Calls, regular and otherwise
Three Hierarchies has a thought-provoking post about "private judgment" and the whole question of disagreeing with one's church body on doctrinal matters.
Confessional Lutherans take it for granted that if one is convinced that one's church body is in error, one may in conscience remain part of it only so long as correcting that error is seen as a possibility. On the other hand, humility requires a willingness in such a situation to hear one's church body out, and to consider the possibility that it may be right, and that one may, oneself, be wrong.
And then, of course, there's the whole process of simply mulling the whole matter over.
One issue CPA raises is the whole controverted issue of lay celebration of Holy Communion- which, at least in what are seen as extraordinary circumstances, is practiced in the Missouri Synod.
Nobody doubts that, in an emergency, any Christian may baptize. I was raised, however, to believe that there cannot be such a thing as "emergency communion," because that Sacrament stands in a different relationship to salvation than baptism; while baptism is ordinarily, but not absolutely, necessary for salvation, in no sense is it necessary to salvation that a baptized person have communed.
But the shortage of ordained pastors in the Missouri Synod has been held to be grounds for what its critics call "the Wichita recension of the Augsburg Convention-" i.e., the policy of commissioning "lay ministers" who perform the functions of a pastor where none is available. Since Augsburg Confession XIV declares that
It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the Sacraments without a regular call.
the question obviously arises of whether such "lay ministers-" people lacking the educational qualifications usually required for ordination in the Lutheran church, and explicitly not ordained- i.e., not called to the Office of Word and Sacrament-qualify.
The practice may be necessary; I am at this point agnostic about that. It may even be scripturally and confessionally proper. About that, I am willing to be better instructed. But it seems to me, at least at this point, to fly in the face of how the LCMS has historically seen the relationship between work and office- and specifically, between publicly preaching and administering the Sacraments, and the pastoral office. And my problem at this point is may be that I have internalized that understanding too well. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing.
This question is more acute in the Missouri Synod than it would be in, say, the Wisconsin Synod, which sees the Word and Sacrament ministry as belonging to the Church as a whole, and not only to occupants of a specific office (if I got that wrong, I'd appreciate being corrected by some WELS member who can set me straight). Missouri, however, insists specifically that there is one specific Office- the pastoral office- to which that same Augsburg Confession refers when it says in Article V that
To obtain...faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the Sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.
Calling teachers- if we're talking about teachers in parochial schools, for example- has generally, in LCMS history, been done very much with AC XIV in mind- to the extent that at least male parochial school teachers have been held to be ministers (though not so female teachers- an inconsistency never resolved very satisfactorally). Not so with regard to, say, Sunday School teachers. Nobody doubts that when a Sunday School teacher is installed by the informal process by which this is generally done, that person thereafter rightly teaches Sunday School. Is the teaching they do somehow not "public?"
Presumably if other types of teaching are to take place within a congregation, whatever arrangements the congregation may make in providing for qualified individuals to do it pass confessional muster. But publicly teaching doctrine and preaching and administering the Sacraments seem, at least to me, on a Missourian understanding to be restricted by AC XIV to those called to that office. Perhaps a called teacher, arguably, could preach or teach or even preside at the Supper- though the last would seem to me to be a stretch . But that would seem to me to rule out true "lay ministers."
Not that the Church couldn't simply ordain these people if it chose.
By the way, why doesn't it? There are already various populations of candidates being "fast tracked" into the ministry without all the traditional training. Why not, in emergency situations, simply ordain all those who are performing the work of a pastor without that training, with the stipulation that this is an emergency measure only, and far from an ideal practice?
But the point is that it doesn't simply ordain them. They're specifically lay ministers- people who lack the office through which, if I'm not totally misunderstanding AC V, we confess that God intends the Gospel to be preached and the Sacraments to be administered- and which in fact is so closely associated with that preaching and administration in AC V that its institution is held to be the means by which God provided that such preaching and administration take place.
