Will The Real Lutheran Pastors Please Stand Up?
by Rev. Donald G. Matzat

One of my reasons for leaving St. Louis and moving to Pittsburgh last December was that I no longer had a heart for the conflict. The party spirit and political wrangling that have often characterized our Synod can be rather disheartening. So when Jack Cascione asked me to speak at this gathering, my immediate response was "no." But after giving it some thought, I changed my mind. The issue that we are discussing is compelling. It strikes at the very heart of our history and identity as members of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. It is an issue that is indeed worth contending over.

I believe this crisis over our doctrines of Church and Ministry is understandable and was even predictable. In the forties and fifties, with our experience of numerical growth, we became complacent. We did not adequately teach the people. Now we are reaping the results. A wake-up call is being sounded to the members of our congregations. They need to ask themselves some questions. Who are we? What do we have? Why are we here? Where are we going? How are we going to get there? This is not a discussion of abstract theological concepts but is about our future mission, ministry, and growth as we move into the next millennium.

The Church and the Pastor

For Luther, the Gospel of Jesus Christ formed his doctrines of Church and Ministry. Where the Gospel was preached and people came to a living faith in Jesus Christ the Church came into being. Every person within that church who had this faith was obligated to preach the Gospel to his neighbors. Since this church also gathered publicly for the purpose of proclaiming the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, not everyone could preach at the same time nor administer the Sacraments. Therefore, for the sake of order, the church appoints or calls one person to do the public preaching of the Gospel and the public administration of the Sacraments. While that one person performs the office, he does so in behalf of the entire congregation. The Gospel and the Sacraments together with the ministry of preaching and administration belong to the local assembly. Luther saw this as the New Testament understanding.¹

This call from the congregation, according to Luther, was a Divine Call as if Jesus himself as the Head of the divinely established local assembly of believers was calling the Pastor to proclaim in the midst of the people.

Therefore, the true Christian Church exists wherever the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity and where the Sacraments are administered according to Christ’s command. This does not mean that this church exists because a bishop appoints a pastor who comes in and graciously performs that ministry. Rather it means that the Christian congregation itself, those people of faith themselves, are entrusted with the task of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments. Those marks identify them as the Church. For this reason alone they are enabled to issue a Divine Call to a candidate to do that preaching and administration publicly in their stead.

What is the Problem?

This understanding is controverted among us. Alternative methods for "running" the church and theologies of Church and Ministry are being practiced. As a result, brother is taking sides against brother. Why is this happening?

We can cite numerous cultural, historical, or even psychological reasons as to why this unrest exists among us as if we are being victimized by outside forces. I do not believe this is the case. This is an internal matter. It has to do specifically with LCMS ecclesiology. The issue is the relationship between an LCMS pastor and his LCMS congregation.

With that in mind, we dare not make of this an abstract theological issue that is divorced from reality. Even if it hurts, we must face reality. We are often very adept at speaking of Church and Ministry in glowing terms without ever asking if the people who sit in the pews, who are the Church, are on the same page. In my opinion, given the state of affairs that exists in most congregations within the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, our doctrines of Church and Ministry are merely empty words.

Why am I Saying This?

Our understanding of the Office of the Public Ministry begins with a body of people who are driven by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and desire to call a pastor who, on their behalf will publicly preach that Gospel and rightly administer the Sacraments. While the Office of the Pastor is divinely appointed through the call of the congregation, the function of the pastor is to do publicly what the people are already doing privately. The pastor's function is an extension of the Priesthood of all Believers.

Now then, what happens to the function of this Office if the peop1e including those in congregational leadership, are not driven by the Gospel, are even blatantly ignorant of the Gospel and therefore lack the understanding of who they are, what they have, and what they're about? If the people who call the pastor have no sense of Gospel-driven ministry or vision for their future, what will be their expectations for the pastor? On what basis will they judge his ministry? Should a pastor who has a vision for ministry in a local area be hamstrung by the congregation's lack of vision?

