctrinal Certification 
of Readers Edition of the Book of Concord

 

By Bruce Cameron

“It is the decision of the review panel of the Commission on Doctrinal Review that the doctrinal review certification of Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, a Readers Edition [CPH, 2005] be revoked because of numerous passages and features of the volume which are ‘inadequate, misleading, ambiguous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity’ (Bylaw 1.9.2.g).” (To see the entire report from the LCMS Commission on Doctrinal Review, chaired by William W. Schumacher, PhD, go to www.lcms.org/dr)

     The Commission went on to say, “We have identified lapses in sound historical scholarship, ambiguous or questionable doctrinal statements and explanations, unexplained peculiarities in the translation, and (perhaps most seriously) a general failure to distinguish clearly between what is actually the text of the Confessions and all other non-confessional materials.”

     As a result of this decision, Concordia Publishing House, in consultation with the Commission on Doctrinal Review, will work toward the “correction and improvement” of last year’s edition which was prepared under the editorship of Paul McCain, interim CEO of CPH. (The Commission on Doctrinal Review calls the 2005 Readers Edition “the McCain edition,” following the general convention of referring to English editions of the Book of Concord by the name of the primary editor.)

“This Goes Beyond Translation”

     In the Large Catechism (II,66), Martin Luther says, “Those outside of Christendom, be they heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites, even though they believe in and worship only one true God, yet know not what His mind is towards them, and cannot expect any love or blessing from Him…For they do not have the Lord Christ . . . ” At this place, the McCain edition says, Even if we were to concede that everyone outside Christianity—whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites—believe in and worship only one true God, it would still be true that…”

     Of the McCain edition’s version the Commission says, “This rendering is a rather loose paraphrase of the German, and introduces an interpretive slant… This is not the plain meaning of the German grammar here….”

     In reviewing this passage in the Concordia Journal (January 2006), Dr. Charles Arand, Chairman of the Department of Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and Dr. Paul Robinson, Chairman of the Department of Historical Theology, said this:

In the Large Catechism (II,66), the McCain edition offers a translation that seems aimed at debate raised by Atlantic District President David Benke regarding whether Muslims worship the same God as Christians. In order to exclude President Benke’s interpretation, the McCain edition has rendered the text in question, “Even if we were to concede . . .” This goes beyond translation. Every English translation before the McCain edition simply put it, “even though they believe in and worship only the one true God . . .” Luther had in view here the Monks of the late Middle Ages, who certainly confessed the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. In the desire to exclude Muslims, they have also excluded the monks. In any case, it would be far better to translate it as it has been in the past and allow people of good faith to debate Luther’s interpretation.

 

     The Doctrinal Review Commission concurs:

 

There is concern that this editorial change was prompted by recent controversial use of this particular passage . . . the change  . . . could be perceived by some as an attempt to “spin” a passage of the Confessions in order to settle a contemporary argument.

     Jesus First addressed the positive use and understanding of Large Catechism (II, 66) in its August 2005 newsletter (www.jesusfirst.net) and instead of repeating those points, we’ll look at the practice of “spinning” a passage of the Confessions “in order to settle a contemporary argument.”

A Translation with an Agenda

     The Synod’s Doctrinal Review Commission identifies a number of failures of the McCain edition to “faithfully and accurately present the text of the Confessions themselves without omission, addition, embellishment, or distortion. The McCain edition as it stands does not do this consistently.” The Commission, for example, refers to “a pattern of ‘editorializing’ in support of a particular theological faction or current in today’s church, under the guise of offering introductory comments to the Confessions.”

     The Commission says:

It is worth asking whether the McCain edition is intended to appeal to a broad spectrum of Lutherans who are genuinely interested in the Confessions or only to those who support the Missouri Synod’s conviction that only males should be ordained to the pastoral ministry. In other words, is this meant to be a “Missouri Synod Book of Concord”? The guiding principle should be that the edition should not allow contemporary issues or interests (such as guarding against the unbiblical practice of women pastors) to be determinative of how texts of the Confessions are translated or introduced.

     In another place, the Commission says:

This is one of those places where the manner in which the McCain edition departs from its “basis” . . . implies a bias in favor of a strong emphasis on clergy   authority. It is difficult to read this change as anything other than an effort to bolster the role of pastors.

     And finally, commenting on “a consistent pattern of changes and editorial comments in the McCain edition which militate against innovation or variety in worship,” the Commission says:

Even if one is sympathetic to the position favored by the editor on worship matters, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to introduce changes (not clearly supported by the original text) into the translation of the text of the Confessions to promote such a contemporary agenda.

An Opportunity to Present an Unaltered Confession

     Any time we give a statement of our faith, we have an opportunity to present and explain the riches of God’s message and the joy of His Gospel, to build a bridge to those who don’t yet know our faith or our confession of the faith. The Book of Concord especially deals with the central topics of forgiveness and faith, the law and the Gospel, the need for a Savior and the certainty of our salvation. These messages didn’t come from us—and they certainly don’t belong only to us.

     The Lutheran Confessions are often called an “exposition” of the Holy Scriptures—that is, not only an explanation, but an attempt to “place” the teachings of Scripture in front of those who hear and read. As such, the Confessions do not claim to be our own version of private Lutheran opinions, a listing of conclusions we have decided among ourselves, to suit ourselves. If the Confessions are what we say they are—“a true and correct exposition” of the Scriptures—then what they teach is what everyone who hears the voice of his or her Shepherd speaking in the Sacred Scriptures should believe.

Think of Luther’s explanation of the Second Article of the Creed: “I believe that Jesus Christ…true God…true man…is my Lord…who has redeemed me…that I may be His own…even as he is risen from the dead…This is most certainly true.” This is not merely a statement of what Lutherans believe; it’s a statement for every Christian—a gift, perhaps, that we could share with any Christian. We should be able to present our statement of faith, including the fuller details of the Book of Concord, as a statement to share with any Christian (and everyone who has not yet heard the message) as an invitation to hear and to celebrate the Word of Him who is their Lord, too.

     However, in order for us to be “expositors” of the Scriptures, we need to differentiate between our personal opinions and God’s Word. Hermann Sasse called this “the principle that theology should speak where God’s Word speaks and be silent where God’s Word is silent.” To enlist—or worse, to twist—the Scriptures and the Confessions in support of a “particular theological faction or current in today’s church” [even our own pet factions or currents] is to miss the opportunity to allow the Scriptures and the Confessions to lead us through and out of our disagreements and divisions.

The Commission’s Great Service

     We have, then, an opportunity. As the Commission and the Publishing House work toward a “corrected and improved” Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord, let us support them with our prayers. Theirs is not an easy task, and it is one beset with many pressures and distractions. But their work may well be a blessing to our church.

     The Commission has done the Synod a great service by calling us (not simply the CPH editors, but all of us) to the challenge of distinguishing human opinions, even our own, from the Word of God. That can be the next-to-last step, before the wonderful moment of actually hearing God’s Word, clear and strong, as a joyful message for each of us—and for the next person as well.

Rev. Cameron is pastor of St. John Lutheran Church, Sparta, IL.