Let me say it another way: AC V seems to me to say, in so many words, that the Office of the Holy Ministry is so closely identified with the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments that the "regular call" to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments spoken of by AC XIV presupposes ordination. That is, if work and office are seen as different things- if the work is something done by the occupant of the office. If they're the same- if Wisconsin is right, and they're essentially both synonyms for work- then everything changes. Then the Church is free to make whatever arrangements concerning the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments it finds prudent. And maybe that's what the combination of AC V and AC XIV finally comes down to. But is that- after all those years of disputing Wisconsin's argument essentially to that effect- what Missouri has now concluded?
As I've been taught to read it, the Holy Ministry is stated in AC XIV, in so many words, to be the means by which God provides us with the publicly proclaimed Gospel and the publicly administered Sacraments. Or is it saying simply that God has provided the acts or work of proclaiming the Gospel and administering the Sacraments as the means by which the Spirit works faith? Is "office," perhaps, an unfortunate translation- or an archaic use of the word, such as "performing the office of a friend" might be?
Perhaps I'm missing something, and I'd appreciate having that something pointed out to me. But if the Predigtamt is what Missouri has historically understood it to be, I find it hard to see how it is possible, in view of AC V and XIV, that people who are not ordained to the Office of the Holy Ministry can have a regular call to publicly preach and/or administer the Sacraments.
I don't see this as being an issue of sacradotalism. I see it as an issue of confessionalism. And that is, after all, to those of us who subscribe quia to the Lutheran Confessions only another way of saying that I see it as what Scripture teaches in Ephesians 4:11-12 about the way God orders His church, and in Matthew 28:19-20 (spoken, contrary to pious assumption, not to the Church as a whole, but in context specifically to the Apostles) and again specifically to the Apostles in John 20:21-23.
No, it's not a question of whether it's a priestly class or the Church as a whole that celebrates the Supper; it's the latter. It is not a question of whether it's possible for the Word and the Sacraments to be provided with salutary effect by lay ministers, either. The question is whether it is God's will that it be presided over by those who are not occupants of the Office Christ instituted for the feeding of His sheep- whether, in short, it is possible for one who is not ordained to be rightly called to rightly and publicly preach and/or administer the Sacraments.
It's a matter of obedience- like not ordaining women (who might very well divide Law and Gospel quite well and preach them with whatever power is possible for one whose very presence in the pulpit is a silent statement that one need not take Scripture's commands seriously) and not communing those whose public confession is at odds with the teachings of the Faith (but who may be pious, sincere, and in every other way admirable Christians who come forward in perfectly good faith and in conformity with their own understanding of the scriptural grounds for altar fellowship).
Office is one key word. Rightly is a second one. A third key word is publicly. No one questions that a layperson can and should administer emergency baptism. I am not even necessarily suggesting that a consecration of the elements by a "lay minister" is not "valid," whatever that means- much less that the Lord's body and blood would not be present.
But I am asking why now, after all the times in church history both in America and elsewhere that circuit riders or other emergency measures to ensure that the means God has, according to AC V, provided for the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments- the office of the Holy Ministry- is available in places where there is no pastor in residence, only now confessional Lutherans should have to resort to a system which at least seems to call what the Missouri Synod has historically understood the Augsburg Confession to teach about the relationship between the Office and its functions into question.
Or is Wisconsin right? Is "the office of the ministry" spoken of by AC V merely the action or task of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, and not the Predigtamt at all?
And if that is the theological ground upon which the LCMS now stands with its commissioning of "lay ministers-" a practice with which all difficulty seems, if I understand it correctly, to disappear if one adopts the WELS reading of the Augsburg Confession- does that, then, mean that Missouri and Wisconsin have come to agreement at last on the Office of teh Holy Ministry?
If not, what, precisely, is the official LCMS read on this matter at this point? I'd really like to know. I'm having a hard time reconciling "lay ministry" with what the Missouri Synod has traditionally understood AC XIV to be saying. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding that traditional position. Perhaps there's something else I'm not seeing. Or perhaps the gulf between the Missouri and Wisconsin doctrines of the ministry has at last been bridged, or at least considerably narrowed.
