On the Relation of Synod
and Local Congregation
to the Holy Christian Church
The thoughts, words and subject matter
in the “Theses on the Relation of Synod and Local Congregation to the Holy
Christian Church, “ as originally accepted by the Church of the Lutheran
Confession, are herewith reaffirmed and taken up in their order with the
purpose of expanding upon the meaning and intent of the truths therein
expressed, in order that we may state with full clarity what they briefly
say and suggest concerning that which Scripture teaches us to hold and
confess regarding the doctrine of the Church. At the same time we desire,
in this presentation, to disassociate ourselves from doctrines that conflict
with scriptural teaching on this subject and from views of men which militate
against the liberty that we have in Christ.
In so doing, we seek to preserve
inviolate and unimpaired, for ourselves as a church body as well as for
each believer in Christ, the full prerogatives and splendor of our function
as royal priests of God and the true blessings of our faith in the Holy
Christian Church.
THESIS I
THE CHURCH, ACCORDING TO ITS INNER
NATURE AND ESSENCE, IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL THOSE WHOM GOD RECOGNIZES
AS HIS DEAR CHILDREN BY FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS. II Tim. 2:19; Gal. 3:26;
1 Pet. 2:9; Eph. 2:19-22; Acts 2:47b.
Expression has been given in another
of our confessions, the one entitled: “Concerning
Church Fellowship, “ to the unique character of the Church, the Communion
of Saints, its singular unity and the legitimate manner, outlined in Scripture,
by which that unity is to be reflected and maintained in outward, visible
fellowship. Further clarification is needful only to the extent that a
proper relationship be defined as it obtains between a so-called “local
congregation” and the wider association of Christians by congregations
within the framework of what in our age has often been called a “Synod,”
or a “Conference,” or simply: a “church.” The use of the term “church”
when speaking of outward, visible organizations has been a cause of considerable
difficulty to all efforts at maintaining unity of faith and confession
in this area of doctrine among otherwise like-minded Lutherans. The existence
of these difficulties is recognized by the title of our Theses; and in
a brief preamble we have offered an approach to the elimination of misunderstanding
in this matter. The introductory paragraph reads:
“In the discussion of the doctrine
of the Church, specifically the relation of synod and local congregation,
it is helpful and essential to distinguish between THE NATURE AND ESSENCE
of these respective bodies on the one hand and their ORGANIZATIONAL FORM
AND FUNCTION on the other.”
It is of great importance to note
that the scriptural concept of church” can be applied to visible church
organizations only in an improper sense. We acknowledge that they are thereby
defined, not essentially, but by synecdoche, a figure of speech “by which
a part is put for the whole, or the whole for a part, the special for the
general, or the general for the special, or the like.” (Thorndike-Bartihart,
Dictionary) If therefore we wish to apprehend clearly the relation of Synod
and local congregation to the Church, we must necessarily begin by setting
forth what Scripture means when it speaks of the Church. To this effort
the first Thesis addresses itself.
We rejoice in the knowledge that,
among those who retain as their heritage the fundamental blessing of the
Lutheran Reformation, the doctrinal position affirmed by this Thesis will
elicit only unqualified approval. It merely rephrases in the briefest possible
way a truth which the Lutheran Confessions have taught us to regard as
a part of the elementary knowledge of properly instructed Christians. All
these will say, with the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
“Wherefore we hold, according to
the Scriptures, that the Church, properly so called, is the congregation
of saints (of those here and there in the world), who truly believe the
Gospel of Christ and have the Holy Ghost.” (Apol. Art. Vii, 28; Triglot,
p. 237)
The Thesis, through the scripture
references adduced, further declares that this Church is invisible to the
eyes of men and its membership known only to the Lord; that it is nevertheless
not a Platonic or imaginary state, but an actual spiritual priesthood of
believers, a world-wide congregation of saints who are made holy through
faith in Christ and who serve God in holy works; that it is not a mere
idea or ideal, but an actuality for which Christ gave Himself into death,
that He might “present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot,
or wrinkle, or any such thing: but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
(Eph. 5: 27)
We teach with Martin Luther that
“Christians are a separated, chosen people and are called not only a church
or people (ecclesia), but holy, universal, Christian, that is: a Christian,
holy people, who believe in Christ, wherefore they are called a Christian
people; and who possess the Holy Ghost, who daily sanctifies them, not
only through the remission of sins which Christ has gained for them (as
the Antinomians foolishly suppose), but also through the putting off, sweeping
out, and mortifying of sins, wherefore they are called a holy people .
. . “ (Luther, of Councils and Churches, 1539)
Lest the nature of the sanctification
of the Church be misconceived, we join John Gerhard in here declaring that
“we emphatically do not employ the designation of ‘saints’ in an Anabaptist
or Pelagian sense; nor do we indulge in the fantasy that the true citizens
of the Church, in the weakness of this life, are wholly and utterly sinless
. . .“ (Loc. de eccl., Par. 51) Rather, we confess with Luther: “The holy
Church sins and falters or indeed also errs, as the Lord’s Prayer teaches;
but she neither defends nor excuses herself, but humbly prays for forgiveness
and amends her ways as much as is ever possible. It is then forgiven her,
so that her sin is no more counted as sin.” (Walch, XIX, 1294) Cf. also:
Luther’s Works, Am. Ed., Vol. 22, pp. 178- 180 (Walch, VII, 1734, 425ff).
Thus before the Lord the Church
indeed stands a living, holy temple, united and imperishable, an organism
that is vital, alive and growing. Outside of this Church there is no salvation
for men; such as should be saved will be, and are being, added to it constantly
through the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments.
These are the out-. ward marks which indicate the presence of the Church;
but they are not a part of, nor do they belong to the essence of, the Church.
We hold that to speak of a visible side of the invisible Church is unscriptural
and a contradiction in terms. But we say with our Confessions: “The Christian
Church consists. . . especially in inward communion of eternal blessings
in the heart, as of the Holy Ghost, of faith, of fear and love of God;
which fellowship, nevertheless, has outward marks so that it can be recognized,
namely, the pure doctrine of the Gospel, and the administration of the
Sacraments in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. (Apol. VII, VIII, 5;
Triglot, p. 227)
Whatever then maybe the relationship
existing between the Church on the one hand and the congregational or synodical
organization on the other, it is certain that they must in no wise be identified.
Visible church bodies are neither holy nor perfect; they are not one, but
many. Though they contain Christians, they do not consist of believers
only, as does the Church; though the Word and Sacraments are present and
operative in them, these are not entrusted to them as such and are not
administered by them as such; though they grow and multiply, it is not
these, or any one of them, of which the Lord Jesus spoke when He said:
. . I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it. (Mt. 16:18.)
