The CTCR has issued a statement concerning the Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications. It is a welcome development, and it does clarify an important matter. I do think there is more dialogue that ought to happen. The CTCR has been forthright in admitting that “certain things could have been worded differently, better, or more precisely.”

I am most grateful to the CTCR for making it clear that we are permitted to dissent from arguments made in the collection of essays bundled with the Large Catechism proper. This was obvious to me from day one, but I’ve received a lot of emphatic email, even from members of synod, arguing that dissent from points made in these essays trigger Bylaw 1.8. I am gratified that the CTCR has clarified that this is not the case, and has done so emphatically, viz.:

• “The CTCR forthrightly asserts that this volume does not change, question, or supplant any doctrinal position of the LCMS, including any synodical teaching on contemporary cultural issues, such as race or sexuality.”

• “By their very nature, essays on contemporary questions touch on sensitive social, cultural, and political issues. As such, they represent individual perspectives and judgments that other faithful Christians may not share.”

• “The authors submitting these essays, for their part, did not view their short papers in any sense as representing a definitive position of Synod.”

• “That is not to say that every reader will agree with each essay’s perspective on specific historical, ethical, or political matters, where Scripture, the Confessions, or Synod may not have spoken. There is clearly room for debate on many such issues, as brothers and sisters in Christ should be free to engage one another on matters of concern with confidence that their voices will be heard, their engagement will be fruitful, and the positions and objections of all held to the rigorous standard of Scripture and Confessions upon which our doctrinal unity is based.”

While I appreciate the explanation of the thought process of the editors and CTCR members regarding the inclusion of scholars from outside of our communion, and I agree that under certain circumstances, such inclusion would be a helpful thing (such as its use in academia), I respectfully disagree with the decision to include ELCA authors in this volume that is intended for parochial use, such as “in adult instruction and church life.” Some of these decisions have caused offense.

Nobody is bothered by non-LCMS authors and contributors. We are in fellowship with dozens of faithful church bodies who have outstanding theologians. The issue is not even that they are “not in fellowship with the LCMS.” Indeed, there are such theologians who regularly teach us in the LCMS - one example being Dr. Kleinig. As the CTCR knows, church relations are messy. So, great care needs to be taken when we leave our communion in search of teachers of the church. I cannot agree that the inclusion of ELCA members is simply an example of “Lutherans from other church bodies.” How is the ELCA Lutheran? At best, it is a super-communion that unites liberal church bodies like the ECUSA, UMC, UCC, PCUSA, RCA, and the Moravian Church - all of whom have unbiblical teachings. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to call the ECLA a Christian body. They “ordain” not only women, but transgendered individuals. They recognize same-sex “marriage.” They support the abortion holocaust. Their Biblical hermeneutic is that it "contains” God’s Word, and their Confessional subscription is “quatenus” - meaning that both Bible and Book of Concord are taken as a cafeteria. This is how it is that their tent of fellowship is so large to even include a congregation that worships a goddess.

I respectfully disagree that it is beneficial and salutary to include ELCA contributors so long as “the doctrinal content in each essay is fully consistent with LCMS teachings and practice.” If that is the only criterion, than the CTCR could well have included essays by Nadia Bolz-Weber, Megan Rohrer, Elizabeth Eaton, or Aaron Musser - so long as their individual essays pass doctrinal review. I don’t believe the CTCR believes this, and so they should understand the offense that many have taken by including Dr. Paulson - who writes elsewhere in ways that are at the very least confusing, and in a way that certainly toes the line on violating the confessions. I am no expert on Paulson, but there are theologians whom I respect who defend him, as well as those who consider him a heretic. At very least, the CTCR should have recognized that including him would not be something that would unify all of us around our shared Lutheran Confessions. For all of our differences, the Bible and the Book of Concord should be a source of unity for us.

As many have suggested, a perhaps more excellent way, one that would have alleviated confusion about this project, would have been to publish the Large Catechism with its helpful introductions and annotations, but put the essays - which the CTCR admits are controverted and far from unifying - in a separate volume. I have heard this suggestion across the board from people with whom I agree, and with whom I disagree. Of course, hindsight is 20-20, but nevertheless, it would seem that putting highly charged social and political opinions under the same binding as one of our confessional documents (which is included in our ordination vows, by name), would lead to the very confusion the CTCR admits to, and which caused people to accuse me of violating the LCMS bylaws.

All that said, I really do commend the CTCR for responding to the concerns of many people in our synod from a wide swath of the spectrum of thought that we occupy. I am glad that they are listening, and I have no doubt of their sincerity.

One area that was not addressed by the CTCR that has been raised by many: the role of women contributors and essayists. To what degree are they acting as teachers of the church? At very least, this is yet another example of a change in “typical custom of the CTCR” regarding the role of women essayists as teachers of our clergy and laity.

For example, Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition (aka the McCain Edition) from 2001 featured annotations by four men (at least one of whom is an unordained scholar). The Lutheran Study Bible from 2009 includes six male editors, and 131 other contributors to the project. I could be wrong, but these all seem to be men. The many wonderful volumes of the Concordia Commentary series are, unless I am mistaken, exclusively written by male contributors.

As we parish pastors are admonished by those in authority over us, as well as our professors, it is wise to instruct before changing customs and practice in the church. It is odd to see a shift in our practice regarding women contributors without any discussion beforehand - at least, none that I’m aware of. The CTCR should be aware that this is another area of concern to a lot of people. I would hope that they would at some point address the role of women teachers in our church body. We do not have a unified practice regarding the sexes. In some congregations, women may not vote. In some districts, women may be consecrated as “deacons” and vest in albs and stoles. In some of our biblical and confessional projects, contributors are all male. In others (namely this one), they are not. This is an area that is unclear, and perhaps the CTCR might take up this issue down the road.

At any rate, thank you once again to the CTCR - especially for your clarification regarding the nature of this project, as well as for your commitment to “engagement,” that our “voices will be heard,” and that suggestions for improvement are truly being entertained.