The last congregation I served was dying. The primary interest of the leadership was their building, budget, and endowment fund. After I left, a young man fresh out of the seminary became the pastor. He did what I did not have the courage to do. He literally took over the church. Members who didn't agree with his policy and tactics were told to leave. The so-called "pillars of the church" transferred to other congregations. The Voters' Assembly became a thing of the past. Now, some 7 years later, from what I understand, the church is conducting a vital, multicultural ministry to the community.

Should a pastor follow the lead and submit to the authority of a Voters' Assembly that has minimal understanding of the Gospel, no sense of ministry to the community, and no vision for the future? This is not only a legitimate question. I believe this is the question!

Perhaps my experience is out of the ordinary, (which I doubt) but I have never been called to an LCMS congregation that was generally driven by the Gospel. For the most part, I was called to take care of needs of the members. Whether or not I preached the Gospel in its truth and purity on a Sunday morning was irrelevant. Why? For the most part the people in the pews wouldn't recognize the pure Gospel if they heard it. While Luther said that every Christian ought to memorize the Book of Ephesians, most of my people couldn't even find it.

Some years ago on the first Sunday in Advent, I stated from the pulpit that my sermons for the new church year would be based on the Epistle lessons rather than on the Gospel lessons. In a Voters' Assembly soon thereafter one of the Church Council members, a lifelong Lutheran and mainstay in the District, complained that his pastor was not going to preach "the Gospel" for the next year.

On another occasion in a Voters' Assembly the President of the congregation complained about the lack of stewardship in the congregation. He looked at me and said, "We need you to preach some good money sermons." I said, "Joe, I don't do that. I preach the Gospel." He responded, "That doesn't work." I responded, "If that is the case, we don't have a church and for that reason we sure don't need any money."

Lest you think that I am being unduly critical of the laity, I offer you this challenge. Go back to your congregations and ask each member of the Board or Council or whatever you have to write out an answer to this question: "Why did we call a pastor?" See how many of them give you Luther's answer or even associate the calling of a pastor with the public preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments.

In my estimation, at the present time, our doctrines of Church and Ministry hinder the mission of our Synod. Pastors, trained in the Gospel with a vision for ministry in their communities, are being called upon to submit to the whims and wishes of theologically ignorant Voters' Assemblies that are more concerned with their buildings and budgets than with the salvation of their neighbors. If we are sitting hear today opting for the status quo, we are not a part of the solution. We are the problem!

Two Solutions

There are two solutions to this problem that are being popularly promoted by the clergy of our Synod. Since the Eighth Commandment instructs us to put the best construction on everything, we need to affirm that these alternatives are being promoted with a genuine concern for the mission and ministry of our Synod. I am hoping that we are here today voicing that same concern and are not merely blind conservatives seeking to preserve anything and everything that has a historical imprimatur.

The first solution is to install a model of church government that is completely different, a model that has no past theological precedent and therefore cannot be deemed unorthodox. This is the Church Growth solution. It is a functional methodology, not a biblical theology. Os Guinness is right in saying that the Movement is a "methodology in search of a theology."²

Church Growth advocates don't worry about theology. After all, they have rightly observed, very few if any of the people in the pews worry about theology. The people are concerned about their lives and their families and their communities. They do want to hear about Jesus because, in addition to dying for them, Jesus also teaches them how to live, to have a better marriage, to be better parents, and to have peace and joy. Jesus meets the felt needs of the people in the pew. Jesus is the product!

This product must be marketed if the church is to grow. In order to make that happen the church is organized around a corporate model since it is indeed a corporation and has a product that is offered to potential buyers. The pastor is the CEO and oversees the Board of Directors who run the business. The felt needs of the potential "buyers" drive the church's worship and program. It is not "theologically sensitive" but is rather "seeker sensitive."

