# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S386
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

386 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

On the basis of the divine nature of the call itself Walther ar-
gued against the idea of a temporary call. The very idea that a di-
vine call could be issued for a set number of years was a contra-
diction in terms. Since God is the one who issues the call, it is also
God who terminates a person’s service in a particular location, and
this for one of two reasons. First, God issues another call to that
person to serve elsewhere. Second, God removes the individual al-
together from office due to the false teaching or immoral life of the
one who holds it.

Franz Pieper also resisted an arbitrarily determined tenure of a
call. In an article in Lehre und Wehre (1898) he was willing, how-
ever, to distinguish between a call for temporary assistance and a
temporary call. In the former case, he looked to the extenuating cir-
cumstances and the motivation behind such a call. He wrote that it
is important to determine whether a congregation could issue a call
for temporary assistance as a result of a pastor’s “illness,” “physical
weakness,” or “because of being overburdened with work” (for ex-
ample, by taking over as a District President). In such cases, he
says, the call for temporary help stays within the bounds of the di-
vine order and has nothing in common with the objectionable “tem-
porary call.’ ‘

Pieper rejects the so-called “temporary call,” the essence of
which does not consist in the idea that a call is limited as to time,
but rather that human beings arbitrarily limit a call as to time. That
is to say, they want to determine how long a pastor is to be active at
a certain place. Like Walther, Pieper argues that since God places a
pastor into office he also determines the length of time that the pas-
tor serves. “If God has placed them, men dare not transfer them at
their discretion” (emphasis added).“ Pieper then proceeds to dis-
cuss two ways in which God removes an individual from office.
The first is through a transfer (effected through a congregation).
The second is through a deposal or removal from office.“ A dom-
inant concern again is that the pastor is not a hireling who may be
discharged at the pleasure or displeasure of those who engage him.

Termination of a Call

Walther warns in The Proper Form of an Evangelical Lutheran
Local Congregation (Die Rechte Gestalt)—which we have noted
constitutes his practical application of Church and Ministry (Kirche
und Amt)—that “congregations shall not be so presumptuous as ar-
bitrarily to depose their pastors and others who administer an ec-
clesiastical office’*° (emphasis added). In his discussion of Thesis
IX on the ministry in Church and Ministry, Walther states that

when a pastor uses God’s Word in his congregation, whether by
teaching, admonishing, reproving, or comforting, either publicly or
privately, then the congregation hears Jesus Christ Himself out of
his mouth. In that case it owes him unconditional obedience as the
one by whom God desires to make known to it His will and lead it
to eternal life, and the more faithfully a pastor administers his of-
fice, the more highly it should esteem him. A congregation has no
right to depose such a faithful servant of Jesus Christ; if it does this,
it rejects Jesus Christ Himself, in whose name he ministers to it. A
congregation can depose an incumbent of the holy ministry only if it
is clear from the divine Word that God Himself has deposed him as
a wolf or hireling.*’
After Walther points out that “ministers are not lords but servants
and stewards of the church” in The Congregation’s Right to
Choose,* he cautions, “This of course does not mean that pastors
are miserable servants of men, whom the congregations could
therefore also treat as their hired servants, and to whom they could
prescribe what they are to preach and not to preach, how they
should administer their office and not administer it, and whom they
could put in office and depose as they please!’”°

At the same time, Walther wants to protect the congregation.
He acknowledges that there may be times when there is just cause
for deposing a pastor. He consistently identifies two causes for
which a pastor might be dismissed from his call or deposed from
the office. The first is the teaching of false doctrine. The second is

2004 Convention Workbook

the living of an immoral life. Walther summarizes his position with
a citation from Martin Chemnitz.
As long ... as God tolerates His servant who preaches rightly and
lives blamelessly in his office, the congregation has no right to dis-
miss the minister, over whom it has no authority. But when he no
longer edifies the congregation, neither by doctrine nor life, but de-
stroys it, then God Himself deposes him (Hos. 4:6; 1 Sam. 2:30). ...
In that case the congregation not only can but also must remove
such a person from his office, for as God calls by means, so also He
deposes through means. ...” (Loci Theologici, “De eccl.,” 331) [em-
phases added].*°
In one way or another, each cause for dismissal does violence to
the ministry of the Word. The one does so directly by turning this
ministry into something other than the teaching or proclamation of
God’s Word. The other undermines the credibility of the Word.
Does Walther support removal for any reasons other than these
two? Statements in Walther’s writings suggest several possibilities.
In The Proper Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congrega-
tion he cites the 17h century Lutheran theologian Paul Tarnov

(1562-1633) who adds two causes: “a lack of ability,” and “lack

of willpower, an intolerable neglect of the official duties.”
The lack of ability embraces partly the perversion of the sound doc-
trine, especially of the fundamentals, or the teaching of errors that
are contrary to the foundation of the faith, and partly the loss of the
means by which to teach the hearers profitably and fruitfully; for
example, the loss of the powers of the mind, caused either by acci-
dent or by illness, e.g., those of intelligence, judgment, the mem-
ory, or those of the body, such as the tongue and other members that
are necessary for the administration of the office. Under lack of
willpower we include both gross neglect in the performance of the
duties of the entrusted office and disgraceful conduct in life and
morals, whether these be offensive only to the church or also to the
community” (Dedekennus, Thesaurus consil. Il, 917) [emphases
added].*!

What is not clear here is whether Walther himself includes invol-

untary neglect (lack of ability) in the performance of one’s duties.

_In his Pastoral Theology (Pastoraltheologie) Walther makes no

mention of involuntary inability to perform official duties, but he

does cite a pastor’s deliberate unfaithfulness in the performance of

his duties.
3. It is not our intention to employ our pastor like a hired-hand for
just a year or two, but as the Bible directs, to regularly call [or-
dentlich berufen] him as a servant of Christ. Therefore we promise
to consider him as our pastor for as long as he teaches pure doctrine,
lives a godly life and faithfully performs his official duties [sein Amt
treulich verwaltet]. However, if he becomes a false teacher, be-
comes offensive in his personal life, or deliberately becomes un-
faithful in the performance of his official duties [sein Amt muthwillig
veruntreuen], we do assert that we have the right according to Chris-
tian Church Order to remove him from office.*?

We note that Walther’s third cause here does not include Tamov’s

mention of gross neglect.

The most extensive discussion by Walther is found in an
essay presented to the Iowa District in 1879 on the topic “Duties
of an Evangelical Lutheran Synod.” In this essay he outlines for
congregations the responsibilities that a synod owes to its congre-
gations and pastors. Walther speaks about pastors who are “un-
faithful” in their duties. Addressing congregations that do not af-
filiate with a synod and thereby consider themselves independent,
Walther states that

they do not consider that they thereby jeopardize their freedom to
the highest degree. After all, a pastor can become very unfaithful
(emphasis added) in his office: lazy, careless about his official acts;
he may fall into sins of drunkenness and the other great vices we
mentioned earlier; he may become obstinate, so that no one can get
along with him; he may become power-mad, so that everything has
to be done his way; he may take the attitude that when he has spo-
ken, the matter is settled; he may become lax about visiting the sick
and may snap at people when they come to see him; and he may fall
into many of the other sins that appear in the lives of pastors.

He does not expressly state, however, that a pastor who is guilty
of any of the offenses listed here ought as a result to be deposed.