Not only do we insist that this
distinction must be made; we ask also that it be meticulously and consistently
respected throughout any wider discussion of the doctrine of the Church
and related matters. Much of the confusion that has in the past frequently
be-clouded this doctrine even within the confines of the most conservative
Lutheranism can be traced directly to the lack of consistency that loses
sight of the doctrinal premises when they become involved in the process
of practical application. We shall find it necessary to refer to aberrations
of this type as we now proceed to an exposition of those Theses in our
series which undertake to define the proper relevance of certain visible
organizations to that object of our faith — the Holy Christian Church,
the Communion of Saints.
THESIS II
ANY GROUP OF PROFESSING CHRISTIANS
GATHERED IN CHRIST’S NAME (Mt. 18:20) CAN RIGHTLY BE CALLED ‘CHURCH' BECAUSE
OF THE CHRISTIANS IN IT. THEREFORE ALSO A SO-CALLED LOCAL CONGREGATION
GATHERED ABOUT WORD AND SACRAMENT IS RIGHTLY CALLED “CHURCH” ONLY BECAUSE
OF THE CHRISTIANS IN IT. (Eph.1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; Mt. 18:20) THE
OUTWARD ORGANIZATIONAL FORM OF A CONGREGATION IS OF HUMAN ARRANGEMENT AND
MAY VARY WIDELY AS IT DID EVEN IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. COMPARE CORINTH
WITH JERUSALEM. (I Cor. 12 and 14; Acts 6)
“When we speak of a Christian congregation,
or local church, we always mean only the Christians or believers in the
visible communion. The congregations, too, consist only of believers. As
the wicked and hypocrites do not belong to the Church Universal, so they
are no part of the congregation either. This is the clear teaching of Scripture.”
(Pieper, Dogmatics, III; Eng. Ed. p.419f)
These precise statements of a revered
teacher, presumably agreed to by several generations of a Lutheran orthodoxy
of which we desire to be heirs, well serve to introduce this portion of
our confession. Sometimes they have been misunderstood. Oftener they have
been ignored. Substantially they present a proposition basic to the scriptural
thinking of our Theses.
The expressions: “church;” “congregation;”
“communion;” belong to the vocabulary which must be employed when we wish
to state clearly what we teach and believe in regard to the matters now
under consideration. Yet it is by the very use of such terms that we may
be misunderstood and may in turn fail to understand others. It must be
regarded as an unhappy circumstance and a measure of human inadequacy that
we are compelled to deal in words which through careless usage or by reason
of their origins have become ambiguous. Of necessity, then, those who undertake
to teach and confess the doctrine of Scripture in any point, and certainly
not least in the area here under consideration, will at the outset define
their terms.
We are told that Luther regarded
the German equivalent of the word “church” (Kirche) as being “unGerman,”
a vague and fuzzy expression. In his translation of the Old Testament he
employed it only about fifteen times, and then invariably to denote idolatrous
sanctuaries or associations and never as designation for the believers
of the Old Covenant or their assemblies. In his translation of the New
Testament Luther uses the expression “Kirche” only twice, and these
instances consist in compound words (“church-dedication, “ Jn. lO:22; church~robbers,
H Acts 19:37). Uniformly he translated the Greek “ekklesia” with ‘Gemeinde”
(congregation). (Quartalschrift, Vol. 26, p. 207f) Despite such care on
his part, Luther too has been misunderstood and cited for false positions
relative to the doctrine of the Church.
It may not be possible to obviate
all wrongful interpretations of what we endeavor to say in this our
confession. We shall nevertheless
be at pains to remain as definitive as possible in our expression. To this
end we desire herewith to establish and announce the policy to be pursued
herein: Whenever we employ the term Church as a proper noun, or in its
generic use as indicated by quotation marks (“church”), we wish to be understood
as referring to the invisible “ekklesia” of the Scriptures in its essence
and with its characteristics; to the Holy Christian Church, whether in
its totality or in its parts. With this provision established, we trust
that mutual understanding will prevail.
But it behooves us also to establish
a consistent use of the word “congregation” for our purposes. In the statement
of Dr. Pieper quoted above, we note that he carefully distinguishes between
the concept “Christian congregation, or local church” and a “visible communion,
“ to which he does not want to apply the word “congregation.” Thus in the
context in which he deals he wishes to be understood as equating “congregation”
with “church. “ “This, then, is the definition of a congregation: A congregation
is the assembly of believers who congregate about Word and Sacrament at
a particular place. “ (Op. Cit. p. 420) The visible communion, “ so often
loosely called “a church” or “a local church” or “a local congregation”
for the sake of convenience in casual discussion as well as in theological
debate, includes whatever number of unbelievers and hypocrites may be mingled
therewith. Dr. Pieper in his doctrinal treatment does not wish the word
“congregation” to be employed in that sense.
Our theses sympathize with that
restriction. Indeed, they make an issue of it. Though they speak of “the
outward organizational form of a congregation, the very syntax of that
phrase indicates that “congregation” is something distinct from “its outward
organizational form.” And so it must be. Holy Scripture indeed recognizes
the existence of visible communions or fellowshipping groups. But we have
already pointed out that when our Savior, in Mt. 16:18, declares that He
would build His Church, He was not speaking of any visible church body
as such, but of His spiritual Body. This is the first instance of the New
Testament use of the term “ekklesia,” which we translate as “church;” and
in similar contexts the Apostles consistently employ the term in the same
sense.
With these preliminaries serving
to guard our terminology against semantic confusion, we turn to our thesis
which says that “any group of professing Christians gathered in Christ’s
Name (Mt. 18:20) can rightly be called ‘church’ because of the Christians
in it. Therefore also a so-called local congregation ...“ With these words
we intend to convey this truth above all, that a “local congregation” (Ortsgemeinde)
in the sense of a circumscribed group of professing Christians (as distinct
from a group of ‘believers”) can be designated a “church” only because
we believe that the Church is present in it, present wherever the Gospel
is preached and the Sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution.
The very existence of the Church is a matter of faith and not of observation.
When people are assembled in Christ’s Name, that is, in connection with
the Name of the Lord, this means, as it has always been understood among
us and as both the Second Commandment and the First Petition of the Lord’s
Prayer have taught us, that such people are assembled about and concerning
the Word and Sacraments. These are the marks which indicate what we cannot
see but accept as fact: the presence of the Church.