Congregations infected by the Church Growth Movement often choose to remove the name "Lutheran" from their identification. Indeed, they should, because there is nothing Lutheran about them. While they may continue to pay lip service to dusty doctrines, more often than not, the preaching, teaching, government, worship and liturgy is anything but Lutheran. In addition, the corporate model must, of necessity, de-emphasize the issue of Sin and Grace. In this culture the concept of "sin" is not "seeker sensitive." While the preaching of the Cross remains a part of the total package, the primary issues focus upon values, character, success in life, and principles for living. After all, this is what people are looking for.

As I see it, apart from specifically Lutheran concerns, the practical problem with the methodology of the Church Growth model is continuity. When LCMS pastors install the Church Growth principles into their congregations do they wonder if this methodology will sustain their congregations for the next 100 years? They seem to be building churches for their generation, but contrary to popular opinion, baby boomers will not live forever. What will happen to the Crystal Cathedral when Robert Schuller passes away? How much of Willow Creek is built upon Bill Hybels?

A pastor enters into an Office that has existed for 2000 years and will continue to exist until Jesus returns. If the pastor's desire is to merely build a church for his generation and he has no regard for future history, he is shortsighted and rather foolish.

The second solution is to ignore the laity altogether and establish the Office of the Holy Ministry on so-called higher ground. The congregation no longer calls men into the Ministry but rather the Office is imparted to them via the external sacramental act of Ordination whereby the men who comprise a "ministerial order" lay their holy hands on the candidate.

This is about theology. The debate is between the followers of Johann Conrad Wilhelm Loehe, a Lutheran theologian who taught this doctrine of Ministry in the last century, and Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, the first president of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod who put in place our present ecclesiology.

Pieper is right when he points out that Loehe and others

…taught a strongly Romanizing doctrine of the ministry, namely, that the office of the public ministry is not conferred by the call of the congregation as the original possessor of all spiritual power, but is a Divine institution in the sense that it was transmitted immediately from the Apostles to their pupils, considered as a separated "ministerial order" or caste, and that this order perpetuates itself by means of the ordination.³

In addition to being a return to Rome, this type of ecclesiology raises other concerns. For one thing, placing the Office of the Pastor into a "ministerial order" or caste that perpetuates itself through the Sacrament of Ordination undermines the Doctrine of Justification. The imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to every believer places every believer in the highest possible position before God. There can be no caste system.

In addition, our present ecclesiology distinguishes the role of the missionary from the role of the pastor for good reason. If a man goes into an area and does the work of a missionary and gathers a body of believers together, he dare not presume that he is automatically their pastor. They are not HIS people even though he brought the Gospel to them. To be the pastor, the people must call him.

This error is the root cause of the formation of cults. People are not called to a "Holy Father," they are called to the Lord Jesus through the Gospel. The founders of the Missouri Synod understood the dangers of this system. They had their fill of the likes of Martin Stephan.

We are Free to Change!

In his essay presented at the 150th Anniversary Theological Convocation of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Dr. John Johnson, president of our St. Louis Seminary, accurately stated:

Nevertheless it must be said that the summary I have advanced does comport with the teachings of C.F.W. Walther. His theses were formally adopted by the Missouri Synod in 1851, and remain the publica doctrina of Synod on the office of the Ministry.

Any repudiation or dismissal of Walther's position must continue to be of serious consequence in the Synod.⁴

Our present doctrines of Church and Ministry are the official public doctrine of our Synod. As Dr. Johnson points out, repudiating or dismissing this position will produce serious consequences. Nevertheless, we are free to change our position if we choose to do so, but it must be done in a proper way. These are not issues that will be solved by arguing them on Internet websites nor will they be solved by the rhetoric exchanged in conferences such as this. Those who desire the Synod to embrace a new doctrinal position on Church and Ministry should prepare their resolutions for the next convention of Synod. Let's go at it!