What do you think?
Comments
"As Wisconsin believes, Missouri practices. As Missouri believes, Wisconsin practices."
The same person also suggested Wisconsin's take on this would lead to women's ordination long before Missouri's.
1) a trained ministry
2) a formal process and rite (=ordination) of calling for those in the pastoral office that must involve both congregational approval and acceptance of the new pastor by his peers.
3) the equality of all those called to exercise pastoral functions
4) the provision of a ministry of word and sacrament for every congregation
The problem seems to be that 1-3 can't be fulfilled at the same time as 4. So they have voided 2. Another way would be to void 1 and 3, have the presiding layman be ordained without the regular training process and as a kind of second rank pastor, who cannot serve outside his own congregation. This was the third-fifth century solution, either in the form of chorepiscopus or "rural bishops" who weren't really equal to the other bishops (=pastors). Or else by sending out elders/presbyters to rural congregations, leaving the bishop/pastor in the city; eventually this became the rule, not the exception, creating the parish presbyter (>priest) system.
One thing I'd like to know a lot more about is WHY these churches can't get a pastor. Is it an absolute shortage? Or is it that the churches themselves are unattractive, due to features outside their control (aging, small, isolated, etc.)? Or else due to factors in their control (congregational divisions, rebellious/tyrannical lay leaders, etc.)?
But the Aug XIV argument, and the historic background of the church, and especially the Biblical testimony (especially 1 and 2 Timothy) make me a pretty supporter of the idea of the pastor as a special office, distinct from all other teaching offices in the church.
That is not absolutely a requirement, however. Luther has addressed this matter at some length on at least two occasions, once in his letter to the Bohemians and once in his short tract "That a Christian Congregation Has the Right, etc.."
Luther writes:
For no one can deny that every Christian possesses the word of God and is taught and anointed by God to be priest, as Christ says, John 6[:45], “They shall all be taught by God,” and Psalm 45[:7], “God has anointed you with the oil of gladness on account of your fellows.”9 These fellows are the Christians, Christ’s brethren, who with him are consecrated priests, as Peter says too, 1 Peter 2[:9], “You are a royal priesthood so that you may declare the virtue of him who called you into his marvelous light.”10
But if it is true that they have God’s word and are anointed by him, then it is their duty to confess, to teach, and to spread [his word], as Paul says, 1 Corinthians 4 [II Cor. 4:13], “Since we have the same spirit of faith, so we speak,” and the prophet says in Psalm 116[:10], “I came to believe, therefore I speak.” And in Psalm 51[:13], he [God] says of all Christians, “I will teach the ungodly your ways, and sinners will return to you.” Here again it is certain that a Christian not only has the right and power to teach God’s word but has the duty to do so on pain of losing his soul and of God’s disfavor.
If you say, “How can this be? If he is not called to do so he may indeed not preach, as you yourself have frequently taught,” I answer that here you should put the Christian into two places. First, if he is in a place where there are no Christians he needs no other call than to be a Christian, called and anointed by God from within. Here it is his duty to preach and to teach the gospel to erring heathen or non-Christians, because of the duty of brotherly love, even though no man calls him to do so. This is what Stephen did, Acts 6–7, even though he had not been ordered into any office by the apostles. Yet he still preached and did great signs among the people. Again, Philip, the deacon and Stephen’s comrade, Acts 8[:5], did the same thing even though the office of preaching was not commanded to him either. Again, Apollos did so too, Acts 18[:25]. In such a case a Christian looks with brotherly love at the need of the poor and perishing souls and does not wait until he is given a command or letter from a prince or bishop. For need breaks all laws and has none. Thus it is the duty of love to help if there is no one else who could or should help.
