Excommunication: Who Is Responsible?
A View of the Theology and Practice of C.F.W. Walther
By Rev. Martin E. Kiesel

 

It is indeed a privilege and honor to stand before this conference this afternoon. It would certainly be a boon to all of us if the original speaker were in this time slot, but I am sure that as Dr. Suelflow would not want to exchange places with me, (no matter how wonderful this conference may be) as he is now in the glory of the presence of the Savior.

There is no more important topic to be addressed during this meeting, than the topic of how the Church, as the body of Christ, given the Office of the Keys, addresses the welfare of the souls in its charge through the use of excommunication. It is clear from the Scriptures that the power to forgive or retain sins was paramount in the ministry of Christ, and even was a precipitating cause of His crucifixion. Christ's miracles were performed simply to indicate His greater power, that of forgiveness of sins. This is plainly stated in the healing of the paralytic in Matthew 9. We read in the sixth verse: "But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, ...Arise, take up your bed, and go to your home."

Who is responsible for the administration of this ultimate power? What are the parameters which are used in determining who should be excommunicated? Is this power to be exercised simply to rid the congregation of "alligators" or those opposed to an individual or group? What is in the best interest of the Church?

For purposes of this presentation, I will not normally quote the Holy Scriptures or the Confessions. My starting point, as a Missouri Synod Lutheran, becomes the writings of C.F.W. Walther, for it was his exposition of both Scripture and the Confessions that normed the beginning of our church body, and it was according to these same things that we originally walked together, and should so even now!

The story is told that as Benjamin Franklin emerged one day from the Continental Congress, a passerby approached him with the following question: "What did you accomplish? What type of government did you give us?" Franklin's answer was, "A republic! If you can keep it!" If I may be so bold to corrupt this little story for Missouri Synod purposes, I posit that it would have occurred something like this:

Passerby to Walther: "Well, what kind of church and its administration have you given to us?"
Walther: "On the basis of God's Holy Word, we have given you a church where the congregation is supreme, indeed, it is the church ...If you can keep it!"

Just as our republic is constantly under attack, so also the church polity set down by Walther is under attack today. It is attacked by the Devil, the world, and our own sinful flesh! Especially is this a sin of the flesh, for many labor under the delusion that it is our church rather than God's church. Ultimately, this is nothing more than the sin of Adam, wishing to be lord of ourselves and that which surrounds us. It is no wonder that we have a difficult time "keeping" the church which Walther's theology gave us.

To illustrate just how far afield some in our fellowship have gone in exercising the power of excommunication, we have no more to do than to keep our eyes and ears open, or to read publications such as Christian News. We all probably know about the case that is currently going on in Hawaii. Or how about those who are driven from a congregation in Minnesota (excommunicated?) because they are at odds with the pastor or a power group. But even more frightful than these cases, are the times when my own ears have heard laymen with stories about being threatened with excommunication or actually excommunicated because they were "hindering my [the pastors] ministry" (as if the pastor could have a ministry separate from the power of the congregation).

Now, before I bombard you with citations from Walther and other giants in of synod which clearly show how things ought to be in terms of excommunication, I wish to take a few moments to register my frustration with the need to address this matter, or even the need for a Walter conference at all. Most of the time, in my naivete, I truly have problems fathoming how people (pastors) can get so off the track when it comes to walking together in Walther's shadow as a synod. Perhaps this is so because of the blessing of the congregation, or more specifically the pastor, under whom I spent all my years until leaving to study for the ministry at Bronxville. I believe that I have a somewhat unique perspective among many of the pastors of our synod, as I was the recipient of my basic theology, my view and knowledge of synod, and my bottom line outlook on things by what I will term "Waltherian Succession". Let me explain.

Beside learning words and formulations, one needs to have a "feeling" for the interpretation and intent of those words. Now it is not my intention to go "schwärmer" on you today, so permit a example story.

My grandmother on my father's side, made a delicious German cake-bread called Kuchen. It was a wonderful concoction with a sugary top, swirls of nuts and other goodies inside, and a rich buttery base cake. When she started to age, my mother approached her to ask her for the recipe. She replied that she could give my mother the ingredients list, but she would have to show her how to make it! At one point in a teaching session, my mother became totally frustrated, for although the ingredients were present, it was impossible to quantify how much of each one to use, for as my grandmother would mix the batter, she would put in a bit of this and a bit of that, until the batter "just felt right". (My mother did eventually learn how to make Kuchen.)

So it is in theology. One can have the words (ingredients) but unless one has the understanding and the "feeling" of how they go together, they are only so many words.

