[Click here for Proposed Convention Resolution]
In Proverbs 22:28 we read these words of venerable wisdom: "Remove not the ancient
landmarks which the fathers have set." In Israel of old, property lines were clearly
marked with inscribed stones that indicated the specific size and exact boundaries of the
land.
From generation to generation these stones remained unmoved. The warning in Proverbs to
guard the landmarks is repeated in other Old Testament passages (Deuteronomy 27:17 and Job
24:2) along with a solemn curse pronounced on all who break the rules of God’s
covenant and fail to maintain the heritage of the fathers in an unbroken line of descent.
In our society today, the necessity of erecting stone landmarks to safeguard the
inheritance we receive from fathers or forefathers is no longer necessary. With modern
laws on property rights and recorded land titles, it is all but impossible to alter these
landmarks by fraud.
Furthermore, even if we were to suffer such an UNLIKELY MATERIAL LOSS, our IMMORTAL
BODIES AND SOULS COULD NOT BE AFFECTED. OUR ETERNAL FUTURE WOULD STILL REMAIN SAFE AND
SECURE!
How different then must be our concern when we suffer a loss that affects
eternal things. How awesome the consequences when we permit the spiritual landmarks set by
our fathers in the faith to be removed, either deliberately or inadvertently, and we
eternally lose the blessing of pure doctrine (reine lehre) which our spiritual fathers in
the faith fought so courageously to secure for us, as they "earnestly contended for
the faith." (Jude 3)
For over 100 years our Missouri Synod upheld and defended with unflinching
determination and unwavering faithfulness ALL OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE. But today
this seemingly impregnable fortress of pure doctrine is under siege. The battle is joined
and has been raging for many years now, and our beloved Synod is in imminent danger of
being overwhelmed by an onslaught of bewildering innovations that threaten to overthrow
and remove the cherished landmarks of our faith.
On the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Missouri Synod, Dr. C.F.W.
Walther, the first president of the Synod, reviewed how God has blessed our Synod for
"holding fast the faithful Word" (Titus 1:9). Listen to his words:
What happened when our Synod began to give testimony to the pure truth? From that
very moment on till this day our Synod has had to battle ceaselessly with old and new
enemies of our Church...
How, then, did it come to pass that our Synod, amid such conflicts, under ceaseless
bitter attacks and lurking temptations, yet like a frail tempest-tossed vessel was not
wrecked, but kept her course, having now for a quarter century continued unwaveringly in
the old doctrine of the old true Church? --I ask, How was this brought to pass?
Ah, surely, that was not the result of our penetrative insight, nor the reward of our
fidelity; that was the free gift of Him of whom it is written: ‘Not many wise men
after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the
foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of
the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and
things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to
naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence.’ 1 Cor. 1, 26-29.
May we not, shall we not, must we not on this day rejoice and give thanks, praise and
glorify God?1
Shortly before his death in June, 1905, Christian Hochstetter, a co-worker with
Walther, and the historian who chronicled the story of Missouri Synod’s early years
also gave ALL credit to God for this preservation of His pure truth!
"Where false teaching and practice is not resisted there a formal
acknowledgment of the orthodox doctrine cannot long survive...That is the Word, the faith
in which the Missouri Synod has remained until now...No church body can be granted any
greater grace than to be made by God the bearer of His pure doctrine. The more clearly we
actually recognize the fact that it is not our meritorious achievement to be holding firm
to the pure Gospel, but that it is the power of God’s grace that holds us, the more
earnestly we must watch and pray that no one and nothing rob us of our crown."2
Again, some 75 years after the founding of our Synod at the Fort Wayne Synodical
Convention, St. Louis seminary professor, Friederich Bente, acknowledged this same legacy
of pure doctrine and practice that God had given to the Missouri Synod:
Our fathers in the faith, surrendered nothing; made no concessions; deviated not a
hairs’ breadth from the old Lutheran position concerning the inspiration and
inerrancy of the Scriptures. They delivered to us a fortress intact -- nowhere a rock torn
from the foundation, nowhere a breach, all walls strong and plumb.
Results? Down to the present day not a solitary modernist has ever been heard on the
floor of the Synod which our fathers founded. Nor has a liberalist ever occupied a chair
in her colleges and seminaries or filled a pulpit of her congregations ... May God always
mercifully preserve us both a ministry and a laity that fear the Word of God!3
As we look back over the years, we indeed rejoice over the pure doctrine that God in
His grace gave to the Missouri Synod, but our rejoicing in the glories of the past is
painfully tempered by the irrefutable fact that this UNITY of doctrine and practice no
longer exists throughout Synod. Thus, the question must be asked, How were these great
treasures of TRUTH, these landmarks of pure doctrine and practice, removed from our midst?