Second, if he is at a place where there are Christians who have the same power and right as he, he should not draw attention to himself. Instead, he should let himself be called and chosen to preach and to teach in the place of and by the command of the others.11 Indeed, a Christian has so much power that he may and even should make an appearance and teach among Christians—without a call from men—when he becomes aware that there is a lack of teachers, provided he does it in a decent and becoming manner. This was clearly described by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14[:30], when he says, “If something is revealed to someone else sitting by, let the first be silent.” Do you see what St. Paul does here? He tells the teacher to be silent and withdraw from the midst of the Christians; and he lets the listener appear, even without a call. All this is done because need knows no command.
Luther, Martin. Vol. 39, Luther's Works, Vol. 39 : Church and Ministry I. Edited by Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1970.
Melanchthon, in his apology, writes:
The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the
Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but
with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have
frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the
grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they
have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our
priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid
down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel
our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new
and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our
priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the
canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let
them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter
our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly,
and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And
we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the
Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God's
Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even
though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder.
So where the regular church government does not provide a pastor, a congregation has the power to select someone on its own. The question has to arise, in many cases, why, with a CRM list that approaches 1,000 ordained pastors, a congregation can't have a properly ordained pastor.
In some cases, the answer is simply that the congregation is small and poor; it can't pay a pastor the amount that a pastor needs to pay his bills, let alone enough that he can afford the expense of moving and setting up a home in a new home town, if he is not already living in the area where the church is. A partial solution to this problem is to make the full CRM list available to all congregations. They might well find a pastor living nearby who is at the moment without a call. Even if he could not become their full-time pastor, perhaps he could come in and preach each Sunday and administer the Sacraments for them.
On the other hand, there can be congregations that simply cannot get a pastor to be present every Lord's Day. I had the experience of being the organist for a small mission congregation in a home for elderly and disabled veterans in Massachusetts. The Lutheran church in town itself had a vacancy, which was being filled by visiting pastors. This congregation was served by the District Secretary, who lived some ten miles away. When his duties as District Secretary took him out of town, there was no pastor available to lead these people in worship. On those Sundays, he had me lead the services, including preaching. I would email a proposed sermon to him. He would read and review it and discuss it with me by phone.
A number of pastors questioned this practice when they heard about it; two became enraged. One accused me of violating all ten commandments by filling in for this pastor. While I confess that I have violated all ten commandments, it was not by helping out in a congregation that from time to time was without a preacher. I reviewed this matter with two of Missouri Synod's leading dogmaticians, one of whom is notable for a strong view of the ministry. Both agreed that this practice was proper as long as
1. the sermons themselves were orthodox. I still have all of them on file, so anyone reading this who would like to read any of them to see if they were is welcome to contact me at kenchely@aol.com.
2. I was acting at the request and under the authority and supervision of an ordained pastor (the point raised by Dr. Marquart). I was.
3. I was not pretending that I was myself ordained (the point raised by Dr. Nagel). The people were well aware that I was not a pastor. I wore a plain white alb with no stole.
I did not celebrate the Eucharist. That had to wait for the pastor to return.
The lay preacher should certainly have his preaching checked before he preaches. That is not a difficult thing to do.
If, for an extended period, no pastor can be provided, then the Church should examine the layman who has been chosen to serve the congregation, see what training he needs. In today's LCMS, that training can and should take the form of putting him through the DELTO program. For all the obloquy directed against DELTO, the course work required of the DELTO men is almost identical in content and extent to that of the Alternate Route men at the seminaries.
On another point, the Sunday School teacher certainly does engage in a public ministry. The idea that the Sunday School teacher is acting only privately, in loco parentis, is a polite fiction. The Sunday School teacher certainly is engaged in the proclamation of the Word. He or she does so in the church building, at a time when the people of the church are meeting for services or other gatherings. The classes are not at an hour set by the parents but by the church. The content is set not by the parents but by the church, under the supervision of the pastor. Sunday School teaching is most certainly a public ministry.
How, then, can a woman teach Sunday School? Very simple. The woman teaching Sunday School is not exercising authority over a man, but over children. She does not teach or exercise authority over any adult male member of the Church. I know of no one who has ever objected to a woman exercising authority over children, male or female.
I certainly agree with everything you said, and am praise God that the people were able to receive preaching from what seems to be a man who understands the Confessions better than most.