With that in mind, I believe it is grossly unethical and even immoral for a pastor to attempt to "sneak" a new ecclesiology past theologically ignorant lay people. It is deception if he begins functioning as the "Head" over the congregation or refers to himself as "Father" when the people in the pews have no idea what is happening. This is wrong! According to Mundinger, this was the method of Martin Stephan. He writes:

For years Stephan had adroitly manipulated this doctrine so that very many of the colonists were of the firm conviction that Stephan was their chief Means of Grace ("Hauptgnadenmittel") [head grace mediator] and that outside, and apart from, him there was no hope.⁵

The doctrines of Church and Ministry as established by Luther and adopted by the Synod in 1851 are, in my estimation, the correct biblical/confessional understanding. Jesus comes to us through the Gospel. The Gospel forms the body of believers. The people of faith, out of desire to see the Gospel publicly proclaimed in an effective manner, issue a Divine Call to a pastor thoroughly trained in handling the Gospel. Those who desire to change this position must appeal to Scripture and the Confessions.

The Better Way

The two solutions being popularly promoted within our Synod are easy solutions. Those who promote these alternatives are refusing to grapple with the real problem, which is the ignorance of the laity. If either of these two solutions is put in place, the laity will remain ignorant.

Let me make a comparison. Let’s say the members of the National Football League were no longer in top physical condition and could not play the game. What should be done? Should the rules of the game be changed and a new game designed to match the condition of the players? Or should the physical condition of the players be improved to match the rules of the game?

One of our seminary professors in an article sometime ago suggested that the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod would be dividing into two groups. The one group, the Church Growth people, will be aligned with Evangelicalism. The other group will probably move toward either Rome or Orthodoxy. There will probably be a few old-timers left who would be known as good ol’ Bronze Age Lutherans.

This is abject resignation. Why create a new game?

Let's dream. Let's say there is a Lutheran congregation out there made up of 100 adults. Ninety of these people (we have to allow for some tares among the wheat) know what Sin and Grace is about. They understand the three uses of the Law. They comprehend the difference between Law and Gospel and can discern that distinction in a sermon. They have grasped the wonderful truth of objective justification and trust the alien righteousness of the Lord Jesus for their salvation. They are also able to distinguish justification from sanctification. They understand the role of the Means of Grace and how faith in Christ comes into being. In addition, because of their faith in the Lord Jesus, they desire to privately share His powerful Gospel with their neighbors. As a result, the Lord is adding numbers to the assembly. Because the Holy Spirit has changed hearts, most of the people are generously supporting the work of the ministry. But alas, they have no one sufficiently skilled to preach the Gospel before a larger public group, although many would like to give it a try. In addition, for the sake of order, they feel that only one person should be administering the Sacraments. So, they decide, under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit, to issue a Divine Call to a pastor.

Now then, I ask you, would not most Lutheran pastors drool over such a call? Would not our seminary professors be invigorated to know that they are training pastors to accept such a call? Doesn't that description capture the ideal essence of our doctrines of Church and Ministry?

Our problem is not with the rules of the game. Our problem is the spiritual condition of the players.

Teach the People!

When we determined some years ago that Issues, Etc. would focus upon topics of theology rather than engaging in culture wars, we received some interesting responses from the clergy. Some said, "You cannot teach theology to the lay people." They implied that the average pew-sitters were too dumb to grasp theological issues. Others, particularly those advocates of the Church Growth Movement, became angry. They did not want their people to know Lutheran theology. This is understandable. If you happen to be "sharing" some principles for living on a Sunday morning you don't want some members of your congregation judging the quality of your "sharing" based on the distinction between Law and Gospel. It can be embarrassing.

In spite of the opposition, we were amazed by the results of the decision. Our Sunday night national program began to grow. Some station managers wanted substance on their stations. Locally, we discovered that many people were vitally interested in theology. They wanted to understand. In fact, numerous people joined LCMS congregations because they appreciated the theology.