Obviously we cannot cover all the doctrines currently threatened. Therefore, our
specific concern in this paper will be the doctrines of CHURCH AND MINISTRY and the
efforts of some in our midst to place SYNOD on the same plane with the DIVINELY INSTITUTED
local congregation. The problems began with certain events that took place over in
Germany. A door was opened for Satan to create a breach in the unity of doctrine which
once reigned intact, not only in the Missouri Synod, but also in the entire Synodical
Conference. European Lutherans experienced a reawakening of interest in ORTHODOX DOCTRINE.
Questions arose about the local congregation and its relation to the office of the public
ministry.
Between 1837 and 1853, three different doctrinal positions were discussed and debated.4 Sam Nafzger,5 in his essay on
"The Ministry" describes the three conflicting positions. He calls the first
position "The Episcopal School", and identifies it with F.J. Stahl6 who wrote a book on the
subject in 1840. The second position is called, The Functionalist School. Nafzger
identifies this position with J.W.F. Hoefling7 who also wrote a book on the subject in 1850. The third
position is identified with C.F.W. Walther.8 Nafzger labeled this position, "The Mediating
School." I prefer to call it, "The Scriptural School", because
Walther’s position is in 100% agreement with the Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, and
the writings of Dr. Martin Luther.
The Episcopal School9
claims that the office of the ministry is a SPECIAL ESTATE; namely, the contemporary form
of the New Testament apostolate. This school believes that the church exists because of
the ministry, and that without the public ministry there would not be a church.
The second school, The Functionalist School,10 claims that the ministry, is not a special
office, but only a function involving the preaching of the Gospel and the administration
of the sacraments, and belongs to all Christians. They also believe "that the
ministry of the Word itself is a divine institution but not the public ministry as
established by the congregation." Hoefling11 contended that when Paul and Barnabas had
the congregation at Antioch elect their own pastor (Acts 14:23), and when Paul commanded
Titus to have the congregation at Crete call their own pastor (Titus 1:5), they had NO
DIVINE COMMAND TO DO SO. He insisted that this election and call by a local congregation
of an individual royal priest or layman (which is what Christians are called in the Bible)
(1 Peter 2:5,9) had ABSOLUTELY NO DIVINE COMMAND. He claimed it was only intended for
"primitive conditions" and "newly formed congregations" and "no
dogmatic deductions for all the future" can be drawn from these clear passages of
holy Scripture. In contrast to these two views, "The Scriptural School" of
Church and Ministry was set forth by C.F.W. Walther and was published in a polemical essay
containing ten theses in 1852, and reprinted in "The Theological Quarterly
in 1897.12
Time constraints will not permit me to read these theses. However, in 1893, Dr. Franz
Pieper summarized for us The Doctrines of Church and Ministry taught by "The
Scriptural School" of C.F.W. Walther. This is also the position held and defended by
all four synods of The Synodical Conference (organized in 1872); namely, The Missouri
Synod, The Wisconsin Synod (WELS), The Norwegian Synod (ELS) and the Slovak Synod.
Pieper began with a definition of the Una Sancta or Universal Christian Church. He
writes:
The Church, in the proper sense of the term, is the aggregate of all true
believers in Christ. All those, and only those who believe in Christ,
are members of the Church.
He then goes on to distinguish between this Universal Christian Church and local or
particular churches or congregations.
The Scriptures not only speak of the one Church (Matt. xvi. 18; Eph. I, 22.
23), but frequently mention Churches in the plural, e.g., the Churches of Asia,
I Cor. xvi. 19; the Churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. viii. I; the Church of God which
is at Corinth, I Cor. i. 2; the Church which was at Jerusalem, Acts viii. I;
"tell it unto the Church," Matt. xviii. 17. It is, therefore, in
accordance with Scripture that we speak of local or particular
Churches."
...The particular (i.e., local) Churches, therefore, properly speaking, consist
of true believers only, the hypocrites being intermingled with the Church through external
fellowship solely, forming no part of the particular Church itself. This is evident from
all those passages of Scripture in which the particular Churches are described as
the "Churches of God," consisting of those "that are sanctified in
Christ Jesus" (I Cor. i. 2; Rom. I, 7). Hence it is, that a description of
an Evangelical Lutheran local Church ("Ortsgemeinde") is given in the following
words by Dr. Walther: "An Evangelical Lutheran local church is an assembly of
believing Christians in a certain place with whom the Word of God is preached in its
purity, and the holy Sacraments are administered according to the Gospel."
Next, Pieper describes The Ministerial Office and its relation to the local
congregation of believers:
The ministerial office, that is, the office of the preaching of the Word and the
administration of the Sacraments, is not of human ordinance, but of divine
institution.
As it is God who instituted the ministerial office, so it is He who calls
certain persons to this office, Acts xx. 28; Eph. iv. 8, 11, 12; Matt. ix. 38. Thus far
all parties agree.
But through whom, i.e., what human agency, does God effect his call?
