LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 212

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

212 SEMINARY AND UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

complexity of the religious context in our society requires that pas-
tors be capable of interacting with and responding to an increas-
ingly wide variety of religious ideas, positions, and arguments. This
implies that pastors should generally be well-prepared rather than
ill-prepared if they are to meet these challenges. Our commitment
to the missional work of the church requires that the church pre-
pares pastors with both a breadth and depth of theological under-
standing.

Neither has it always and everywhere been the case that a stu-
dent must have fully completed his theological studies before ordi-
nation. Within the Lutheran tradition it has been acceptable to
allow a man to be ordained before the conclusion of his program of
studies, and to require him to continue this course of studies while
serving in the office.

It is sufficient for certification and ordination that, in addition to
the personal and moral criteria established in the Scriptures, a man
must be able to preach and teach the Gospel rightly and to admin-
ister the sacraments correctly in the context in which he will be
working. He must also know the Scriptures and the Lutheran Con-
fessions and understand their teachings sufficiently to be able to
take his ordination vows with integrity, since he will be vowing to
preach and teach in accordance with them. This necessitates both
some degree of preparation before certification and an examination
to confirm for the church his ability to perform the duties entrusted
to him.

Where the preparation of a minister before ordination is limited
to the extent described above, he should be provided with a mentor
to guide, advise and assist him, and to provide doctrinal supervi-
sion to ensure that he preaches and teaches the Gospel rightly and
administers the sacraments properly. He should also be required to
continue his studies until he achieves the level of theological un-
derstanding that the church deems a standard level for its clergy in
its cultural context. In this we are not speaking of what we com-
monly call continuing education. By this term we normally mean
education that continues beyond what is regarded as a standard
level for clergy, and which is the moral obligation of all who un-
dertake the work of the Office of the Holy Ministry whatever their
level of theological understanding. Rather, we mean that in order to
meet the need for the proclamation of the Gospel, the church may
allow a man who has received a call to be ordained with a mini-
mally sufficient preparation to serve in his office and still require
him to complete his basic studies after ordination to attain what the
church would regard as a standard Jevel of pastoral education for
the context in which he is serving.

Principle 5: The church may provide for a minister who has been initially
prepared and ordained to serve in a specific kind of ministry subsequently
to serve the church more broadly through a combination of further
academic preparation, accumulated ministerial experience, and
examination.

The seminaries believe that growth in the pastoral office is the
moral and spiritual obligation of all who are called and ordained
into the service of Christ and the church. God never calls us to be
satisfied with the least that we can do and be in His service but calls
us to seek excellence in all that we do in His name. For this reason
we believe that the church should allow, and that the seminaries
should offer, a program that allows those whose preparation for
service in the Office of the Holy Ministry has been tailored to ser-
vice in a specific kind of ministry to have the option of continuing
their theological studies in order to gain a broader and fuller theo-
logical education.

On the basis of the completion of such an optional course of
studies (which may or may not lead to an M.Div. degree), and on
the basis of their ministerial competence established through their
accumulated service experience and the successful completion of
an interview with an examining board, the church would recognize
their expertise and change their roster status to enable them to su-
pervise other less well-educated and/or less experienced clergy.

Notes

1. Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (Treatise, par.
60-61; Kolb-Wengert, 340). In its enumeration of the powers

of the Office of the Holy Ministry, this repeats the point of the
Augsburg Confession (AC XXVIII, par. 5): “However, they
[our people] believe that, according to the gospel, the power of
the keys or the power of the bishops is the power of God’s
mandate to preach the gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to
administer the sacraments” (Latin text, Kolb-Wengert, 93).

2. Treatise, par. 66-67 (Kolb-Wengert 340-41).

3. AC XIV (Latin Text, Kolb-Wengert, 47). The translation of the
German text reads, “Concerning church government it is taught
that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the
sacraments without a proper [public] call” (Kolb-Wengert, 46).

4. Treatise, par. 62 (Kolb-Wengert, 340). This is cited as part of
the reformers’ argument that there is only one office, and that
distinctions made in the ranks of the clergy de iure humano do
not affect the power of the one office with respect to the
preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments.

5. Apology to the Augsburg Confession, (Apology XXVIII, par.
13; Kolb-Wengert, 290). In this instance the citation does not
immediately apply to the situation under discussion here since
it relates the power of jurisdiction with the power to excommu-
nicate. It does, however, indirectly illustrate the acceptance of
the distinction.

6. Apology XXVIII, par. 14 (Kolb-Wengert, 290). Again, this
passage illustrates that the reformers were familiar with, and
accepting of, the distinction between the power of the office
and the jurisdiction of the office in general.

7. Apology Article XIV, par. 1 (Kolb-Wengert, 222). The follow-
ing paragraphs express their concerns over the abuses of the
bishops, and point to them as the source of the desire among
some to abolish the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This willingness
to accept a distinction of ranks within the one Office of the
Holy Ministry is also reflected in their citation of Jerome’s
statement (see above).

8. AC XXVIII, par. 55 (Latin Text, Kolb-Wengert, 99, 101). The
division of ranks among the clergy is specifically mentioned at
the beginning of this long discussion (par. 30); the intervening
discussion deals with the abuses the reformers have encoun-
tered. The translation of the German parallel text reads, “Such
regulation belongs rightfully in the Christian assembly for the
sake of love and peace, to be obedient to bishops and pastors in
such cases, and to keep such order to the extent that no one of-
fends another—so that there may not be disorder or unruly con-
duct in the church. However, consciences should not be bur-
dened by holding that such things are necessary for salvation
or by considering it a sin when they are violated without giving
offense to others....” (Kolb-Wengert, 98, 100).

9. LCMS Bylaw 4.4.5 (LCMS Handbook, 2004 edition, 192).

10. At the time of the reformers the power of the church to create
such regulations was vested in the bishops. As a result, when
the Confessions speak of these issues, they speak of the power .
of bishops to do them rather than the power of the church per
Se.

11. LCMS Constitution, Article V, B “Advisory Delegates”
(LCMS Handbook, 2004 edition, 12-13). Some other clergy,
teachers, deaconesses, and others are also restricted to being
advisory (non-voting) delegates.

12. We note that resolution 3-O5B of the 1989 LCMS convention
in Wichita not only approved the licensure of lay deacons to
perform Word and Sacrament ministry in an ongoing and pub-
lic manner without being called and ordained into the Office of
the Holy Ministry, it also withheld from them the authority to
excommunicate. At once it allowed them to perform the func-
tions of the office without a proper call and at the same time
divided the authority of the office in a way that is inconsistent
with the understanding of the Lutheran Confessions.

13. We recognize, of course, that removal from the clergy roster of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, does not remove one
from the Office of the Holy Ministry; it merely prevents a con-
gregation that is a member of the Synod from calling him.