LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 436

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

436 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

Apostolic Office. The great Wisconsin Synod dogmatician Adolf
Hoenecke put it like this: ‘The ordinary preaching office is the con-
tinuation, willed by God Himself, of the extraordinary Apostolic
office, and is in and with the Apostolic office of divine institution.’
Walther says the same when he speaks of ‘the preaching office
founded [or instituted] by Christ with the Apostolate.’ This has far-
reaching consequences for the present-day divine call into the di-
vine office. Much less can such a procedure [lay-preaching in the
church] be based on a special call, for the church cannot create a
call according to its own discretion [Belieben, whim] but can issue
only that call which God has instituted and which [alone He] rec-
ognizes (through which alone a servant of God comes into exis-
tence, not, however, through a human contract for a few hours and
days”).

“The call is ‘divine’ then because (1) the office is divine and
(2) God Himself is calling men into the office, albeit mediately,
through the church. It is nonsense to speak of “divine calls” into
all sorts of positions which are not the divinely instituted Gospel
office. The call cannot create the office. It either conveys (ueber-
tragen!) that office, or it does not—that is, if the terms of the ‘call’
violate the essentials of the office (e.g. ‘ordination’ of women). The
divinity of the call derives from the divinity of the office, not vice
versa—just as the church’s celebration of sacraments cannot cre-
ate them, but only either gives what the Lord has in fact instituted,
or else fails to give that. Human offices the church may indeed cre-
ate at her discretion in Christian liberty, and whatever ‘calls’ go
with them. But the divine office and call only God Himself can be-
stow.” Kurt Marquart, “The Ministry, Confessionally Speaking:
Just What Is Divinely Instituted?” in The Office of the Holy Min-
istry: Papers Presented at Congress on the Lutheran Confessions,
Itasca, Ill., April 10-13, 1996 (Crestwood: Luther Academy, and
Minneapolis: Association of Confessional Lutherans, 1996), 23,
25-26.

31. Walther’s convention essays have a context that should be
understood, and some quotations taken out of that context may
prove misleading. More research could and should be done to ex-
plore the specific ways that Walther describes putting the doctrine
of the call into practice in the Missouri Synod’s early decades. One
pastor has suggested that Baier-Walther provides a different and
perhaps clarifying perspective on these issues that should also be
considered.

32. CTCR Report, 20.

33. C. F. W. Walther, Walther’s Pastorale, that is, American
Lutheran Pastoral Theology, translated and abridged by John M.
Drickamer (New Haven: Lutheran News, Inc., 1995), 26-27.

34. CTCR Report, 24.

35. For example, Walther (in his Pastorale) stated that, for a
group of Christians wishing to call a Lutheran pastor, but lacking
sufficient theological expertise, he would expect agreement to the
following “minimum requirements” from them: “We do not want
to hire our preacher for one or two years as a servant of men but
rather to issue him a regular call as a minister of Christ, as the Bible
prescribes; so we want to recognize him as our preacher as long as
he teaches correctly, lives without scandal, and faithfully adminis-
ters his office. But we reserve to ourselves the authority to depose
him if he becomes a false teacher, lives scandalously, or is mali-
ciously unfaithful to his office” (Walther, Pastorale, 39).

36. Chemnitz, 37.

37. CTCR Report, 25.

38. Reasons three and four might be combined under the head-
ing “Willful neglect of duties.”

39. CTCR Report: “The Holy Spirit calls a man into the office
of the public ministry through the instrumentality of the church,”
and “Proper causes simply make it clear that God has already de-
posed the man as a hireling or wolf” (42).

2004 Convention Workbook

40. CTCR Report: “... a congregation needs to involve the Cir-
cuit Counselor and District President,” and “The congregation
should also be prepared to heed the advice of the District President
regarding biblical reasons for removing a man, and this in spite of
a pastor’s popularity in the congregation” (43).

In like manner (although the CTCR Report does not make this
point), the congregation should also be prepared to heed the advice
of their called pastor loci regarding the biblical reasons for dis-
obeying a District President who persistently violates Scripture, the
Lutheran Confessions, or the mutually agreed and fraternal synod-
ical Constitution.

41. Against the “domineering” pastor, one can cite the follow-
ing from Walther: “As soon, therefore, as adiaphora or things in-
different, that is, things that are neither commanded nor forbidden
in God’s Word, come in question in the church, a minister may
never demand absolute obedience to what merely appears to him
to be best.”

Yet Walther goes on to warn others: “It of course behooves the
minister, according to his office as teacher, supervisor, and watch-
man, to direct the deliberations that are held on the matter. He must
instruct the congregation and see to it that also in the determina-
tion of adiaphora and the establishment of ecclesiastical regulations
and ceremonies the congregation does not act frivolously or estab-
lish something that is hurtful.” See Appendix A for a helpful ap-
proach to the “domineering” pastor. C. F. W. Walther, Kirche und
Amt [Church and Ministry], trans. J. T. Mueller (St. Louis: Con-
cordia Publishing House, 1987), 312.

42. CTCR Report, 27.

43. CTCR Report, footnote 1, p. 1.

44. CTCR Report, 26. This expression is not the Gospel, but
rather the Gospel abstracted. Orthodox definitions of the Gospel
convey the benefits of the vicarious atonement delivered (in con-
tradistinction to abstracted) in the Word. Hence the Gospel is called
“the Word of Grace” (Acts 20:32) because it actually delivers
God’s grace of Christ crucified on behalf of sinners, and is there-
fore able to build them up (Acts 20:32). The Apology inextricably
yokes absolution (Ministry) and faith (Church) to one another:
“The power of the keys administers and offers the Gospel through
absolution, which [proclaims peace to me and] is the true voice of
the Gospel. [German: ‘The Word of absolution speaks peace to me
and is the Gospel itself.| In speaking of faith, therefore, we also in-
clude absolution since ‘faith comes from what is heard’ as Paul
says (Rom. 10:17)” (Tappert, p. 187). Furthermore, Luther nor-
mally employed the word “radical” in connection with Karlstadt,
Miinzer, or other fanatics, rather than the Gospel or Christ—such
terminology seems foreign to Lutheran theology.

45. CTCR Report, 28.

46. CTCR Report, 30.

47. This is similar to the false conception held by some that the
Law’s three uses can each be singularly engaged by the preacher
as adeptly as different drill bits in a power tool. In actuality, the
three uses of the Law are the Holy Spirit’s uses, not our own, and
He applies the whole Gospel where and how it is needed in like
manner.

48. CTCR Report, 32.

49. For example: What other church bodies employ this prac-
tice? How long have they done so? With what results?

50. See, for example, Dr. Stephen M. Saunders, “Forced Coun-
seling for Pastors: Misusing Authority and Misunderstanding the
Field of Psychology,” in The Office of the Holy Ministry: Papers
Presented at the Congress on the Lutheran Confessions, April
10-13, 1996, John R. Fehrmann and Daniel Preus, eds. (Crest-
wood: Luther Academy and Minneapolis: Association of Confes-
sional Lutherans), 1996, 279-93. See also Dr. Gary L. Almy, How
Christian Is Christian Counseling? The Dangerous Secular Influ-