Here, disagreement begins. The right answer is: The right and power of electing and
calling ministers of the divine Word is primarily and immediately granted, not to
the pope, nor to bishops, nor to the ministry, nor to a Consistory, nor to the Presbytery,
or to a civil power of any form, but to those to whom all spiritual power
(‘Church-power’) originally and immediately belongs, namely, the congregation
of believers. As it is the congregations of believers that has the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, (Matt. xvi, 19, xviii. 18), that is primarily commissioned to teach all nations
and to administer the Sacraments, (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20), that is the ‘royal
priesthood’ for showing forth the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness
into his marvelous light, so it is, in the very nature of the case, the congregation of
believers that is entrusted with the power of appointing ministers. Hence, the Lutheran
Church confesses in the Smalcald Articles: ‘Where there is a true Church, there must
be the right to elect and ordain ministers.’ No human authority can remove this right
from the congregation of believers, as it was granted to them by Christ when they became
children of God through faith in Christ, and is, consequently, inhering in their being
Christians. The congregation of believers may, of course, transfer the exercise of this
right to one or more persons. Ministers called by individual persons or a body of persons
in the name of the congregation of believers have received a valid and divine call. But
it ever remains true and must never be forgotten, that the only body to whom the right and
power of calling ministers is originally entrusted is the congregation of all
believers. Whoever is called to the ministerial office by this body either directly or
indirectly, has received a divine call; whoever derives from other sources the
authority to teach publicly, is to be classed with those of whom the Lord says: ‘I
have not sent these prophets, yet they ran.’ (Jer. xxiii. 21). All this may be
summed up thus: the ministerial office is conferred by God upon certain persons through
the divinely prescribed call of the congregation, the congregation being, by the gift of
Christ, the original possessor all Church-power. The ministers have their offices from
Christ, not immediately, however, but mediately, by the Church, in virtue of delegation
through the call.
The proper answer to the question whether it is the universal or the local
Church that is entrusted with the right of calling ministers, is that Christ clearly
ascribes ‘the keys of the kingdom,’ and, consequently, the right to appoint
ministers, to the local Church. For if the local Church which Christ addresses when
He says: ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever
ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.’ ‘For where two or three are
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,’ Matt. xviii. 18.20.
It is the call of the congregation that constitutes ministers, and actually confers the
ministerial office. Ordination is not a divine ordinance, but an apostolic-ecclesiastical
institution. It does not confer the ministry, as Papists and Romanizing Protestants
assert, but is only a public testimony and confirmation of the call. Ordination,
therefore, is not essential to the validity of the ministerial office.
Finally Pieper writes:
…Synods must not claim divine authority over the congregations connected
with them, but carefully keep within the sphere of advisory bodies. The local
congregation is the highest divinely instituted tribunal in the Church as is seen from
Matt. xviii, 17. All jurisdiction exercised over congregations by persons outside of the
congregations is of human ordinance only.13
Let me emphasize and underscore some of the Scriptural truths set forth here by Dr.
Pieper.
We need to understand that Christ has given certain spiritual rights and powers to His
Church on earth. In order that these rights might be properly administered, Christ has
delegated these rights and powers solely to the local congregation of believers. In His
instructions on the use of the Keys, Christ commands: "Tell it to the Church."
(Matt. 18:17) This DOES NOT MEAN the UNA SANCTA (the universal Church) which no man’s
voice can reach, but rather both the offended and the offender are directed to the local
congregation. (I Cor. 5) Only the true believers have these rights. Not knowing WHO
they are we can only deal with them WHERE they are in the VISIBLE LOCAL
CONGREGATION where we find the marks of the Church, the Word and sacraments. In our day
some are asserting that larger groupings such as synods (and even entire church bodies)
are divinely instituted and have as much right to be called "church" as the
local congregation. This is a lie! It is totally incompatible with the analogy of faith
(the seat of the doctrine) so clearly revealed in the Scriptures in Matt. 18:17. Nowhere
in the entire New Testament is there any evidence of the divine institution of a synod or
a church denomination. The local congregation is not only the primary grouping of
Christians, as some are saying, but it is the only visible grouping described in the New
Testament. Clearly the UNA SANCTA, the entire number of God’s elect, is not a visible
grouping. It would require some very strange and unstable wresting of the Scriptures to
claim that the "church" in Matt. 18:17 is anything other than the local
congregation. The local congregation is the ONLY "church" grouping to whom the
Lord of the Church has committed the right to exercise all the public Office of the Keys.
As Dr. Walther puts it in his essay to the Iowa District of the Missouri Synod in 1879:
People told us, ‘That (power) really belongs to the holy Christian church,
namely the entire church throughout the world in its totality.’ ‘Tell it to the
church,’ and the whole context of the passage shows that absolutely nothing else can
be meant but the local congregation. For if ‘the church in the whole
world,’ ‘the church in its totality’ were meant, when and where could it
meet (and) how could a person ‘tell it to the church,’ as Christ commands?