Just as in days of old, oral tradition carried with it explanations, inferences and understandings far beyond what mere words could convey, so it was with my formative years. I was bestowed with a 'sense' of what was right and proper. This was accomplished by my pastor, Rev. Martin A. Berner. Rev. Berner was my link to Walther himself, for I believe that he carried the oral tradition of Walther's thinking and taught the same.

Rev. Berner graduated from our St. Louis seminary in 1917 (he was already past retirement age when he confirmed me). He would often tell us that he spent many hours learning "at the knee of Dr. Pieper". Now we know that Pieper learned "at the knee of Walther", and hence not only the words, but the intentions of those words were communicated to me. I still remember that just before I started Bronxville in 1969, Pastor Berner took me aside and enjoined me to "...remember what you have learned here and do not depart from it, for it is what our Synod was founded upon... the truth of God's Word!" (He very well knew what was going on in our Synod's educational system at the time and that I would be regaled with liberal theology.) Unless this is engendered in a person, we are all left to parse the words of the church fathers in an effort to achieve true understanding. Parsing, while many times beneficial, can also be an invitation to mayhem. Some have said, "You can make the Bible say anything!" We need to seek wisdom and understanding above all.

In order to understand Walther and his view of the church, and how the congregation bears responsibility for excommunication, first let us start with some ingredients - Walther's words.

In establishing the primacy and authority of the congregation we first look to the foundational work of Kirche und Amt. Two theses concerning the Church are germane.

Thesis I - The church in the proper sense of the term is the congregation [Gemeinde] of saints, that is, the aggregate of all those who, called out of the lost and condemned human race by the Holy Spirit through the Word, truly believe in Christ and by faith are sanctified and incorporated in Christ.1

Thesis IV - It is to this true church of believers and saints that Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and it is the proper and only possessor and bearer of the spiritual, divine, and heavenly gifts, rights, powers, offices, and the like that Christ has procured and are found in His church.2

Concerning Thesis I, Walther cites a number of passages from Holy Scripture (Eph. 1:22-23; Matt. 16:18; John 11:51-52 and others). When explaining what the church is, Walter calls it the "aggregate" of those who believe. The entire church is responsible for the administration of Christ's gifts! Thesis IV clarifies this position. It is to the church (the aggregate of believers) that Christ gives the keys of the kingdom. It alone is the "proper and only possessor and bearer" of the powers of Christ Himself. Once again, Walther backs this up with numerous passages from the Bible, and the "Witnesses of the Church".

It is key to understand, that these powers rightly belong to the entire congregation, and only to the congregation, when we then look at appropriate theses on the office of the ministry in Kirche und Amt. Theses VI, VII, and IX are of particular importance. Permit me to quote from each one with my emphasis added.

Thesis VI - A. The ministry of the Word [Predigtamt] is conferred by God through the congregation as the possessor of all ecclesiastical power, or the power of the keys, by means of its call, which God Himself has prescribed.3

Thesis VII - The holy ministry [Predigtamt] is the power, conferred by God through the congregation as the possessor of the priesthood and all church power, to exercise the right of the spiritual priesthood in public office in the name of the congregation.4

Thesis IX - C. The minister has no right to inflict and carry out excommunication without his having first informed the whole congregation.5

It cannot be rationally argued that the pastor in and of himself, has any special powers or the authority of Christ and the Keys, but all these powers rest in the congregation or church. And, although the congregation has the right and responsibility to call a pastor to act on its behalf, the power still resides in the congregation.

Perhaps a small example of a kingly messenger would suffice. When a servant of a king was sent on a task, he would bear name and protection of the king and kingdom. The servant is nothing left to his own devices, but it was the power of the king which gave him his clout. In the same way, Christ (the King) empowers His Church (congregation), and the pastor is empowered as a servant of that kingdom (congregation).

This lays the foundation for debunking the notion that one can (or should) be excommunicated for "impeding the ministry of the pastor". Indeed, the pastor has no ministry apart from that which the congregation deeds to him by virtue of the call, and the congregation only exercises its responsibility as it faithfully acts "by Christ's divine command".

To add more flesh to Walther's thinking, let me cite just a few other of his writings which clearly continue to reflect his thinking on the relationship of congregation and pastor.

