These thoughts aren’t to the main point of this comment, but I can’t resist making them anyway: the proffered characterization of the “Analytic/Synthetic” dichotomy and what it amounts to here is mistaken. First, the dichotomy is not a logical fallacy. Second, the dichotomy has nothing (at least directly) to do with separating doctrine and practice (or doctrine and mission). As standardly understood, the dichotomy simply involves distinguishing between sets of propositions which are true simply “by virtue of their meaning” (analytic propositions) and sets of propositions which are *not* true simply by virtue of their meaning (synthetic propositions). A standard example of an analytic proposition is the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried — it is thought that the very meaning of the concept “bachelor” in some way “includes” the concept “being unmarried,” and so the proposition is true by virtue of the meanings of the terms involved. A related synthetic proposition, just for another example, is the proposition that all bachelors reside on earth. This may be true, as a matter of fact, but the concept “residing on earth” is not in the same way included in the concept “bachelor,” so this proposition is allegedly not true by virtue of its meaning.
I haven’t read over the following article thoroughly, but it seems at a glance at least to capture the gist of things in some of its discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_a_priori. In any case, carry on!

-”Word & Sacrament, is midwife to creation ex nihilo”-
-Well said. Doctrine (and Confessionalism) rightly understood is an explication on the living word (and thus sacraments) of God. As the living word of God this means that it is not of no effect. As Wihelm Lohe (whose mission mindedness is an inspiration) stated: Reformation theology is “complete in doctrine but it is incomplete in the consequences of doctrine.” This means that it is not only a matter of “knowing” the truth, the word of God, but to take this seriously and to not hinder the work of the Holy Spirit who is always at work through his word. If our actions do not reflect the truth of the word of God then this must mean that our understanding (doctrine) of the implications of this word are faulty. This requires repeated reexamination of what we “believe, teach and confess” to see if the “consequences of doctrine” follow. If they do not follow we need to either determine whether we truly believe what we claim, or confess our rebellion to the work of the Spirit who is ever-present with his word, activly ministering to us and bringing new life through the his word and sacraments.
-True Doctrine is not a dead thing, but an examination of how we understand God’s words to us– whether we believe what he says. When we confess our doctrine we are, in faith, connecting ourselves to the living and active word of God which always comes with power and new life. In this way, we see that being “complete in doctrine” cannot truly exist without the “consequences of doctrine,” and vica versa.

Saying Gospel preaching is our work makes it sound, to my ear at least, like evangelism becomes more a human work than a divine service (and I would think you would view the Gospel as a gift of Christ’s grace and the preaching of it as a divine service not a human work). A lesser but still problematic part of such “missional” talk, to my ear at least, is that it makes it sound like the Gospel is mere information or a religious philosophy to which human assent is either given or witheld, instead of the means of grace by which Jesus Himself communes with and redeems us by His forgiveness, grace, and mercy alone.
In the Large Catechism, explanation to the 3rd article, I notice Luther is very careful to attribute the “work” of Gospel preaching to the Holy Spirit–i.e. “Just as the Son obtains dominion by purchasing us through his birth, death, and resurrection, etc., so the Holy Spirit effects our sanctification through the following: the communion of saints or Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. In other words, he first leads us into his holy community, placing us upon the bosom of the church, where he preaches to us and brings us to Christ. Neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe in him and take him as our Lord, unless these were first offered to us and bestowed on our hearts through the preaching of the Gospel by the Holy Spirit… in order that this treasure might not be buried but put to use and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to be published and proclaimed, in which he has given the Holy Spirit to offer and apply to us us this treasure of salvation…” LC, 3rd article para 38).
Here, even though the church is made up of human beings and God uses men to speak His Word and administer His Sacraments, still it is clearly confessed that God is the only real worker and giver of the gifts, and even a noted Dr. and preacher like Luther is a mere receiver and beneficiary, a beggar after all (rather than a missional worker or doer). In the entire discussion of how salvation is given and received in the Large Catechism, I can’t find a single place that mentions the work or efforts of human beings as a contributing factor to our holiness in Christ. In fact, it seems like excluding any human works from our holiness in Christ is the main goal of the thing. Looking further in the confessions, I can’t find any place where the work of an evangelist is described as a human work or service, (nor, for that matter can I find the confessions speaking of anything like our modern concepts of “missions” or “outreach” at all). Rather, it seems to me the confessions take great care to avoid even giving an impression that the distribution of the Gospel is anything but a divine work and service of Christ Himself done by and through His Holy Spirit. The fact that men are called and ordained by Christ into this holy ministry of Word and Sacrament in the Church, and that only such should preach and teach publicly, does not make this ministry a human work at all, but it is and remains for the confessors a pure, divine service, does it not? But if I’m missing a reference to the contrary, I’d appreciate having it pointed out for me…
I think this is where some of us “confessional” types get very uneasy about our Synod’s heavy emphasis recently on “missions”: When the work of an evangelist is described as “our work” and a duty expected of the whole church, and we measure and count and laud this human work, how is the Gospel remaining a pure, free, divine gift of Christ to sinful beggars? It’s tough for me to see that we aren’t in a difficult spot here with our “missions” talk.
Would you see these concerns as valid reasons to have some uneasiness about the uncritical linking of “doctrine and missions” as is done in much of our current Synodical discourse?
[[McCain response: I think I understand what you are saying, and resonate with the concerns from which the comment comes, but I can't agree that there is no place to speak of "our work" in missions. God uses human beings to proclaim His Gospel and administer His Sacraments.
As St. Paul said to Timothy, "Do the work of an evangelist" and as Jesus says, "Let your light so shine before men that they my see your good works and give glory to your father in heaven."
I see no problem referring to "our work" in light of these Biblical realities. We are Christ's witnesses. We are doing work, His work, which is made our work.
Actually, the greater concern I have is the delinking of doctrine from missions. ]]