‘The church of the whole world’ has never and nowhere been gathered at one
place. In that case Christ would have commanded something impossible, indeed nonsensical.
No, Christ obviously means the congregation to which those who sinned have come and where
those are who have condemned the sinners.14
There is an old Latin proverb which declares: QUI BENE DISTINGUIT BENE DOCET, which
means: "He who distinguishes well teaches well." Now if proper distinctions are
important in the study of secular disciplines, and we know that they are, how immeasurably
more important MUST IT BE to make clear distinctions when teaching the eternal verities of
God’s verbally inspired and inerrant Word of TRUTH.
In the English language we have the word "church." The equivalent of this
word in Greek is the word, EKKLESIA. It is used 115 times in the New Testament. According
to its etymology this word could be used to describe any kind of an assembly, but in the
New Testament it is used to designate the Christian assembly. It is sometimes also used
abstractly to describe the UNA SANCTA, the entire body of believers scattered throughout
the world. Our main concern in this paper, however, is not the abstract use of the word
EKKLESIA. Our main concern is to look closely at the concrete use of the term EKKLESIA,
and demonstrate that in the New Testament whenever the term EKKLESIA is used concretely to
describe a grouping of Christians, it always refers to the local congregation and never
to a Synod or other grouping of any kind.
Sometimes EKKLESIA is used to describe a very small congregation that meets in a
private home for public worship. Many have assumed when reading the book of Romans, that
Paul was sending this letter to just one congregation located in the city of Rome. But a
careful examination of Romans 16 indicates that Paul was addressing more than one
congregation, and perhaps several. In this chapter he greets the church located in the
home of Aquilla and Priscilla at Rome. (Rom. 16:3, 5). In their commentary on Romans,
Sanday and Headlam15
believe that the apostle is referring to similar house churches in vs. 14 and 15. In
Colossians Paul sends greetings to "Nymphas and the church at his house." (Col.
4:15) In Philemon Paul greets Philemon and the church in his house. In all those instances
EKKLESIA refers to the local congregation located in a house.
I have already mentioned Dr. Walther’s comment on Matt. 18:17. Walther says that
it is a lie to call the EKKLESIA in this passage, "the entire church throughout the
world"…The whole context of this passage shows that absolutely nothing else can
be meant but the LOCAL CONGREGATION. When Ananias and Sapphira were exposed as hypocrites
by Peter, Luke says, "great fear came upon all the EKKLESIA" (Acts 5:11). When
Paul sent Timothy to Corinth he speaks in his letter about what he teaches
"everywhere in every EKKLESIA" (I Cor. 4:17). After the martyrdom of Stephen we
are told that Saul, "made a great havoc of the EKKLESIA" (Acts 8:13). Paul
writes to the congregation at Macedonia, "no EKKLESIA communicated with me…but
ye only" (Phil. 4:15). The word EKKLESIA is also used in the singular to describe
local congregations as specific places such as Jerusalem (Acts 11:23), Cenchrea (Rom.
16:1), Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), Thessalonica (I Thess 1:1), and the seven individual
congregations of Asia Minor (Rev. 2 and 3). In the plural the word EKKLESIA is used again
to designate the individual local congregations in a larger geographical area: Judea,
(Gal. 1:22), Galatia (Gal. L:2), Asia (l Cor. 16:19), and Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:1). Some
have asserted that the correct reading of Acts 9:31, "then had the churches
rest throughout all Judea" should be the SINGULAR "CHURCH," and since it is
used here to refer to a large geographical area, therefore Luke must be referring to a
SYNOD or some other similar larger grouping of Christian congregations like an entire
church body! Even if this were true (which it is not), it would strain credulity to take
this single exception and make it the seat of doctrine for understanding the New
Testament’s concrete use of EKKLESIA. To do so you would have to ignore THE
INDISBUTABLE FACT that in ALL other instances WHERE EKKLESIA is used to describe the
church located in larger geographical area – the plural – churches (or
congregations) is always used. As previously cited, the New Testament always uses EKKLESIA
in the plural when it speaks of the CHURCHES of Judea, Galatia, Asia, and Macedonia. This
should be sufficient evidence to demonstrate to ALL that in Acts 9:31 the plural
"churches" is indeed the correct reading! Those who think that the singular of
EKKLESIA should be used here are mistaken. Luke is referring to the many local
congregations that were formed in Judea and Samaria as a result of the persecution of the
Jerusalem congregation (Acts 8:1) which followed the stoning of the martyr Stephen.
