The Lutheran Confessions as Normative Guides for Reading the "Charismatic Passages" in Scripture
Dr. Theodore R. Jungkuntz

In the October 1995 issue of Concordia Journal, Charles P. Arand and James W. Voelz of Concordia Semi-nary, St. Louis, have given us a very helpful study as to how the Lutheran Confessions are to be used as normative guides for reading Scripture. Drawing upon the prin-ciples they have enunciated, I shall apply them to a subject of considerable concern in our present ecclesiastical circumstances – the "charismatic" issue.

Having been shaped by our confessional heritage as we have, it is no surprise that we have something like a kneejerk reaction when someone reminds us that in the Charismatic Renewal we are supposedly(!) dealing with a refurbished version of the Early Church's "Montanists," or the Reformation's "Schwaermer," or the Lutheran Orthodoxy's "Pietists." Such enthusiasm ("Schwaermerei") is enough to make our blood run cold and to prompt us to scurry for our spiritual fire extinguishers. Should that not succeed, there seems to be nothing left but to pronounce our "anathemas."

Arand and Voelz, on the other hand, point out a better way. They teach us how to read Scripture (in the present case, those pesky "charismatic passages") using the Lutheran Confessions as normative guides. In the following I should like to make an attempt at applying their suggestions.

It was very gratifying to find that nowhere do they hint that the thing to do is to look up the subject (charismatic gifts) in the index to our BOOK OF CONCORD, whereby a quick answer to our question should be found. If our issue, charismatic gifts, is not referenced, that is supposedly enough to tell us that these phenomena are not Lutheran, and should not be desired, encouraged, or practiced in a congregation claiming to be Lutheran and faithful to the Lutheran Confessions.

Instead we are wisely given several principles of Scriptural interpretation which are in fact practiced throughout the confessional writings and which those of us who subscribe to the Confessions have bound ourselves to implement in our own reading and application of Scripture.

We summarize the Arand/Voelz enunciated principles here:

  1. Christ must remain at the center as the touchstone for the whole (distinction between Law and Gospel);
  2. coherence – all the pieces of Scripture fit together into a coherent whole (Scripture interprets Scripture);
  3. integrity – search for the intended sense of the specific text (sensus literalis);
  4. reciprocity – the Confessions are to Scripture, as interpretive key is to authoritative text;
  5. the Confessions do not exhaust the exegesis (interpretation) of Scripture;
  6. the Confessions do not deal with every topic in Scripture.

Now a series of questions could be posed by those of us wondering whether Scriptural teaching has been inappropriately curtailed (Gospel reductionism?) by a use of the Confessions which no longer follows the principles outlined above but which instead limits the authority of Scripture by allowing only that to be taught which has already been explicitly taught in the Confessions:

  1. Has the Scriptural promise "you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" ) e.g., Acts 1:5; 2:33, 38-39; 19:4-6; Lk. 3:15-17) been adequately interpreted and applied when it is fully and simply identified with and swallowed up in the event of sacramental baptism? Notice how FC SD XI, 71-72 relates Lk. 11:11-13 (prayer for the Holy Spirit) to sacramental baptism.
  2. Have the "charismata" of 1 Cor. 12 been interpreted according to the principle of "integrity" when their meaning is flattened to conform to contemporary traditional expectations as opposed to the more epiphanic (="sign"-bearing - see Mk. 16:17-20) meanings of the New Testament witness and experience? Notice the role of "confirming" signs and wonders in LC IV, 21 and FC SD VIII, 27.
  3. Has the "reciprocity principle" functioned properly when the Confessions are used as the authoritative text from which we draw our doctrine rather than as the hermeneutical guide whereby we are enabled to correctly confess ALL that Scripture teaches (including on charismatic topics)? Notice Luther's expression of this principle in LC II, 70.
  4. Could not the "coherence principle" be used both to secure sound sacramental teaching as well as to indicate how this teaching is to be related to the role of prayer, including the prayer for the manifestation of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1, 12-13)? Notice Luther's model for this in LC III, 52-54.
  5. Is not the "Christological principle" impaired when we neglect to teach how closely Scripture associates the manifestation of spiritual gifts with the ministry of Christ (Lk. 10:1-22; 11:9-13; Acts 1:4-5,8; 2:33; 1 Cor. 1:4-9; Eph. 4:7-14; Rom. 12:4-8)? Notice Luther's refrain in the Small Catechism, "where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation" (SC VI, 6). Jesus' ministry of equipping his witnesses with spiritual gifts for ministry to others can well be included in the "life and salvation" which Luther properly sees grounded in "the forgiveness of sins" coming from the presence of Christ himself. Such enthusiasm is enough to make our blood run cold and to prompt us to scurry for our spiritual fire extinguishers.

Perhaps this is sufficient to encourage others who are committed to preach, teach, and minister in accordance with the teachings of Holy Scripture as these are confessed in the Book of Concord to respond positively to the concluding sentence in the study of Arand and Voelz. There we are told that the Confessions "provide pastors, teachers and laity alike an ideal model for reflecting theologically upon the many and various issues that confront the church today as well as a pattern for ecumenical dialogues" (C J, October 1995, p. 384). Certainly the function of the "charismata" in the life and ministry of the church is one of those "issues."

Dr. Theodore R. Jungkuntz
2614 Page Ct.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104