What would you say about a woman teaching Sunday school for adults? Licit? In any case, it seems to be permitted in the LCMS.
This, however, should be said: nobody has ever doubted the right of a congregation to call its own pastor, even a person unordained. That in itself opens up a can of worms, though: whether or not a person has actually gone through the rite of ordination, if a person whois not acting under the supervision of a person who is a pastor, is called to serve as a pastor, and actually does serve as a pastor... doesn't that make him... well... a pastor?
BTW, someone please enlighten me: are "lay ministers" always required to function under the direct supervision of a pastor, including doctrinal review of their sermons?
I personally found myself in a peculiar situation a couple of years ago in which I frankly blew it big-time. My pastor- who was familiar with my theology, and knew that I was ordained- asked me, given the difficulty in obtaining pulpit supply, to be his "designated hitter" whenever he was out of town on National Guard duty as a chaplain, or back home visiting his dying brother. He expected to be sent to Iraq, and further suggested that I serve as the
half-time interim pastor while he was there The pastor's requests were ratified by a unanimous vote of the congregation. He was also, as I understand it, specifically authorized to have me preside at the sacrament, since I am ordained- even though I am not rostered. This, too, the congregation signed off on.
Was this a call? Was it a regular call? My conscience has bothered me about it ever since.
I preached two or three times, and presided there once. When our pastor finally accepted a call, however, the DP called in a retired pastor to be the interim, which was cool with me (his choice wasn't, in view of his preaching, but I won't get into that now.
Instead of calling a pastor (a good man locally wanted the call, too), it was decided to have a last year seminarian do a delayed vicarage under the supervision of some ordained person nearby and serve as our pastor, being ordained at its conclusion. I raised Cain about that on the basis of AC XIV, even (I'm ashamed to say) publicly criticizing the DP severely for pushing this solution. The congregation didn't listen, and my wife and I left because of it.
Apparently I was wrong. In view of that Luther quote, I'm going to drop him an email and tell him so, on top of my previous apology for not having gone to him first with my unhappiness about the situation.
I dunno. I was under what I think is the quite understandable impression the impression that what I did as far as filling the pulpit and presiding wasn't kosher as far as the LCMS rules are concerned. Maybe I was wrong about that, too; I've been told by some very conservative folks that such arrangements are not unheard of in the
LCMS.
Anyway, here's an ordained pastor with twelve years experience who would love to serve an LCMS congregation. As to lay ministers, of course I defer to Luther (big of me, eh?). But I'd still prefer to see some arrangement whereby these guys could be admitted to the OHM, even in what might be de jure humano a secondary and limited status, rather than resorting to the practice of regularizing what certainly seems to me to be, by definition, an extraordinary solution to an extraordinary situation, at best.
If it's going to be as common as it seems to be, wouldn't somehow getting these guys into the OHM be wise?
As far as women teaching Sunday School publicly, the explanation I've always heard is indeed that they are, after all, teaching children- which is held to be something divinely given to their gender in a general enough way as to override the public aspect of the activity.
I fear the Luther quote is also being misused - it does not pertain to stewardship over the Sacrament for starters - and in any case Luther's view of the ministry changed drastically over his career and this quote from early Luther does not at all represent his later views nor the teaching of the Lutheran Symbols. The "priesthood of all believers" is not at all the issue here. The apostolicity (rather than merely sacerdotal) understanding of the ministry is. (Still, we wouldn't want to scuttle the evangelical spirit of some of what Luther says - which would bid all Christians to bear witness to the Gospel within their sphere of life and vocation - but this again has nothing to do with the issue at hand.)
In fine, the Evangelical Lutheran Confessions do not allow for lay administration of the Sacrament, historical Evangelical practice did not allow for it, and most confessional Lutheran bodies today (outside of the U.S.) do not allow for it. It is happening in the LC-MS because of a confusion over the doctrine of the office of the ministry and a somewhat anti-clerical "church growth" agenda working behind the scenes.