This past summer I was the Bible Study leader at the LWML national convention in Canada. In one of my presentations I bemoaned the horrible ignorance that existed in the pews and encouraged the pastors to teach their people what they believe and why they believe it. I was amazed when I received a spontaneous outburst of applause from the 300 or so women gathered. I believe that by and large this generation wants to learn. We can no longer operate on the assumption of the 30’s and 40’s that the pastor is the only educated guy in the group. Our people understand what angioplasty and electroencephalograms are about. You mean, they can't grasp objective justification? They can't comprehend our doctrines of Church and Ministry?

There is no doubt that the laity in Walther's day were far more theologically astute than the laity today. In fact, history indicates that it was the laity armed with a thorough knowledge of Scripture and of Luther who fought for congregational autonomy.

I sincerely doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people in the LCMS today really care about which doctrines of Church and Ministry rule the day, even though it is about them. I doubt whether this issue is being discussed between innings at dart ball games in Wisconsin. The men's clubs in Iowa are probably not engaged in debating Walther versus Loehe. I honestly wonder what percentage of the confirmed members of our congregations understands what our doctrines of Church and Ministry are about? I would bet that it would be less than 1%.

If the people in the pews are theologically ignorant, whose fault is this? At the 150th Anniversary Theological Convocation on Church and Ministry, Paul Kofi Fynn, President of the Lutheran Church of Ghana spoke of the problem areas in our understanding of Church and Ministry. He rightly observed: "The problem begins right here at the conference. We are discussing the clergy and the laity. But how many laymen are here with us?" In his recommendation for the manner in which this issue be resolved, he suggested that pastors include the issue of Church and Ministry in their teachings in both confirmation and adult Bible classes.⁶

How can the people know and understand these theological issues if no one teaches them? The past and present administrations of the Synod, the instructors at our seminaries, the District Presidents, Circuit Counselors, and we pastors all share the responsibility for this present state of affairs. Our doctrines of Church and Ministry require, no, demand the thorough instruction and indoctrination of the laity. We have to teach the people. There is no other way around it.

Is it Possible?

Is it possible for every LCMS pastor to teach his people what our doctrines of Church and Ministry are about? The laity must recognize what they are going to lose if they don't lift their butts off the comfortable pews and find out what they believe and why they believe it!

Is it possible for the President of Synod, the Vice-presidents, and District Presidents to work together and focus on the single issue – educating the laity?

Is it possible for the instructors in our seminaries to not only give to their students an intellectual grasp of our theology but to also teach them how to communicate the same to their people? Let me ask you a question – Why do we theologically train pastors? Do we intend for the pastors to teach the people what they are taught about Lutheran theology in the seminary? Is that our intention? If not, then our intention must be to create the "caste" of the clergy. The pastor who stated that you couldn’t teach theology to lay people must be asked, "Then why in the world did the seminary teach theology to you? What are you, a super-Christian?"

I was recently reading a sermon that was preached by Dr. Wyneken in 1867. It read like a theological treatise delivered at a pastor's conference rather than a sermon preached to allegedly dumb lay people. Obviously, the people must have understood what he was talking about.

Is it possible for our Circuit Counselors to design the meetings of the circuit around discussions of theological issues that must be taught in each congregation?

Is it possible for our pastors to help each other to communicate by sharing ideas, programs, techniques, and devices whereby theological truths can be made real to the people in their pews?

Is it possible for the Board of Communications and our Publishing House to work together by preparing a systematic curriculum of written, audio, and video material that can be used in our congregations to teach God's people?

Is it possible for those who publish independent newsletters and newspapers to stop directing the minds of our people to other issues such as Synodical politics, ice cream money, and skeletons from the past and promote a single issue – teaching our pure doctrine?

Is it remotely possible for those who are promoting the other solutions to set aside their agendas for a time and seek to discover if our historic doctrines of Church and Ministry are workable? I wonder what would happen in our Synod if the amount of money that has been gathered for the pastoral leadership retraining of the clergy was redirected to the teaching of the laity?