The saints that come together within
an outward fellowship, the faithful in Christ Jesus, make such visible
communions “church”, and ARE “church.” Their sum is rightly labeled a congregation,
namely an assembly of those who have been “called out” and separated from
the world. Of this congregation, as part and parcel of the Holy Christian
Church on earth, it can be said that it possesses all the rights, duties
and powers of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and this because each
and every individual of the congregation so constituted, as a spiritual
priest before God, is endowed with the treasures which Christ has earned,
won and conferred upon His Church.
Scripture assures us that we shall
be able to find the Church wherever men assemble about the true Gospel
and the Sacraments in order to use them according to the Savior’s directive
(Mt. 18:20); and because His Word calls upon His disciples to do so (Mt.
18:17; Heb.l0:24-25), we recognize the fact that through their response
to this need and the will of their Lord outward organizations will come
into being. Their faith will bring Christians together as “church;” and
the assembling will not be invisible. The Gospel and the faith that it
generates will, by God’s grace, create tangible forms. We know also that
in the very nature of things the assembling of Christians and the resulting
form of their being together will, first of all, be of a local character
and composition. In other words, we regard the establishment of “local
congregations” as the primary outcome of the operation of the Holy Spirit
Who gathers God’s elect and permits them to recognize one another by their
confession. In this sense we may scripturally affirm that local visible
communions in which the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity and
the Sacraments are administered according to their divine institution exist
by God’s will and order and through the operation of His power in the Gospel.
Concerning such local visible communions,
however, our thesis in its second part rejects the thought that they must
be cast into any one divinely fixed outward form. From the very outset
of the life of the New Testament Church the structure of its visible communions
as well as their manner of operation with the public ministry of Word and
Sacrament varied substantially from place to place and region to region.
Reference is made to the difference in this respect between the Mother
Church at Jerusalem and the church at Corinth. In Jerusalem organizational
design and functioning are evidenced, for example, in the purposeful and
orderly procedure that marked the choosing of the seven deacons (Acts 6).
In contrast, the worship of the Corinthian congregation reveals a use of
the God-given charismatic gifts so individual and so joyfully uninhibited
by organizational form that it actually created a problem to which Paul
had to give considerable attention (I Cor. 14). Yet the Apostle did not
simply impose upon the Corinthians the system of Jerusalem. For when God’s
children are called together for the exercise of the priestly prerogatives
of their holy station, it is God’s Spirit Who moves them; and “where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. “ (II Cor. 3:17) They are “dead
with Christ from the rudiments of the world’ and are not “subject to ordinances.”
(Col. 2:20) Among them prevails the divinely sanctioned diversity in unity
described by the Apostle in I Cor. 12, a diversity which exists between
them not only as individuals, but as groups as well. Therefore visible
assemblies may and do operate under voluntary and diversified regulations
and constitutional provisions designed, not to achieve structural uniformity
but to promote the interests of good order and mutual love in the discharge
of the labors in the Gospel, seeking to achieve as best possible under
all circumstances the design of the Lord Who says through His Apostle that
“the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.”
(I Cor. 12:7)
In this sense and for this reason
we affirm that “the outward organizational form of a congregation is of
human arrangement,” and does not as such determine its character. When
a visible local assembly is called a “church,” therefore, it must be borne
in mind that this sacred term does not properly apply to it insofar as
it is an outward assembly, but only to the extent that it is truly a “congregation.”
While with the Catechism we speak of the “church power (or authority) which
Christ has given to His Church on earth,” and apply this truth by saying
that the Keys have been conferred upon the “local congregation,” we must
bear in mind that such an assertion is correct only when we are properly
defining “local congregation” as Dr. Pieper does. For “it is to the Church
in the true sense, that is, to the communion of saints, to which as such
(or as to holy people) the Lord has entrusted and committed the preaching
of the Gospel and therewith the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not
the church in the improper, or synecdochical sense, that is, insofar as
the term is used to include persons who are not Christians, or insofar
as it associates concrete things and forms (Sachen) with believers. Tt
(Quartalschrift, Vol. 26, p. 217)
THESIS III
WHEN IT IS SAID THAT A SYNOD IS “CHURCH”,THIS
IS SAID WITH REFERENCE TO ITS INNER NATURE AND ESSENCE, NAMELY INSOFAR
AS IT CONSTITUTES A COMMUNION OF TRUE BELIEVERS. WHEN IT IS SAID THAT A
SYNOD OR CONFERENCE IS A “HUMAN ARRANGEMENT”,THIS IS PROPERLY SAID WITH
REFERENCE TO ITS OUTWARD ORGANIZATIONAL FORM WHICH IS DETERMINED AND DEFINED
BY THE CONGREGATIONS THAT HAVE CONSTITUTED THIS BODY.
Some Lutheran teachers have argued
that the formation of local churches must be regarded as having a divine
mandate while the organization by congregations of larger bodies such as
synods is a purely human and optional arrangement. The contention is that
local churches originate through the inner necessity established by God’s
will and order that Christians fellowship, institute the public preaching
of the Word, exercise Christian discipline and celebrate the Holy Supper.
Since these are manifestly enjoined upon Christians and since they could
not be exercised without local assemblies, it follows that local churches
are divinely instituted. Such logic, however, could be applied with similar
authority in demonstrating that wider associations of Christians also have
a divine mandate. For since our Savior has directed His disciples to go
into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, and since a
single local church could hardly hope to approach an adequate implementation
of this obligation, it follows that the mission command presupposes (and
thus makes “mandatory”) the cooperation of many Christians in many places
as necessitated by the needs and opportunities. This conclusion is supported
by the fact that in the primitive Christian Church the believers linked
hands and means in speeding the Apostles and their helpers upon their missionary
enterprises.
We have pointed out that it is the
Holy Ghost Who causes Christians to seek one another out by their confession
and to engage in the exercise of fellowship and joint work. This is always
true, no matter what outward form or organization may be set up for the
furtherance of this exercise. Proper and divinely approved forms of worship
and work are products of the faith and liberty of those who possess the
Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and faith in action is inventive, liberty
is unfettered. (I Cor. 12:4-7; I Cor.3:2l-23)The New Testament knows of
no specific forms that have been prescribed to restrict or limit, geographically
or functionally, the manner in which the individual Christian will govern
his association with his brethren in the administration of the Means of
Grace. (Col. 2:20f; Gal.4:9f)
In the same sense in which a “local
congregation” is “church,” therefore, a wider association of Christians
reaching beyond the boundaries of a “local congregation” is also rightly
called “church.” In our circles such a larger fellowship has often resulted
in an outward organizational form which is popularly known as “synod.”
