I shouldn't be surprised by anything on the DayStar site. In fact, I should probably anticipate it before it comes. In the latest online installment of The DayStar Journal, they offer articles that revisit the old issue of the form and function of Holy Scripture. In other words, they are calling us once again to question the teaching of the inerrancy of the Bible. In an "introduction" to the 1960 statement of the St. Louis faculty which is reprinted as a second article, the editor make the following remarks:
The Easter issue of the DAYSTAR JOURNAL is devoted to theological literature, new and old. The following document on the form and function of the Holy Scriptures was suggested as a possible starting point for discussions on the topic of the “inerrancy” of the Scriptures.
Not only has the concept of inerrancy arisen in the current discussion of what Lutherans in the LCMS believe; it also figured prominently in the firing of the Saint Louis seminary faculty in 1973, the debate about the authorship and dating of Biblical documents, the teaching of creation and evolution and our understanding of many Biblical accounts.
Written nearly fifty years ago, the document reflects the language of the time which the modern reader might find sexist. Nonetheless, the document is valuable in underscoring the utter reliability of the Scriptures for faith and practice, yet it also opens the door to further examination and exploration of the texts and the thought world of their human authors.
At a time when thousands are leaving the church because they simply find the Biblical stories impossible to believe and other thousands are turning to a literalistic understanding of the Biblical materials to prop up their faith, it may be time for a new discussion of the “form and function of the Holy Scriptures.” The following document might well serve as the foundation for such a new conversation.
I find the statement "other thousands are turning to a literalistic understanding of the Biblical materials to prop up their faith" to be a rather curious indictment. To "prop up their faith"? I suppose a commitment to an inerrant Bible is simply a sign of weak faith then. Well, then, count me in. Forgive me for wishing to take God at His Word and trust that the transmission of that word is faithful in its entirety.
Yet I understand where they're going with this, to which his first paragraph hints. The point here is to 'loosen up' all the prohibitions on doctrines that the Synod has heretofore condemned, such as Evolution, Women's Ordination, and ecumenical unionism, to name but a few. If one can call into question the traditional interpretation of a passage by questioning its authorship, then one can call into question the teaching.
I hope this is not where the Synod is going again, but I continue to feel the vibrations from approaching hoof beats.....