In a recent YouTube conversation between Pastor Brian Wolfmüller and Dr. Greg Schulz, the two Lutheran thinkers revisited the legacy of Seminex and its continuing effects on theology in the church. You can watch their full discussion here: Wolfmüller & Schulz on Seminex and Language.
Dr. Schulz argues that the deepest problem was not only about biblical interpretation but about a philosophy of language. In Seminex and in the theological movements that followed, the biblical Word was increasingly treated as a set of signs—a semiotic system that could be re-coded by scholars or communities—rather than as the living Word of God that actually does what it says.
Means of Grace vs. Semiotics
At the heart of Lutheran theology is the conviction that God works through means. The Word of God and the Sacraments are not just symbols that point us toward some inner, mystical reality; they are the very instruments through which the Spirit creates and sustains faith.
This stands in sharp contrast to the semiotic view, where the text is primarily a sign to be decoded. Under that framework, the Word’s “power” is found in the community’s experience of it, not in the Word itself.
But as Luther and the Confessions insist, God’s Word is efficacious:
- It kills and makes alive.
- It convicts and forgives.
- It delivers what it promises.
In other words, the Word is not first about what I feel but about what God does.
James’ Mirror Analogy
This distinction is beautifully illustrated in James 1:23–25. James compares the one who hears the Word but does not live from it to a person looking into a mirror and immediately forgetting what he saw.
- The mirror is the Word: it shows us our sin, our need, and the grace of God in Christ.
- To turn away and forget is to treat the Word as though it were only a symbol, something optional or subjective.
- To remain in the Word is to recognize that it has real, binding power—it is the mirror that not only shows us who we are but also remakes us in Christ.
This is the Lutheran way: the Word is not neutral information or flexible semiotics; it is the means of grace that unites us to Christ and renews our hearts.
The Semiotics of Inclusivity
The “semiotics of inclusivity” seen in some mainline bodies (such as the ELCA) illustrates the danger of this shift. When Paul’s condemnation of same-sex activity in Romans 1 is explained away as merely addressing “exploitative” relationships—and not what we today call “same-sex marriage”—the text is no longer treated as God’s Word. Instead, it becomes a symbolic resource to construct a new meaning: inclusivity.
In this system, the authority of Scripture is displaced by the authority of the community’s desired experience. The church itself becomes a symbolic performance of welcome rather than the living temple built on the apostolic Word.
Why This Matters
When the Word is reduced to a flexible symbol, the Church loses its mooring in Christ the Logos. But when the Word is honored as the efficacious means of grace, we receive it as God’s actual action upon us—creating faith, forgiving sins, renewing minds.
This is why James’ mirror image and the Lutheran teaching on the means of grace go hand-in-hand. God’s Word doesn’t simply describe reality; it creates and sustains it. When we hear the absolution, when we receive the body and blood of Christ, when we are baptized into His name, these are not semiotic gestures. They are God’s own saving work.
Conclusion
The conversation between Pastor Wolfmüller and Dr. Schulz reminds us that the battle over language is a battle over the very Gospel. To embrace the “semiotics of inclusivity” is to forget the mirror of God’s Word and walk away unchanged. To cling to the means of grace is to be transformed by the Word that always accomplishes the purpose for which God sends it.