If in the Theses as well as in this exposition we employ the synodical
appellation, we wish it understood that we do not apply the term “church”
to the form or to the name, even as we do not refer to a congregation as
“church” in relation to its visible structure.
The circumstance that a number of
confessing congregations, acting in Christian liberty, combine to constitute
a larger church body, the outward form of which is indeed of human devising,
does not denude such a larger body of the characteristics of ‘church’,
but rather confers that character upon it. For the essential nature of
the confessing congregations is not altered by their humanly constructed,
yet wholly legitimate union with others of the same mind; rather, when
these congregations are added together, the resultant total is again expressed
by the concepts confessional congregation, or assembly, within which the
Church proprie dicta, the communion of saints, the true possessor of all
the treasures of Christ, is contained. In a synod are embodied all those
Christians who lie hidden in all constituent congregations.
“As the sum of all such congregations
and their individual members, a synod therefore naturally and originally
possesses all treasures and powers that Christ has given to His Church
on earth: the authority to preach the Gospel, administer the Sacraments,
the Office of the Keys, etc. . . “ (Quartalschrift, Vol. 8, p. 135f)
“But in whatever manner the Church
at large or the local church may establish herself outwardly, always it
remains church in the proper sense of the word: Communion of Saints. By
the process of their banding together as a larger outward communion, the
members of a local congregation do not forfeit their faith, their membership
in the Body of Christ; rather, the banding together is an outgrowth of
their faith, and in this larger fellowship they desire to exercise their
faith just as in the local congregation, though in areas of Christian work
which lie beyond the capacities of the latter body.
“Herein we cannot go wrong: Where
the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Sacraments are administered
in accordance with the Gospel, there is the Church, the communion of saints,
be the form and name of the outward organization whatever it will. The
synod embraces all Christians of the congregations which have joined it
for the purpose of joint confession, joint preaching of the Gospel and
mutual strengthening in faith. Synod is only another outward form of the
Church, a different form of the Congregation of Christ than the local assembly,
differing from this form not in its general, but in its specific task and
activity.
“The peculiar idea that only the
local congregation has been ordained or instituted by God, and can possess
the Gospel, Sacraments and power of the Keys only in this form, that the
synod on the other hand is a purely human organization serving as human
advisor to the congregation and for the purely human efforts in furthering
the cause of the Gospel, . . . rests upon a confusion of the essence with
the outward form of the church, of the concrete historical development
of the church with the New Testament concept of the Kingdom of God, and
upon the transfer of the Old Testament concept of the Church into the New
Testament Church, as though God had established an outward church institution
within the New Testament Church, a special church FORM with whose function
the effective operation of the Gospel and the salvation of souls is inseparably
linked. Thereby the freedom of the New Testament Church from the statutes
of the old covenant is actually denied.
“The fact is that the New Testament
Church has not a single prescribed outward form, no outward divine institution,
but that the Lord has given to His Bride, His communion of saints, the
Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Gospel, has entrusted it to her for
her own use and for a preaching to all the world, commanding her to be
a faithful steward of His goods and to let everything also in outward matters
be done decently and in order. To this end He endows her through the Holy
Spirit with specific men and gifts which she is to place into her service
according to her best judgment. A particular church form . . . He did not
prescribe for her.” (Quartalschrift, Vol. Z5, p. 42f)
Against this the contention has
been raised that the New Testament, which speaks of local churches, does
not speak of synods. If this were intended to mean that the word “synod”
is not known to the New Testament authors, or that no assembly of Christians
outwardly constituted in the form of a present-day synod existed in apostolic
times, we could agree. But the outward form is not essential, nor is the
name. It remains true that from the outset of New Testament church life
the various local congregations were aware of one another, exercised what
fellowship was possible under the circumstances and cooperated in joint
worship and work. (Acts l1:22ff; II Cor. 8:19. 22. 23) When Christians
in various localities join forces thus to discharge their priestly functions,
they are in this association “church.” Surely Christians who constitute
congregations do not cease to be Christians or to act as Christians when
they merge their forces congregation-wise in order to show forth the praises
of Him who has called them into His marvelous light. For “whatever a Christian
be, of the same nature also is every other Christian, likewise the Christians
as greater or smaller assembly or totality. What the Church is in its spiritual
character, that it is by virtue of the spiritual character of its individual
members.” (Quartalschrift, Vol. 15, p.76)
To say, then, that “a synod, an ecclesiastical
body or federation, consisting of a number of congregations of the same
confession, or any similar permanent organization, is not a ‘church’ in
the sense of Scripture, but is solely a human institution in which the
individual congregations (and certain individuals as associates or advisory
constituents) are members, for the purpose of performing in a more effective
fashion such portions of church work as cannot be done by the average individual
congregation alone with the same measure of effectiveness. . . “ (The Church,
the Christian Congregation and the Ministerial Office, by P. E. Kretzmann,
p. 105) — is to misstate the case and could be rightly understood only
if the observation limited itself to a synod’s organizational form. The
very fact that a synod legitimately and by divine authorization engages
in “church work” indicates that according to its essence it consists of
Christians and is therefore “church.”
THESIS IV & V
WHEN THE FORMAL ORIGIN OF SYNODS
AS WE KNOW THEM IS KEPT IN MIND THERE WILL BE NO ROOM FOR A SITUATION WHERE
A SYNOD INVADES AND OVERRULES A CONGREGATION IN ITS EXERCISE OF CHRISTIAN
DISCIPLINE. WHEN A SYNOD GOES BEYOND THE FUNCTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED
TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTING CONGREGATIONS IT OVERSTEPS ITS CALL AND BECOMES
A BUSYBODY IN OTHER MEN’S MATTERS. I Pet. 4:15. (Cf. Thesis III of Concerning
the Ministry of the Keys and the Public Ministry.)
IF WE REMEMBER THAT A SYNOD IS “CHURCH”
WITH REFERENCE TO ITS INNER NATURE AND ESSENCE, WE WILL NOT DOUBT THAT
WHEN A SYNOD FAITHFULLY AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY FULFILLS ITS ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS
(WHETHER IT BE THE TRAINING OF PASTORS AND TEACHERS, IN PROMOTING THE WORK
OF MISSIONS, OR IN THE AREA OF DOCTRINAL DISCIPLINE, THE SUPERVISION OF
DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE), ITS ACTIONS ARE COMPLETELY VALID AND HAVE DIVINE
AUTHORITY. FOR THEY ARE FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH, AS “CHURCH”, IT IS FULLY COMPETENT
AND QUALIFIED. Mt. 18:20; Jn.20:21-23;Mk. 16:15; 1 Cor.3:21—23.