Another clear distinction needs to be made between the rights of the UNIVERSAL
PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS, individually and collectively, and the PUBLIC EXERCISE of
those rights. Scripture clearly teaches the UNIVERSAL PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS. There
is no special priesthood in the New Testament. All believers are kings and priest unto God
and His Father (Rev. 1:1, 5:10). All believers offers spiritual sacrifices acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ (I Peter 2:5). All offer their bodies as a living sacrifice to
Christ (Rom. 12:1). All possess marvelous spiritual blessings: forgiveness of sins, peace
with God, and access to the Father. As Paul puts it in I Cor. 3:21, 23, "All things
are yours…and ye are Christ’s and Christ is God’s!" Above all, every
Christian possesses the full power of the Office of the Keys (Matt. 16:19).
As Luther puts it:
Here we take our stand: There is no other Word of God that which is given all
Christians to proclaim. There is no other baptism that the one which any Christian can
bestow. There is no other remembrance of the Lord’s Supper than that which any
Christian can observe and which Christ has instituted. There is no other Kind of sin than
that which ANY Christian can bind or loose. There is no other sacrifice than of the body
of every Christian. No one but a Christian may judge of doctrine. These make the priestly
and royal office.16
Now, note well the next DISTINCTION. Even though every individual Christian possesses
the power of the Office of the Keys, by God’s will and design the public
administration of the gifts which Christ has given to all believers is entrusted to the
local congregation. The congregation, then by God’s command, elects and calls an
individual Christian man to be their pastor. Through their pastor the congregation and
every individual member of the congregation preaches, teaches, baptizes, administers the
sacraments, calls upon the sick, and ministers to the dying.
In his sixth thesis on the holy ministry C. F. W. Walther writes:
The ministry of preaching is conferred by God through the congregation, as holder of
all church power, or of the keys, and by its call, as prescribed by God.17
Scripture clearly tells us how this MUST BE DONE. THE SEAT OF DOCTRINE, the clear
passages of the Bible teaching this truth, are found in Acts. 1: 15-26, Acts 14:21-23,
Titus 1:5.
Acts 1:15-26 so clearly teaches an election by a local congregation; namely, the
congregation at Jerusalem, that it takes very little effort or exhaustive study of the
text to prove that the Apostle Matthias was elected to his exalted office of APOSTLE to
serve the congregation at Jerusalem (NOT ONLY by the other eleven apostles), but also by
the entire congregation of believers, with one-hundred twenty of them present for the
election. This election was not done by raising hands in a vote, but the congregation
"gave forth their lots and the lot fell upon Matthias and he was numbered with the
eleven apostles." (Acts 1:26).
The second election of pastors by a local congregation is recorded in Acts 14:23. After
Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospel in the city of Derbe, (Acts 14:20) they then
returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch where they had already preached the Gospel (Acts
14:21). In these cities they "ordained elders in every church" (Acts
14:23). The Greek word used here is "CHEIROTONEO." It does not mean
"ordain." Ordain means TO LAY HANDS ON. CHEIROTONEO has a much different
meaning. CHEIROTONEO means, "to elect by raising hands." The word PRESBUTEROUS
that is used in this verse does NOT mean "elders", in the same sense that we
understand today. Rather, the word means, "pastors." Finally, the word
"church" that is used here is the Greek word EKKLESIA, and it clearly means
"congregation" or "an assembly." In this verse EKKLESIA is used with
the preposition KATA in the distributive sense, and it means that Paul and Barnabas went
from "congregation to congregation" arranging elections for calling a pastor or
pastors in each of the congregations located in the cities of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch.
It is interesting to note that "God’s Word to the Nations"18, a recent Bible translation, offers an
alternate translation for Acts 14:23 in the footnotes. It reads, "they had spiritual
leaders elected."
As we study these key passages on the calling of a pastor (which are clearly the seat
of doctrine to understanding who God has authorized to elect and call a pastor) we need
first to distinguish between the call of the apostles and the call of pastors today. With
the exception of Matthias, who was elected mediately to replace the traitor, Judas, the
call of all the other apostles was immediate and direct - from Jesus Himself - face to
face. The institution of the apostolate by our Savior is recorded in Matt. 10:1-42; Matt.
28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16, and John 21:15-17. The call of the apostles was not limited to a
specific local congregation. It was universal in scope, and it carried with it the special
gift of divine inspiration, the gift of miracles, and on the day of Pentecost they also
received the additional gift of speaking in foreign languages. The second part of their
immediate call was the Office of the Public Ministry; namely, the public administration of
the Means of Grace - both Word and Sacraments, and the care of souls. The first part of
their call was unique to the apostles and disappeared with the death of the last apostle,
the apostle John. However, the ministry Christ established by calling the apostles is to
continue to the end of time. Already in apostolic times, the apostles arranged the MEDIATE
call of qualified men through elections by the members of local congregations. At first
the apostles served these congregations themselves, but when they left they arranged for
these congregations to call men from their midst to serve in the public ministry. I have
already mentioned Acts 14:21-23, where Paul and Barnabas arranged such calls in the
congregations located in the cities of Lystra, Antioch, and Iconium. Later on, Paul sent
Titus to Crete (a large island near Greece) to arrange similar calls to the local
congregations on the island.