If we don't determine to teach the people, the one group, led by the CEO-type pastors, will probably move closer toward Evangelicalism while another group, led by the Holy Fathers, will probably move toward Rome or Orthodoxy. And what about the rest of us? Well, we can sit here and rehash all the good times we used to have in the Walther League.

What are We Made Of?

The question is – what are we really made of? In whose footsteps are we walking?

In the 16th century a German Monk decried the spiritual state of the people of his day. He took a risk. He put his life in jeopardy and began contrary to the authority of his day to teach the truth of Gospel of Jesus Christ. He could not deny what he knew to be the truth. A Reformation happened.

Ten years later, this same Reformer equally decried the ignorance of the people who had left Rome behind and formed the Churches of the Reformation. He didn't say, "Well, I guess our grand experiment did not work." Rather, he determined to teach the people what the basic truths of Christianity were all about. He wrote a catechism for the average person.

Some 300 years later, a group of Saxon immigrants in Southern Missouri were disillusioned. Their leader, who had led them to the new land and whose very presence, in their minds, connected them to the mother church in Europe, was a philanderer. After depositing him on the other side of the Mississippi, they were at a loss. They asked a very important and astute question, "Are we a Church?" After pouring over the writings of Scripture and of Luther, they declared, "Yes, we are a Church!" We are the people of God. We possess the Gospel and the Sacraments. For this reason, we can call unto ourselves a pastor to guide, lead and teach us.

Are we willing to give up this heritage and embrace the simplistic marketing techniques of George Barna and the motivational principles of Mormon Stephen Covey over the faith and courageous convictions of men the likes of Martin Luther, C.F.W. Walther, and the laymen who risked life and limb to come to this country and found our Synod?

Are we digging up our roots in order to discard them? We were formed and sustained by those very doctrines of Church and Ministry that theologians and pastors today are willing to trash. Are they hoping that the ghost of Martin Stephan will come rowing back across the Mississippi?

Is this what we are really about? Is this what it means to be cut out of the same cloth as Luther and Walther? Will the real Lutheran leaders, theologians, pastors, and lay people please stand up – and do something about this mess?

Lest we think that we are sufficient in and of ourselves and that we can win the day by clever rhetoric and profound argumentation, let us fervently pray that our Lord Jesus, the Head of His Church, will grant us his Holy Spirit that we may contend for His truth. Let us pray that the great forgiveness gained for us through the precious blood of Christ will extend to those who have perhaps abused the people of God by seeking their own self-interests. Let us also be willing to extend that same forgiveness. Above all, let us pray that the Kingdom of God will continue to be manifest among us and that His good and gracious will would be accomplished in our midst.

A note about Endnotes

The endnotes used in this work are linked from the note number in the text to the endnote at the bottom of the page, and vice versa.  In addition, where a note uses "ibid." or "op. cit.", it is linked to the appropriate parent endnote information.
If you use this "ibid." or "op. cit." link, you will need to use the BACK button on your browser to return to the endnote you started with.  From there, you can click on the endnote number to go back to where you were in the text.

1.  For an excellent discussion of this see Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, St. Louis; CPH, 1962, p.339 ff.

2.  Os Guinness, Dining with the Devil, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994) p. 26.

3.  Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p. 447.

4. Church and Ministry, (The Office of the President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1998), p. 96.

5.  Dr. Carl S. Mundinger, Government in the Missouri Synod, (St. Louis, CPH, 1947), p. 94.

6. Church and Ministry, p. 242, 245.

Rev. Donald Matzat graduated from St. Louis, 1965 (M.Div.). He served congregations in Southern Indiana, Michigan, New York and St. Louis. Hosted "Issues, Etc." on KFUO from 1993-1998. Received honorary D.D. from Fort Wayne in May of 1998. Essayist at Synodical convention in July of 1998. Moved to Pittsburgh in December of 1998 to host three-hour daily program on WORD FM, a station of the Salem Network. He continues to host the "Issues, Etc." Sunday night national program heard on 90 stations.

November 6, 1999