Resting upon previously established
premises, these theses call for but little exposition. They concern themselves
exclusively with the propriety and validity of the functions which congregations
assign to their confederated associations. Here we find ourselves, on the
one hand, in the domain of Christian liberty, where “all things are lawful
unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me,
but all things edify not” (I Cor. 10:23); and where Christians are children
of their Father in heaven Who is “not the author of confusion, but of peace,
as in all churches of the saints.” (I Cor. 14:33) On the other hand, we
find ourselves compelled by the instruction of Holy Scripture to recognize
as wholly valid in the sight of Christ our Lord those activities in which
a synod properly engages as “church.”
Where there are Christians, there
is the Ministry (Office) of the Keys; for it was conferred upon them individually.
The functions of this Office, moreover, are one and indivisible, even as
the Gospel is a unit. One may not say that a Christian, or any confessional
combination of Christians, has the authority to baptize but not to provide
for the administration of the Sacrament of the Altar; the right to teach
but not to preach the Gospel; the right to forgive sin but not to retain
it. Yet such is the implication of the position taken by some who insist
that Christians in a local association may exercise the functions of church
discipline, but that Christians assembled as a synod may not. The latter
group, it is said, may jointly send out missionaries, but may not in their
gathering observe the celebration of the Holy Supper except as “guests”
in and under the auspices of a local congregation. Such wholly unfounded
restrictions, such arbitrary sundering of Christians from a portion of
their spiritual powers, not by common consent and agreement based upon
mutual love and a desire for good order but by dictum allegedly based upon
some scriptural provision that to exercise them they must be congregation
in a certain external form, does violence both to their prerogatives and
to their glorious station.
The apprehension that a larger church
body might invade the province of its member congregations or arrogate
to itself functions which are properly discharged only by each constituent
part of the body is a fear which has beat like a pulse in the throat of
the Church for generations. As a defense against such usurpation the “rights”
of the local congregation have been stressed. But not always wisely; for
to safeguard those rights, as we have reported and heard above, some have
resorted to the extreme measure of categorically denying to a synodical
association the character of “church.”
The misgivings which support that
position cannot be dismissed as baseless. The pages of history are dotted
with instances of synodical tyranny imposed upon local churches too weak
or too indifferent to resist it. In some cases synods trained and conditioned
their constituency in an attitude of dependence which discouraged the exercise
of individual sovereignty and created a state of mind sometimes called
“synoditis,” a Big Brother complex that accepted synod, rather than the
Scriptures, as the voice of God and the arbiter of doctrine and practice.
The present-day slogans of a false ecumenicity, moreover, designed as they
are to diminish the individual priesthood of the believer in favor of bigger
and better majorities, create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of
hierarchies and superchurches hostile to Christian liberty and respect
for individual conscience.
We are in our day highly sensitive
to the dangers that threaten us from this source; yet we hold that in the
regulation of a proper relationship between the local congregations and
the larger body, the highly articulate Scriptural rule of love and good
order is a sufficient guide and admits of no conflict of interests or duties
when faithfully followed. We also recognize the fact, however, that the
arch-enemy of the Church and the sinful flesh still adhering to Christians
in this life may at times hamper us in our desire to practice what we have
learned and believe; and we know that against the wiles of these foes no
humanly contrived constitutional provisions can of themselves form an impenetrable
armor. We must persevere in watchfulness and prayer, looking to the Lord
of the Church for deliverance from the evil of fleshly usurpation of power
and disruption of good order in our midst.
It seems to us obvious, however,
that this end will not be well served, and no protection can be afforded,
by the expedient of denying to an association of congregations the character
of “church.” It saddens us to observe that, among Christians who do regard
their synod as “church,” instances of incredible abuse of power by synodical
officials and slavish obedience of individuals and congregations have indeed
come to abound. At the same time we have noted the fact that in Lutheran
circles which in principle emphatically accord to a synod no status above
that of a purely human organization, local reliance upon and subjection
to synodical government, as well as a corresponding force of hierarchical
control have been even more widely and deplorably in evidence.
The authority of a synod cannot
be limited or secured against abuse by the claim that it is not “church.”
Such an affirmation would prove far more than its proponents would wish
to prove. For since a synod does, by common consent and intent of its constituency,
do the work of the Church, a denial of its character would make of a synod
an abomination, a pretender, a thief who enters into the fold by some way
other then the Door. But in its proper place synodical association is as
valid an arrangement as any that Christians make for the efficient pursuit
of their divinely appointed task — as valid as the forming of a local congregation.
A synod is in its essence a sum of the local congregations involved; and
by it, through its instrumentality, the congregations may choose jointly
to administer the Keys in whatever manner they deem effective, expedient
and consonant with Christian love and good order.
We have confessed and do again concede
that good order is not always observed, and the law of love is transgressed
even by Christians. Thus experience has shown that synods sometimes do
go “beyond the functions that have been assigned . . . by the constituting
congregations.” When this occurs, it requires immediate rectification.
Abuses of this sort are, after all, not peculiar to synodical bodies. Instances
are not unknown in which misguided, unscrupulous leaders and indifferent,
uninstructed members, probably paced by a strong admixture of hypocrites
and unbelievers, have turned visible local church organizations into horrors
of papistic corruption. But these are matters for discipline for which
Christian congregations should be fully competent, and do not in any way
give just cause for the desperate measure of denying to a synod its right
of priestly function as a church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It has been our duty to offer the
clearest possible witness of our agreement in, and our devotion to, the
rightful function of the saints in their priesthood and their freedom in
the perfect law of liberty; and this obligation we have herein sought to
discharge. Being conscious of the truth, however, that the best testimony
of words may by our weakness lose much in the translation into conduct
and action, we close with a prayer offered by Martin Luther in his Instruction
for Parish Visitors:
“May God, the Father of all mercy,
grant us through Jesus Christ, his dear Son, the spirit of unity and the
power to do his will. Even though the finest spirit of unity prevails among
us we still have our hands full to do good and to be established by the
power of God. What would happen if there were to be disunity and disagreement
among us? The devil has pious nor devout this year, nor so. So let us be
on guard and (as Paul teaches) the spiritual of peace. (Eph.4:3). Amen.”