Hoefling and others have suggested that the directions Paul gave to Titus to arrange
elections for the calling of pastors to the congregations in Crete, were just a
"temporary arrangement" without divine command, and should not be considered as
"binding for all time." But there is nothing in the text or context to warrant
such a bold assumption. We have no right to limit the clear teaching of Scripture unless
Scripture itself makes such a limitation. In Romans 15:4 we read: "Whatsoever things
were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and
comfort of the scriptures might have hope." In Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23 Paul gives us
God’s instructions for the proper FORM of the public ministry in the congregations
where the Gospel had already been preached. He declares that something is missing when
congregations are not supplied with pastors. Under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit
Paul leaves no room for doubt about his intended meaning. He doesn’t say, "I
suggest that you call pastors." Instead he uses the Greek words: "HOOS EGO SOI
DIETAKSAMEEN, literally, "THIS I COMMAND YOU!" A related noun is
"DIATAGMA" which means "an edict or command." In Hebrews 11:23 this
word is used of Pharaoh’s command to slay the Hebrew male infants. Certainly Paul
would not be issuing a command if the election of a pastor by the local congregation were
a matter of Christian liberty. Because of the use of this strong verb - "to mandate
or command", it is undeniable that God has placed the calling of a pastor into the
hands of each local congregation. Titus 1:5 can’t be brushed aside as applying only
to a temporary situation. Luther says:
"Paul says to his disciple Titus: "This is why I left you in Candia, that
you might complete what I left unfinished, and appoint elders in every town as I directed
you, men who are blameless, the husband of one wife, whose children are believers and not
open to the charge of being profligate. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be
blameless," etc. (Titus 1:5-7). Whoever believes that here in Paul the spirit of
Christ is speaking and commanding will be sure to recognize this as a divine institution
and ordinance, that in each city there should be several bishops, or at least one.
It is also evident that Paul considers elders and bishops to be one and the same thing,
for he says: Elders are to be appointed and installed in all cities, and that a bishop
shall be blameless.
Paul does not give the name "elder," however, to the tonsured and anointed
idols, but to the honest pious citizens in a city, men of good conduct and repute; they
are to become bishops, and several of them in every city, as the Greek text clearly states
here, and in Phil. 1:1: "Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the
saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with their bishops and deacons: grace and
peace, etc." Philippi was a single city and had many bishops, whom Paul greets here.
Similarly in Acts 20:28 Paul sent a message to the single city of Ephesus and summoned the
elders of the congregation to him, saying to them among other things: "Take heed to
yourselves and to the people over whom the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to feed his
sheep, which he obtained with his blood." Now Ephesus was one city; and Paul calls
the elders in their congregation bishops, and says that the Holy Spirit has appointed many
of them.19
Note well. In this one congregation at Ephesus several men were called by the
congregation to hold the Office of the Public Ministry. Luther says again:
No bishop should institute anyone without the election, will, and call of the
congregation. Rather, he should confirm the one whom the congregation chose and called; if
he does not do it, he (the elected man) is confirmed anyway by virtue of the
congregation’s call. Neither Titus nor Timothy nor Paul ever instituted a priest
without the congregation’s election and call. This is clearly proven by the sayings
in Titus 1:7 and I Timothy 3:10, "A bishop or priest should be blameless," and,
"Let the deacon be tested first." Now Titus could not have known which ones were
blameless; such a report must come from the congregation, which must name the man.
Again, we even read in Acts 6:1-6 regarding an even lesser office, that the apostles
were not permitted to institute persons as deacons without the knowledge and consent of
the congregation. Rather, the congregation elected and called the seven deacons, and the
apostles confirmed them. If, then, the apostles were not permitted to institute, on their
own authority, an office having to do only with the distribution of temporal food, how
could they have dared to impose the highest office of preaching on anyone by their own
power without the knowledge, will, and call of the congregation?20
From all that has been said it should be INDISPUTABLE that only the local congregation
of believers possesses and performs by divine institution all the functions which Christ
has entrusted to His Church. We readily admit that all Christians by virtue of their
universal priesthood possess the Office of the Keys. But the New Testament clearly teaches
that the public administration of this office has been entrusted to the local
congregation. In all of the New Testament there is no passage that will allow us to equate
the word EKKLESIA with what we now call a synod. No careful theologian dare even suggest
that any grouping of Christians whether it be an organization like the LLL or the LWML or
a synod or a church body such as The Lutheran Church or The Presbyterian Church (which are
simply names or labels for a denomination of individual congregations) possess the same
rights which are associated in Scripture solely with the individual congregation of
believers. A synod, as a corporate body, has power and jurisdiction (in accordance with
the provisions of its constitution) over its officers and salaried workers, but over
against its constituent congregations it is only advisory. It is only a service
organization created by its member congregations to more effectively enable the member
congregations to combine forces to spread the message of salvation throughout the world.
