LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 210

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

210 SEMINARY AND UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

fulness to a Lutheran theological confession with a missionary per-
spective and that is tailored to the preparation of men for service
in specific kinds of situations.

We recognize that such an effort must attempt in some measure
to resolve a conflict between competing goods in an imperfect
world. On the one hand, we are committed to upholding the
Lutheran understanding of the pastor as theologian and insist on as
much education as possible for the good of the church. On the other
hand, economic pressures and emerging needs often make it im-
possible to call a pastor who has received a broad and thorough
theological education to every congregation or mission station
where, nevertheless, people need to hear the Gospel. We hope that
this proposal will be received by the church in the spirit in which it
is offered: as a sincere and thoughtful attempt to address real-world
problems and meet real-world needs with theological integrity and
with a humility that accepts that, in a world awaiting the full reve-
lation of the eschatological Kingdom of God, sometimes less-than-
ideal solutions are nevertheless good enough.

Five Principles

The construction of any specific program as a solution to a
problem enacts a set of principles or presuppositions that shape the
thinking of those who set out to solve the problem. The following
principles have guided the specific proposal that we offer to the
church as a way of meeting the need of the Synod for providing
Word and Sacrament Ministry by preparing (largely bi-vocational)
pastors to serve in specific kinds of ministries.

Principie No. 1: All those who regularly and publicly perform the
functions of the Office of the Holy Ministry should be in that office.

Lutherans affirm that there is only one Office of the Holy Min-
istry, established by God for the public conduct of the ministry of
Word and Sacrament, and that all those performing the functions
associated with this ministry should be rightly and publicly called
and ordained into this one office. The Lutheran Confessions teach
that the authority of this office (summarized in the New Testament
under the term émtoKomn) is the authority to preach the Gospel, for-
give sins, administer the sacraments, and exercise church disci-
pline, regardless of the title given to the man exercising the office.

The gospel bestows upon those who preside over the churches the

commission to proclaim the gospel, forgive sins, and administer the _

sacraments. In addition, it bestows legal authority, that is, the charge to

excommunicate those whose crimes are public knowledge and to ab-

solve those who repent. It is universally acknowledged, even by our op-

ponents, that this power is shared by divine right by all who preside in

the churches, whether they are called pastors, presbyters, or bishops. !

Our confessions also recognize the right of Christians gathered
together as the people of God to call for themselves men to exercise
this office.

...[W]Jhen the regular bishops become enemies of the gospel or are
unwilling to ordain,
the churches retain the right to do so. For wherever the church
exists, there also is the right to administer the gospel. Therefore it is
necessary for the church to retain the right to call, choose, and or-
dain ministers.

We note, however, that whenever the Confessions speak of the
exercise of this authority, they always speak of ordination, and not
of lay Christians exercising the powers of the office in an ongoing
manner while remaining laymembers of the church. For this rea-
son the Augsburg Confession states:

Concerning church order they teach that no one should teach pub;
licly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called.>
Thus we affirm that whoever publicly and regularly exercises

the functions associated with the pastoral office ought to be or-
dained into that office.

Principle 2: The unity of the Office of the Holy Ministry is not
undermined either by recognizing grades within the office or by
distinguishing the degree of supervision under which a minister serves.
All those who serve Christ and the church in the Office of the
Holy Ministry exercise de iure divino (by divine authority) the
power to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, administer the sacra-

ments, and exercise church discipline. There is no distinction
within the one office with respect to this power, and no human reg-
ulation may restrict the authority of the man who serves in this of-
fice to exercise this power in the congregation to which he is rightly
called and ordained.

Nevertheless, all ministers serve under supervision. In ancient
times the practice of distinguishing grades within the one Office of
the Holy Ministry de iure humano (by human authority) was es-
tablished so that those ministers with broader and deeper theologi-

‘cal understanding should be able to provide doctrinal supervision

for less experienced, or less well prepared, ministers. This was
done to ensure that the Gospel was rightly preached and taught, and
to preserve the unity of the church. In a passage cited with approval
by the reformers, Jerome writes:

One person was chosen thereafter to oversee the rest as a remedy
for schism, lest some individuals draw a following around themselves
and divide the church of Christ. For in Alexandria, from the time of
Mark the evangelist until that of bishops Esdras and Dionysius, the pres-
byters always chose one of their number, elevated him to a higher sta-
tus, and called him bishop. Moreover, in the same way that an army
provides a commander for itself, the deacons may choose one of their
own, whom they know to be diligent, and name him archdeacon. What,
after all, does a pishop do, with the exception of ordaining, that a pres-
byter does not?

By the time of the Reformation the common way of talking
about distinguishing grades within the Office of the Holy Ministry -
was to speak of the distinction between the power (or authority) as-
sociated with the Office of the Holy Ministry and the jurisdiction
(or scope of the administration) of the office. When the reformers
address the issue of ranks within the one Office of the Holy Min-
istry they are concerned with the abuses that they encountered, and
not with the general distinction. In the process, however, they do
both acknowledge and approve of this well-established distinction.
So they write: ;

We like the old division of power into the “power of the order” and
the “power of jurisdiction.”

Moreover, they themselves employ this distinction when they
address other issues, as when they write:

Therefore, it does not follow that because they have a definite ju-
risdiction bishops may institue new acts of worship, for that does not
come under their jurisdiction. :

While the Confessions never specifically argue for the authority
of the church to make distinctions in the grades or ranks of clergy
de iure humano, what they say about such distinctions makes it
clear that they do not object to such distinctions per se, but only to
the abuses that were commonly associated with them in their day.
So, the Apology says:

Concerning this subject [church order] we have frequently testified
in the assembly that it is our greatest desire to retain the order of the
church and various ranks in the church—even though they were created
by human authority.

Of such distinctions and regulations made within the church de
iure humano (including ranks within the clergy) the Augsburg Con-
fession concludes:

It is fitting for the churches to comply with such ordinances for the
sake of love and tranquility, and to keep them insofar as they do not of-
fend others. Thus, everything may be done in an orderly fashion in the
churches without confusion, but in such a way that consciences are not
burdened by thinking such things are necessary for salvation or that they
sin when violating them without offense.

The reformers were willing to allow distinctions and regulations
in the church created de iure humano, as long as the Gospel was
not compromised by presenting human regulations as though they
were from God, and by requiring their observance for salvation.

Throughout its history the Lutheran church has continued to af-
firm these distinctions. At the same time it has continued to recog-
nize that, while all clergy serve under supervision to some degree,
some clergy may charged, by virtue of the jurisdiction they are
given de iure humano, with the supervision of the doctrine and
practice of others. In the past, Lutheran churches have typically ex-
ercised a great deal more doctrinal supervision of pastors through
visitation pastors and the like than is common among us today.
Even today our Bylaws grant to circuit counselors, district presi-