Am. Ed., Vol. 40, p. 273) become neither will he ever be anxious to keep
unity in the bond (Luther’s Works, 816
Concerning the Ministry of the
Keys and the Public Ministry
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
conferred upon His disciples no more than a single assignment and thus
instituted but one office, or service, in His Church on earth, namely,
the service of preaching the Gospel. His directive reads: “Go ye into all
the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.” (Mk. 16: 15) This
order is further amplified and defined by the explicit statement that such
work consists in “teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have
commanded you.” (Mt. 28: 20) That in this expression our Lord did not refer
merely to an ethical or moral system which He allegedly established is
understood by all who know that “the Law was given by Moses, but grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (Jn. 1:17), and that the Ministry of the
New Testament therefore is concerned with evangelical and not legalistic
commandments. (Compare II Cor.5:18) “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath
sent me, even so send I you,” the risen Savior said to His disciples; “and
when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive
ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (Jn.20:Z1-23) This
grant of power and authority, of duty and prerogative, the Lord had previously
characterized by a graphic expression when He declared to Peter: “I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)
Concerning this spiritual endowment
the Church of the Lutheran Confession has expressed itself confessional
through a set of propositions entitled: “Theses on the Ministry of
the Keys and the Public Ministry.” Their scriptural premises and
the conclusions established thereon are herewith being subjected to closer
scrutiny and to more extended definition, in order that both our doctrine
and our practice may be fully understood by all and stand vindicated in
the light of Holy Scripture.
THESIS I
THE MINISTRY OF THE KEYS, WHICH IS
THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD, HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO THE HOLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH
— THEREFORE TO EACH CHRISTIAN MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD. CHRISTIANS ARE TO BE
PERSONALLY ACTIVE IN THIS MINISTRY IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY WHICH IS NOT IN
VIOLATION OF GOD’S WILL AND ORDINANCE. Mk. 16: 15; Mt. 28:18-20; Jn. 20:21-23;
1 Cor.3:21-23; 1 Pet. 2:9.
The Gospel in its very nature is
a proclamation. It is a Word, a Message. St. Paul calls it the “word of
reconciliation,” (II Cor. 5:19) and cries: “Woe is unto me, if I preach
not the Gospel !“ (I Cor. 9:16) An “unpreached” Gospel would be a contradiction
in terms. Scripture itself is speech; for it is a speaking of God to him
who reads it. Thus we may rightfully say that God through the very act
of revelation of the Gospel instituted preaching.
St. Paul calls the Gospel “the word
of faith, which we preach,” and in conjunction with Deut. 30: 14 declares
that it “is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine heart.” (Rom. 10:8)
For Scripture teaches that those who receive the Gospel as a personal,
inward possession by faith do in and through that very experience become
preachers of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit, Who always accompanies the Gospel,
not only creates faith by means thereof but in that very act also makes
witnesses of those whom He enlightens and sanctifies. Thus Peter expressly
assures believers that they are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation and a peculiar people in order that they may announce abroad
the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.
(I Pet. 2:9) God so fashions His Christians that from within their new
hearts they proclaim the Gospel; this is an inherent function of the new
life within them.
Thus we cannot actually speak of
an authority or a command to preach the Gospel in the sense that such an
activity is permitted a Christian only if, when and because he has been
especially called or authorized to engage in it. Preaching is an assigned
duty only in the sense that prayer also is an assigned duty. Our Lord did
not, therefore, institute a new function or create a new office when He
charged His disciples, saying: “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem
and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
(Acts 1:8) In this, as well as in all His other statements defining and
describing the Christian calling, He formally ratified the Vocation into
which the Holy Spirit has placed every true believer since the beginning
of time, gave it a New Testament definition, and by way of encouragement
and exhortation placed Himself with His gifts and blessing at the head
of His witnessing Body. In this sense we speak of a commissioning when
we say that “the Ministry (or service) of the Keys, which is the ministry
of the Word, has been committed to the Holy Christian Church.”
Obviously it is the will of God
that the Gospel be preached. But this will is fulfilled, not by a formal
institution of a preaching office in some abstract sense, but simply by
the calling of human beings into the fellowship of the Gospel and thus
making of them actual and active Gospel witnesses. They are to grow in
the knowledge of God and unto ever fuller possession of the doctrines of
the Word; they are to teach and admonish one another with the word of Christ
that dwells in them richly (Col.3:16), for each is a messenger of the Lord
(I Pet. 1:9); they are to judge the doctrine of others (I Jn.4: 1), and
are directed to a-void those who teach otherwise than God’s Word teaches.
All this belongs to the ministry of the Word. And these things have been
committed to every Christian with a call to active duty. For the Christian
is not merely in principle a preacher of the Gospel; he also administers
this office or service to its fullest extent. When the Christian assembly
meets In worship, such activity is in evidence on all sides. St. Paul calls
the congregational singing of hymns a teaching and admonishing (Col. 3:16).
The participation in the words of confession, in liturgical responses is
an act of preaching, as is the witnessing of the children of the Church
in catechumenal examinations and in Christmas services.
The only restrictions laid upon
God’s spiritual priests in the exercise of the Gospel ministry arise from
the provisions for mutual love and good order as stipulated by the Scriptures.
Since the Church is a Body, its members defer to one another and conform
their activities to that which best serves the common good. The orderly
processes of life in the Christian community, or congregation, are not
to be disrupted by any loveless individualism. The Apostle warned his spiritual
children against such offenses in his instructions to the Corinthians (I
Cor. 12:4-30; 14:1-40). Yet in principle there is no duty of the Ministry
of the Keys from which any person is personally excluded. It was to no
group of ecclesiastical dignitaries or body of clergy, but to the Christian
laity and clergy alike that St. Paul wrote: “For all things are yours .
. . and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” (I Cor. 3:21—23)
THESIS II
IT IS GOD’S WILL AND ORDINANCE THAT
CHRISTIANS PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OF THE KEYS. THIS IS ACHIEVED
THROUGH THE CALLING OF QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE THUS PLACED IN CHARGE
OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OF WORD AND SACRAMENT AND PERFORM THIS TASK
IN BEHALF OF THEIR FELLOW CHRISTIANS (VON GEMEINSCHAFTS WEGEN). SUCH SERVICE
IS REFERRED TO AS THE PUBLIC MINISTRY; AND ITS DUTIES ARE TO BE EXERCISED
ONLY BY THOSE WHO ARE PROPERLY CALLED TO IT BY THE CHURCH. THIS PUBLIC
MINISTRY IS GOD-ORDAINED AND NOT A PRODUCT OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. Acts
1: 23-26; Acts 6:5-6; I Tim. 3:1—5; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit.
1:5-9. Augsburg Confession, Article 14: “Of Ecclesiastical Usages — Of
Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the
Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.”