At no time may such a service organization ,as a synod, be given (nor does it have the
right to assume) the authority of a super church with executive power over its member
congregations. Wherever and whenever this happens it will result in papistic tyranny, and
it is then time for the individual congregations to reassert their God-given rights - and
either break up the synod or remove any judicial power it has usurped unscripturally over
the member congregations.
When Martin Luther learned that the consistories of his day in Germany were attempting
to control the congregations through their jurists, he immediately declared: "We
must tear the consistories apart, because, in short, we don’t want the jurists and
the pope in them." (Quoted by C.F.W. Walther in his 1879 Iowa District essay)21
The public office of the pastoral ministry and the local congregation are inseparably
correlated. No synodical office can be placed on the same plane with the pastoral office.
In the New Testament with the exception of the ministry of the Word to "those
without", that is, the work of evangelism, we find the office and work of the
pastoral ministry spoken of ONLY in connection with the LOCAL CONGREGATION. The immediate
purpose of that PASTORAL OFFICE is "to feed the church of God" (Acts 20:28)
"to be stewards of the mysteries of God" (I Cor. 4:1) "to edify the body of
Christ" (Eph. 4:12), "to take care of the church of God" (I Tim. 4:16)
"to labor in Word and doctrine" (I Tim. 5:17), "to watch for souls"
(Heb. 13:17), "to preach, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and
doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2). Always the sphere of activity for this office is restricted
and specifically confined to the local congregation.
As Luther writes in his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation:
According to the institution of Christ and the apostles every city should have a
(PFARRHERR) or bishop, as St. Paul clearly writes Titus 1:5 ... I want to speak of the
ministerial office which God has established, which is to rule a congregation with
preaching and the administration of the sacraments, live with them and perform the duties
of stewardship.22
The fact that a man has been trained at a seminary for the pastoral office does not by
itself make him a pastor or authorize him to perform the functions of that office without
a call from a local congregation. (Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession.)23 Also (Article V of the Augsburg
Confession)24 when it
speaks of the Office of the Ministry is not to be understood of the priesthood of all
believers, but only of the public office of preaching, which a man receives SOLELY through
the call of a LOCAL CONGREGATION.
There is no doubt that the various offices in a local congregation that flow out of the
pastoral office, such as teacher, elder, or Sunday School teacher are divine offices and
have a divine call, since they are connected to the service of the Word and assist in that
work in the local congregation. The same thing is true of synodical offices, whether it be
a professor at a church school, or an officer in the District or Synod, since they also
are connected to the service of the Word and indirectly assist in the work of all
the congregations with which they are connected. However, none of these servants have
God’s call into the public office of the ministry, even if they are ordained
clergymen, without a specific call from a local congregation. The service they are giving
is to be honored, but the office they hold is NOT the public office of the ministry that
Christ instituted. It is strictly an auxiliary office of human arrangement that is not
specifically instituted or commanded by Christ.
In the writings of Dr. Franz Pieper and Dr. C.F.W. Walther, we sometimes find church
bodies, such as synod or even entire denominations openly designated and specifically
described as "churches." Some, who hold leadership positions in the Missouri
Synod, are currently attempting to use these quotations in an effort to "prove"
that synod is on the same plane, and has been given by Christ the same authority as the
divinely instituted local congregation. Such ill-advised conclusions, are not only
diametrically opposed to the public Biblical and historic doctrinal position of the
Missouri Synod, but they also, either deliberately or inadvertently, ignore the writings
of both Pieper and Walther that clearly limit the authority of synods and denominations
solely to the specific functions delegated to them by the divinely instituted local
congregations.
In closing, let me share with you two statements to further clarify this issue. One
from the pen of a retired professor from our Fort Wayne Seminary. The other from a St.
Louis seminary professor. Dr. Eugene Klug wrote:
Synods of congregations may be formed but they do not ipso facto (by the fact
itself) advance Christ’s kingdom. They are voluntary organizations which exist jure
humano (by human law) and must always be seen as such. They are representative
churches, which bear the name "church" in a representative fashion, by virtue of
certain powers or functions delegated to them by the member congregations. They exercise
no overlordship over and above the congregations, but are super-ordinated only to the
extent that given functions have been delegated to them by the congregations which they
represent. The churchly work which they do belongs first of all and fundamentally to the
congregations which they serve. Together the congregations, through the instrumentality of
such synods, cooperate in the church’s work, not least the preparation of qualified
men for the public ministry; but the individual congregation’s sovereignty in all of
this cooperation remains intact.25
Finally, listen to this warning from Dr. Paul Schreiber:
"A confessional approach to ecclesiastical questions begins with what is
clearly instituted by Christ according to divine right, namely, the congregation and the
office of the ministry. Other institutions, such as synods and districts and their
attending offices, are created by human arrangement; they do not define the nature of the
church nor control its mission. In other words, to replicate a synodical structure on
district and congregational levels turns things upside down. To view a district or
congregation as the "presence of the synod at a particular place" is hard to
correlate with a confessional view of the church and its marks. Such a functionalist
approach also absorbs men, money, and materials in running the "adiaphora"
things of the church that might otherwise be devoted to its divinely mandated mission.