Paul:
Dr. Norman Nagel put his finger on the problem with calling evangelism “our work” in his familiar question “Who’s running the verbs”? That is, if the subject of our talk is usually us (instead of Christ), well, that will wobble and not stand up in the storm. Whereas, if Christ Jesus is running the verbs, if He is the subject and doer of our sentences, then that is true speaking in His Name. Then we’ve got solid Gospel that even the gates of hell cannot withstand.
I’d still like to see a quote from the confessions that describes Gospel proclamation as our human work. As far as those two passages you cite, well, I’d observe that the one from Matthew is not talking about gospel proclamation but rather is concerned with the fruits of good works (which are certainly good and God pleasing, no argument there). And I’d also observe that the same Apostle who told Timothy “do the work of an evangelist” spoke in this way of his own “work”: “I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” (1 Cor. 15:10) and “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.” (1 Cor. 3:6-7). I certainly agree with you that God uses men as agents of His ministry. My point was rather that the human agency of Gospel ministry does not make it anything other or less than a divine service. I hear St. Paul and our Lutheran fathers much more concerned to give all honor and glory to Christ in the holy ministry than to carve out some niche of it as “our work” and exhort us to get to it! When it comes to holy ministry, it is rather as our Lord Himself said to the 70 He apostled in His Name: “He who hears you hears me”. The distinction between Christ and minister is marvelously blurred, and the two are as one. The glory of the Lutheran ministry is that when Pastor Schmidt preaches in Jesus’ Name, it’s not him, but Jesus that I get to hear! For me (and this might be my hard hearing) that wonder and glory is often obscured when the talk turns “missional”.
I loved the “word cloud” you did on Cwirla’s sermon and Rick Warren’s. I suspect that if you did a “word cloud” on a Synod mission exec’s sermon and one of Nagel’s you’d see the same sharp distinctions as between Cwirla’s fine sermon and Warren’s umm… “effort”. And judge for yourself which is best. That’s all I’m trying to say.
[[McCain: Dr. Nagel's point is very well taken. All true, good, right and salutary. No arguments here. St. Paul also speaks of "our ministry" and such in the NT (2 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 6:3). Our Lord Christ and the Apostles clearly do speak as well to us about our work, our ministry, our service. Yes, it is all Christ's. It is also our work as His people, precisely because we are in Him.
Pr. Martin, this all is always a both/and, never an either/or. Yes, we are to do the work of an evangelist. We are to strive and work mightily in the Kingdom of God, to spread the Gospel and to be His disciples, bearing witness everywhere and anywhere we are given the opportunity. Yes, it is the Holy Spirit who is at work in us both to will and to do. But that there is doing is undeniable.
God could have chosen to have His angels do this work. He could have the very stones on the ground cry out. He has used a donkey to speak His Word. He calls and enlightens us by His Holy Spirit and it is our duty to thank and praise, serve and obey. We do not need to create false alternatives to make these points. Thanks for your comments.]]

The Holy Spirit is both the one that calls and empowers us to administer the gospel and he is also the one that works through that message, bringing people to faith. Both of these are completely and wholly through the work of the Spirit. But we need to be careful not to give heed to the devil and the flesh who may be hiding behind the rationale that if we emphasize missions we are neglecting the work of God and emphasizing the work of man. By doing this we may be despising the word of God. The reason it is both/and is that if we talk of missions without acknowledging that both the cause (the sanctifying work of the Spirit calling and empowering us to missions) and the effect (the witness of the Spirit and his work of creating faith), we are not working within the bounds of what Scripture points us toward. If it is true that we are neglecting to acknowledge the gracious work of the Spirit, then we are in error– our doctrine and mission are not reflective of each other. On the other hand, we need to always be prayerfully turning to God, blessing him for the work of his gospel that HE IS accomplishing through our church, and also prayerfully asking him to continually draw us away from error and into truth. This needs to be happening not only among our leadership, but also among our clergy and laity. We should not trade error for error; we should not suppose that the correction of error that may be happening by emphasizing missions is to be solved by de-emphasizing missions. We need to both emphasis missions and emphasize the complete and total scope of the work of God who both solely sanctifies and brings people to faith.