It is not in contradiction to what
we have professed in our discussion of the first Thesis if now we say that
there is a manner of administration of the Keys in which not every Christian
is personally active as an individual. We call it the Public Ministry;
but in so doing we need to define our terms precisely lest their true sense
be mistaken and the Truth compromised. The Public Ministry is not a function
different in content than the Ministry of the Keys which, as we have seen,
is the inalienable possession of every child of God. We call it “public,”
but not in the sense that it is either restricted to, or characterized
by, an administration of the Keys that is public rather than private or
hidden. The Gospel ministry is one and indivisible; and they who are charged
with its duties, namely all Christians, perform them without regard to
times, seasons or circumstances.
If the Public Ministry is distinct
in character, it is because those who serve therein function, not only
in their own right as disciples of Christ, but in behalf of, in the name
of, and by request of, their fellow-Christians. It is the Gospel service
performed, not by right of an individual priesthood alone, but vicariously
for many spiritual priests; wherefore it is called “public” as distinguished
from “private” or personal.” It is of this Ministry that the Augsburg Confession
speaks when it gays that “no one should publicly teach in the Church or
administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” (Article 14)
German theology defines it as “Das Amt von gemeinschaftswegen,” since it
is an office administered by one in the stead and in the name of others.
We confess and affirm that the Public
Ministry is divinely ordained; and we reject the teaching of those who
see it as a mere convenience or as no more than a development of the need
for order among men. Our Confessions say: “For the Church has the command
to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know
that God approves this ministry, and is present in the ministry (that God
will preach and work through men and those who have been chosen by men).”
The Apology, Trig. 311:12)
God’s Word makes it unmistakably
clear that He desires that the Gospel be preached and the Sacraments administered.
It teaches that God expects His Christians to administer these Means of
Grace. Scripture also reveals the divine design by which Christians are
to implement the preaching and teaching of the Gospel in their own midst
and for their personal instruction and nourishment, namely through a Public
Ministry for which the Lord promises to supply the gift of adequate personnel.
Thus St. Paul writes to the Ephesians: “He that descended is the same also
that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
And he gave some, Apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists;
and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
“Till we all come in the unity of
the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth
be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they
lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into
him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: “From whom the whole
body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh
increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” Eph.4:10-16
This marvelous passage supplies us
with a true, evangelical understanding of the nature of the Public Ministry.
The Church has indeed received no formal God’s Word makes it unmistakably
clear that He desires that the Gospel be preached and the Sacraments administered.
It teaches that God expects His Christians to administer these Means of
Grace. Scripture also reveals the divine design by which Christians are
to implement the preaching and teaching of the Gospel in their own midst
and for their personal instruction and nourishment, namely through a Public
Ministry for which the Lord promises to supply the gift of adequate personnel.
Thus St. Paul writes to the Ephesians: “He that descended is the same also
that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
And he gave some, Apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists;
and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
“Till we all come in the unity of
the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth
be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they
lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into
him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: “From whom the whole
body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh
increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” Eph.4:
10-16
This marvelous passage supplies us
with a true, evangelical understanding of the nature of the Public Ministry.
The Church has indeed received no formal command which categorically “institutes”
a public ministry of the Word. Rather, the Church has received the Gospel
and the responsibility of proclaiming it. It administers the forgiveness
of sins. By word of the Holy Ghost and the example of the Apostles it has
learned how to do this in a God-pleasing manner; and the Lord places into
its hands the gifts which the Church may and does use for its purposes.
We reaffirm what our Confessions say in this context: “For wherever the
Church is, there is the authority (command) to administer the Gospel. Therefore
it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect and
ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift which is in reality given
to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul
also testifies to the Ephesians, 4:8, when he says: He ascended, he gave
gifts to men. And he enumerates among the gifts specially belonging to
the Church pastors and teachers, and adds that such are given for the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ. Hence, wherever there is a true
Church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists . .
. Here belong the statements of Christ which testify that the Keys have
been given to the Church, and not merely to certain persons, Mt. 18:20:
Where two or three are gathered together in my name, etc.
“Lastly, the statement of Peter
also confirms this, I Pet. 2:9: Ye are a royal priesthood. These words
pertain to the true Church, which certainly has the right to elect and
ordain ministers since it alone has the priesthood.” (Smalcald Articles,
Trig. 323f: 67f)
Thus the calling and ordaining of
public servants of the Word is one of the functions of the spiritual priesthood
by which Christians jointly discharge their Gospel ministry. In this they
are guided by the instruction of Scripture which carefully lists the proper
qualifications to be sought in those who are to serve in the name of their
fellow-Christians and thus represent them. Having chosen them under guidance
of the Holy Spirit and committed to them the duties to which they have
called them, they regard these servants as stewards of God and esteem them
highly in love for their work’s sake. Their respect for them is not such
as is accorded to dignitaries clothed in a rank which exists as distinct
from, and higher than, their own. For “in I Cor. 3:6 Paul makes ministers
equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers.” (Smalcald Articles,
Trig. 507 11) And how indeed could it be otherwise? For in and through
their called servants all Christians, together with them, are performing
their priestly functions as commissioned ministers of Christ. No Christian,
in calling a pastor or teacher, elder or deacon to administer the Office
of the Keys in his name, thereby relinquishes or forfeits his rights to
that Office or his duties thereunder, but executes them as participant
in the joint venture in which he thus engages with his brethren.
THESIS III
THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY
IS NOT LIMITED TO ANY DIVINELY FIXED FORM AS SUCH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OUTWARD
FORM OF THE ‘PFARRAMT’ OR PASTORAL OFFICE. IN CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, AS CIRCUMSTANCES
REQUIRE AND AS THE LORD SUPPLIES DIVERSITY OF GIFTS, OPERATIONS AND MINISTRIES
(I Cor. 12:4-6 — ‘Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit.
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there
are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all
in all.’ 12:28 — ‘And God hath set some in the church, first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts
of healing, helps, governments, diversities.’) THE CHURCH MAY SEPARATE
THE ~VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF THE WORD AND APPORTION
THEM TO WHATEVER NUMBER OF QUALIFIED PERSONS IT MAY CHOOSE TO CALL. IT
IS ESSENTIAL THAT EACH CALL THUS EXTENDED SHALL SPECIFY THE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
AND THE TYPE OF DUTY THEREBY ASSIGNED, AND THAT EACH LABORER ABIDE BY THE
TERMS OF HIS CALL. Acts 6:1-4; Phil. 1:1 (Cf. Thesis IV and V of “On
the Relation of Synod and Local Congregation to the Holy Christian Church.”
