CONCORDIA JOURNAL Volume 28 October 2002 Number 4 CONTENTS EDITORIALS Theological Observer ................................................................ 358 ARTICLES The Church in the Public Square in a Pluralistic Society David L. Adams .......................................................................... 364 Preaching Like the Prophets: Using Rhetorical Criticism in the Appropriation of Old Testament Prophetic Literature Reed Lessing .......................................................................... 391 REVIEW ESSAY Schweitzer’s Quests for Jesus and Paul Matthew L. Becker ................................................................. 409 SHORT STUDIES Ordination Is Not Other Than ... Norman E. Nagel ................................................................... 431 A Female Apostle?: A Note Re-examining the Work of Burer and Wallace Concerning ¦B4FZ:@H with ¦< and the Dative Heath R. Curtis ...................................................................... 437 HOMILETICAL HELPS ..................................................................... 441 BOOK REVIEWS .............................................................................. 466 BOOKS RECEIVED .......................................................................... 478 INDEX .............................................................................................. 479 CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2002 357 Theological Observer Contemporary Americans Make Poor Confessional Lutherans Our Synod doesn’t seem to be “walking together.” Our people cannot agree on practice even though they might be able to agree on underlying theology. Fellowship and close communion principles are under heavy discussion and, in any case, have no commonly held understanding of application. The worship wars continue unabated, again, with principles of worship under heavy discussion and little common understanding in the area of application. Congregational peace is at a premium too. Almost daily one hears of accusations that pastors are high-handed, having “Herr Pastor,” uncaring attitudes while the laity, one also hears, have a “hire and fire,” “give us what we want” mentality. And the list goes on. Why are these things so? Some suppose that it is a matter of lax doctrinal discipline. Others believe that our theology as a Synod has turned liberal (again). I take a different view. I think the problem is, in large measure, if not principally, Americanism. That is to say, in my view, our characteristics as contemporary Americans contribute most heavily to our current dilemma. I would like to address this issue in two parts, the first in this present issue, the second in a succeeding issue of Concordia Journal. Part 1 Even though, surprisingly, it has no actual status as a legal document in our country (it is not part of the Constitution), the Declaration of Independence exerts the most profound influence upon the thinking of us as American citizens. Key is the following well-known set of thoughts: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In popular thinking, this is the cornerstone not only of Jeffersonian democracy but also and especially of what we are as the American people. So far, not so bad—though, it must be admitted, the notions of equality and unalienable rights are certainly not embraced by most people in the world, not to mention the notion that these truths are “self-evident” (more of that next time). But now the problem. Over the years, especially in the twentieth century, the second of the unalienable rights, viz., liberty, became exalted The “Theological Observer” serves as a forum for comment on, assessment of, and reactions to developments and events in the church at large, as well as in the wold of theology generally, Since areas of expertise, interest, and perceptions often vary, the views presented in this section will not always reflect the opinion of the editorial committee. 358 over the others (see the ACLU) so that now liberty has become supreme, relegating all other rights to second place. Indeed, unbridled liberty has become specifically the rampant liberty of individuals, so that, e.g., the right to life of an unborn child is now subordinated directly to the right of an individual woman to have the liberty to terminate that life. And this rampant liberty of individuals has a very specific two-sided characteristic: there are, in fact, no rules or restrictions; therefore, any rules or restrictions which seem to exist may be broken at any time. I do not exaggerate in my description. Consider the following advertising slogans: “No rules, just right” (a popular steak house). “No boundaries” (a major American car manufacturer). “Have it your way” (a popular fast-food chain). And perhaps most bold of all, “Drive outside the lines” (a major foreign car manufacturer). This rampant liberty of the individual is exacerbated by American free- enterprise commercialism, which is built upon it and shamelessly panders to it (see the examples above). Now the point of all of this is that we are bombarded constantly by the philosophy of rampant individual liberty. It is in the political background of the United States; it is part of contemporary American self-understanding, and, perhaps most important of all, it is a constant theme in contemporary American commercial advertising. This is the way we, and our people, are encouraged and are being trained to think. It is in the very social/political air we breath. And it affects virtually every aspect of our lives, including those that are religious. Is it any wonder, then, that our contemporary Synod has trouble when it seeks to “walk together”? Is it any wonder that our people cannot agree on practices even if they might be able to agree on underlying theology? Is it any wonder, e.g., that people refuse to be told that they cannot commune at another altar when they personally wish to do so or that their friends cannot commune at their altar when they would like their friends to do so? Is it any wonder that pastors, not to mention members of congregations, refuse to be bound to using “approved” worship materials when they personally would like to use something else (especially something they have made)? Is it any wonder that pastors want congregations to be obedient to their desires liturgically or organizationally or that congregational members want the pastor to do their wedding in a way unique for them when both parties have heard on a daily basis, “Have it your way”? It is, in my view, a problem being an American and being part of a doctrinal, confessional, and historically liturgical church. All of the factors involved in such a church, viz., doctrinal formulations, confessional statements, and uniform liturgical practices, are restrictive and non- libertarian. They rub against the grain of every contemporary American. Which means that to embrace them is to be truly counter-cultural. But, can we be counter-cultural in these newly patriotic times? James Voelz CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2002 359 Holy Scripture Speaks Clearly to Unclear Situations The participation of Lutheran pastors in prayer assemblies with leaders of other religions is a subject currently being addressed in theological convocations across The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Pastoral discretion in regard to such participation was a primary topic at the first such convocation held in August of this year in Phoenix. The assumption is that frequently the Scriptures do not speak clearly to circumstances like those at A Prayer for America, Yankee Stadium, 2001, making it difficult for pastors to form judgments, make decisions, or take actions which are consistent with the fellowship principles of the Synod. A tacit inference, something of a corollary, suggests: any attempt to apply Scripture directly to the “right” or “wrong” of Christian prayer and testimony in pluralistic settings is taking a great hermeneutical risk. The critical issue in these discussions is how the Word of God may be addressed in situations to which the Scriptures, it is assumed, do not speak clearly. If the application of Holy Scripture to a situation like that at Yankee Stadium risks hermeneutical or exegetical hazards, where does this leave us? We caution that such a notion appears at first glance to be similar to a situational hermeneutic, which is commonplace beyond the boundaries of interpretation guided by sound Lutheran confessional principles. Peculiar to this alternate hermeneutic and many of its variations is the notion that a designated situation itself should have a major role in determining how Scripture is to be understood when applied to pastoral and ecclesial practice. What happens to the authority of Scripture and to both the sufficiency and the clarity of Scripture when situational hermeneutics are engaged? When situations are complex, even ambiguous, it has been said that the church, the people we are by Baptism into Christ, will be significant in determining proper responses. We should be guarded at this point. Seeking direction from something of an existential ecclesiology steers close to Rome’s position that the Church is needed to make Scripture clear. Also inadequate is the sentiment that while the Scriptures may not speak clearly or directly to a situation, the Gospel is clear. The inference here is that one or the other is lacking. Three decades ago, the Synod