A church that is engrossed in examining its structure and polity without a
clearly-defined theological rationale does not follow the Confessional pattern. Unable to
ground it upon "divine right," it claims "human right," and in so
doing quite naturally becomes increasingly secularized, fractured, and polarized. How
might anyone resolve competing claims based on "human right"? A church that is
intend upon examining and organizing itself as "human right" accorded by the
"freedom of the Gospel" mixes Law and Gospel and is in danger of losing its
freedom to proclaim the Gospel."26
QUI BENE DISTINGUIT, BENE DOCET. He who distinguishes well teaches well. Unless these
Biblical distinctions are clearly understood and preserved, the Scriptural teaching of the
divine institution of the pastoral office and its correlation with the local congregation
will continue to be abused, and false doctrine and practice in both Church and Ministry
will continue to be taught and preached in our Seminaries, in our Districts, and
throughout our Synod.
May God have mercy on the Missouri Synod and grant us the grace to preserve "the
ancient landmarks which the fathers have set."
1. Dau, W.H.T. (1) Ebenezer - p. 311,312 - St.
Louis 1922 - Concordia Publishing House
2. Hochstetter, Christian - Retrospect, Sola
Scriptura, Vol. III - No.6, p.21,22
3. Bente, Friederich - Lutheran Witness,
August 14, 1923
4. Pragman, James H. - Traditions of Ministry,
St. Louis, 1983 - Concordia Publishing House - Chapter 5, 127ff
5. Nafzger, S.H. - The CTCR Report of the
Ministry, Lutheran Education, p. 118 (Jan.-Feb.) 1983, pp. 132-157
6. Stahl, F.J. - Die Kirchenverfassung Nach
Lehre Und Recht Der Protestanten, 1840, Germany (Quoted by Pragman)
7. Hoefling, J.W.F. - Grundsaetze Evangelisch
- Lutherischer Kirchenverfassung - 1850 Erlangen, Germany (Quoted by Pragman)
8. Dau, W.H.T. (2) Walther and the Church -
St. Louis, 1938 - Concordia Publishing House
9. Bergendoff, Conrad (1) The Doctrine of the
Church in American Lutheranism, Muhlenberg Press, Phila. 1956, p. 29
10. Fagenberg, Holsten - A New Look at the
Lutheran Confessions - St. Louis, 1972, p.227-250
11. Pieper, Franz (1) Christian Dogmatics,
St. Louis, 1953, Vol. III, p. 445, footnote 5
12. Graebner, A.L. (1) Theological
Quarterly, St. Louis, 1897, Vol. III, p. 271-276 (The Church and the Ministerial Office)
13. Pieper, Franz (2) The Synodical
Conference - Distinctive Doctrines and Usages of the General Bodies of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in the United States - Phila. - The Lutheran Publication Society, 1893,
pp. 119-166
14. Walther, C.F.W. (1) Essays for the
Church, St. Louis - Concordia Publishing House - 1992, Vol. II, p. 27
15. Sanday, William and Headlam, Arthur C. -
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, in The International
Critical Commentary (Fifth edition; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902, p. 421
16. Bergendoff, Conrad (2) Luther’s
Works, American Edition, Phila. - Fortress Press - 1958, Vol. 40, pp. 34, 35
17. Graebner, A.L. (2) op.cit. Thesis VI, p.
275
18. God’s Word to the Nations
19. Wentz, Abdel Ross - Luther’s Works,
American Edition, 1959, Phila., Fortress Press, Vol. 36, p. 155
20. Gritsch, Eric - Luther’s Works,
American Edition, 1970, Phila., Fortress Press, Vol. 39, p. 312
21. Walther, C.F.W. (2) Essays for the
Church, St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1992, Vol. II,. p. 30 (Walther here quotes
the German St. Louis Edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. XXII, p. 2210)
22. Luther, Martin - St. Louis German
Edition, Vol. I p. 314ff
23. Bente, F. and Dau, W.H.T. (1) Triglot,
Concordia, St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1921
24. Bente, F. and Dau, W.H.T. (2) Triglot,
Concordia, St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1921
25. Klug, Eugene F. - Concordia Theological
Quarterly, Concordia Theological Seminary press, "Authority in the Church", Fort
Wayne, Indiana, Vol. 57, No. 1,2, Jan.-Apr. 1993 p. 97, 98
26. Schrieber, Paul L. - Concordia Journal,
Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO, "Church Polity and the Assumption of
Authority," Vol. 26, No. 4, p. 332