As the spiritual priesthood of the
believer and the preaching of the Gospel are correlative concepts, so likewise
are the terms congregation and public ministry. For where an association
of Christians exists, there will also be a public administration of the
Means of Grace with all that such a function entails. We further recognize
the fact that, of all associations in which Christians will seek to exercise
their priestly calling, the most natural and immediate form is that of
a local congregation. Within this form the office of the Public Ministry
has come to exist in what we call the pastoral office. Hereof Dr. F. Pieper
has written in part: “It is not a human, but a divine command that Christians
perform the works of their spiritual priesthood; accordingly, preach the
Gospel not merely in their homes, but also in their intercourse with the
brethren and with the world. Likewise it is not merely a human, but a divine
regulation that Christians who live at one place fellowship with one another,
form a congregation, and appoint men equipped with the necessary teaching
ability to preach God’s Word in the name of the congregation both publicly
(in the public assembly) and privately (to individual Christians).” (Dogmatics,
III, p.443)
A congregation calls a qualified
man (or men) and places him (or them) in charge of the administration of
the Keys. This office is therefore frequently referred to simply as the
public ministry, and the incumbents are called “ministers of the Gospel.”
Under the influence of tradition and popular as well as theological custom
this narrow use of the term “public ministry” has tended to become an exclusive
use; and the resultant identification of ‘‘public ministry’’ with the pastoral
office has not been without disturbing consequences. It has contributed
to a widespread impression that only pastors are public ministers of the
Gospel in the strict scriptural sense; and indeed it has encouraged the
erroneous belief that God instituted the pastorate precisely in the form
in which it is prevalent among us today. This belief in turn has led some
to the conclusion that all other offices in the Church having to do with
the administration of the Gospel are subsidiary offices which exist only
as branches of the actual ministerial office.
We affirm, to the contrary, that
apart from the general directive addressed to children of God urging them
to go out into all the world and preach the Gospel we look in vain in Scripture
for words that constitute a divine institution of a public office of the
ministry in any specific form, aside from the Old Testament priesthood.
The New Testament records the fact that certain forms of the public ministry
were in use in apostolic times. Men were employed as gifts of God for certain
phases of the work, and their several offices are given specific names
appropriate to the duties thereof. We cannot be certain that the functions
of any one of these corresponded in all respects to those prescribed in
the Call of a present-day pastor in the Church, although certainly the
work and responsibilities represented by such a Call have been discharged
by the Public Ministry of the New Testament Church since its inception.
We cannot point to a formal institution
even of the office known as the Apostolate. God did not command that there
be Apostles in the Church; He simply created them when He needed them.
And to this day the Lord Jesus Christ creates forms of office, old and
new, in His Church, through the Church, supplying her with the needed gifts
for the occasion. The Gospel, working in the hearts of those who believe
it, leads them to the establishment of the public administration of the
Means of Grace in their midst. Whether in any given instance this work
is to be done by one man, whether he is to have the entire supervision
and the entire complex of duties in his hands, or whether there shall be
two or more among whom it is shared. . . these matters lie in the freedom
and discretion of the spiritual priests of God. Whatever they need, the
Lord will supply; and they will use His gifts to the best advantage of
the Church.
We deplore and reject any doctrine
of the Public Ministry which interprets Scripture as teaching a divine
institution of outward form and thus infringes upon the dearly bought liberty
of the sons of God. We hold that in Christian liberty the Church may and
does exercise the functions of the Public Ministry when it calls qualified
persons into the pastorate, into the work of Christian Day-school teaching,
into a professorship at its High schools and Colleges, or as elders and
deacons who are to assist pastors and teachers in their ministry. We believe
that each and all of these offices are administrations of the Public Ministry,
that their duties are such as are prescribed by the Lord for the Gospel
ministry, and that their respective form is governed, not by divine decree
but by the terms of the Call as issued by the Church.
return to top
Listing of Theses
On the Relation of Synod
and Local Congregation to the Holy Christian Church
Thesis I
The Church,
according to its inner nature and essence, is the total number of all those
whom God recognizes as His Dear Children by Faith in Christ Jesus.
Thesis II
Any group
of professing christians gathered in Christ's name can rightly be called
'Church' because of he Christians in it. Therefore also a so-called
local congregation gathered about word and sacrament is rightly called
'Church' only because of the Christians in it. The outward organizational
form of a congregation is of human arrangement and may vary widely as it
did even in the apostolic church. Compare Corinth with Jerusalem.
Thesis III
When it
is said that a synod is "Church", this is said with reference to its inner
nature and essence, namely insofar as it constitutes a communion of true
believers. When it is said that a synod or conference is a "human
arrangement" this is properly said with reference to its outward organizational
form which is determined and defined by the congregations that have constituted
this body.
Thesis IV
& V
When the
formal origin of synods as we know them is kept in mind there will be no
room for a situation where a synod invades and overrules a congregation
in its exercise of Christian discipline. When a synod goes beyond
the functions that have been assigned to it by the constituting congregations
it oversteps its call and becomes a busybody in other men's matters.
If we remember
that a synod is "church" with reference to its inner nature and essence,
we will not doubt that when a synod faithfully and conscientiously fulfills
its assigned functions (whether it be the training of pastors and teachers,
in promoting the work of missions, or in the area of doctrinal discipline,
the supervision of doctrine and practice) its actions are completely valid
and have divine authority, for they are functions for which, as "Church",
it is fully competent and qualified.
Concerning
the Ministry of the Keys and the Public Ministry
Thesis I
The Ministry
of the Keys, which is the Ministry of the Word, has been committed to the
Holy Christian Church -- therefore to each Christian man, woman and child.
Christians are to be personally active in this ministry in every possible
way which is not in violation of God's Will and Ordinance.
Thesis II
It is God's Will and ordinance
that Christians provide for the public administration of the keys.
This is achieved through the calling of qualified individuals who are thus
placed in charge of the public administration of Word and Sacrament and
perfom this task in behalf of their fellow Christians. Such service
is referred to as the public ministry; and its duties are to be exercised
only by those who are properly called to it by the Church. This public
ministry is God-ordained and not a product of historical development.
Thesis III
The office of the public ministry
is not limited to any divinely fixed form as such, for example, the outward
form of the 'pfaramt' or pastoral office. In Christian liberty, as
circumstances require and as the Lord supplies diversity of gifts, operations
and ministries the church may separate the various functions of the Public
Ministry of the Word and apportion them to whatever number of qualified
persons it may choose to call. It is ssential that each call thus
extended shall specify the area of responsibility and the type of duty
thereby assigned, and that each laborer abide by the terms of his call. |
|