In Der Lutheraner, Vol. 17, No. 7, November 13, 1860, p.49, we read:

First of all, as far as the confessional writings of our Evangelical Lutheran Church are concerned, all orthodox Lutherans confess in them publicly and solemnly the doctrine that according to Matt. 16:15-19 the keys were given to the entire church by Christ "not to certain special persons", and indeed, that the church does not have them mediately, through the pastors, but "immediately", not from a remote hand, but "originally."6

Walther continues these thoughts in Der Lutheraner, Vol. 17, No. 8, November 27, 1860:

We read among other things in the Evangelienharmonie of Chemnitz, Leyser, and Gerhard:

Christ bequeathed the keys of the kingdom of heaven to the church, Matt. 18:18...Outside of a case of necessity such a thing is granted to no one if he is not a rightfully called and installed minister of the chruch...Nevertheless, the right of every believer, even of the least of them remains inviolate, that he has the keys conferred by Christ...(Harm. ev. c. 85, p.1687)

If we had been the first to write this, our opponents would cry murder against us. They would exclaim: There you see how the Missourians introduce their American democratic ideas into the church's doctrine. However, it is well known that neither Chemnitz, nor Leyser, nor Gerhard were Americans or democrats. Nevertheless, the church is here likened to a free republic, in which all power of state, all office and titles originally, so far as their root is concerned, rest in all citizens, none of whom can, however, make himself president, or mayor or senator, but whom the citizens through free election clothe with these powers, offices and titles which originally rest in them. Thus, the Evangelienharmonie wants to say, it is also with the church.7

Walther continues to show that it is the congregation that must responsibly exercise the powers and privileges granted to it by its Master, Jesus Christ.

Yet a few more citations of Walther's thinking.

In The Form of a Christian Congregation Walther notes:

John Gerhard writes: "From Acts 15:22 the conclusion is warranted that not only the apostles but also the elders were present at this congregational meeting; indeed, that the whole congregation with the apostles and elders had a deciding vote...Daniel Arcularius writes: "In public church affairs nothing should be concluded without the vote and consent of the congregation. This the example of the apostolic synod teaches (Acts 15), for though the apostles and elders, to whom the congregation had entrusted the decision, presided there, they nevertheless did not act as rulers and did not so assume the decision of a public [congregational] matter as to exclude the vote of the congregation..."8

Hesshusius therefore writes: "In Matt. 18 the Lord Christ entrusts not to the secular government but to his congregation the supreme judgment and power in matters pertaining to the church, among which about the most important are: the election and calling of pastors, the judgment of doctrine, and the power to depose unfaithful teachers. He says expressly that if anyone does not want to hear the congregation, he should be banned as a heathen man and publican. This must be understood in the sense not merely that the congregation has the power to excommunicate impenitent sinners but also that it has the highest power in all church matters - in reproof, church punishments, the judging of doctrinal differences, the calling of ministers." ("Concerning the Calling and Dismissal of Ministers" [Giessen: 1608], pp. 50f.)9

Lastly, the congregation shall also see to it that neither the congregation nor individual church members enter into any church union with unbelievers or heterodox communions and so become guilty of religious unionism in matter of faith and church.10

Walther also addresses these concerns for the church and excommunication in his Pastoral Theology. Concerning the Lesser Ban and the pastor's participation in excommunication we read:

...Then the preacher is in a situation in which he cannot administer the holy Supper to a person, although he does not have the authority to excommunicate a member of the congregation. Under such conditions there occurs the necessity of the suspension from the holy Supper, by virtue of which a member of the congregation is denied the holy Supper, not absolutely as if he had already been excommunicated, but only for a certain time until the matter has been settled ...11

So as definitely as our old orthodox theologians deny to preachers the right to excommunicate without [the participation of] the congregation, so definitely do they also ascribe to them the right to suspend people from the holy Supper. [Walther quotes several Lutheran theologians to this effect. Suspension may be the first stage in church discipline according to Matt. 18:15-20].12

Under the chapter entitled The Order of Fraternal Disciple Walther begins by saying:

The necessary basis of true Christian church discipline is that the order of brotherly admonition prescribed by Christ in Matt. 18:15-17 be followed in every way, not only by the individual members of the congregation and by the congregation as a whole, but also by the preacher himself. (My emphasis added).13

Walther continues in this same vane in the chapter entitled The Case of Public Repentance.

Those who show themselves repentant after a manifest fall into sin or error, either right away or after admonition by the congregation, are not to be excommunicated but are to remove the offense they have given, as much as possible, by a public apology or repentance to the church {Kirchenbusse} and so to the offended congregation (Matt. 18:15; 5:23-24; Luke 17:3-4).14

A manifest fall into sin is at the same time a sin against the whole congregation.15

Specifically concerning cases of excommunication, Walther states that one of the conditions for such is:

[A person] whom the congregation has unanimously declared worthy of excommunication.16

In the same manner he goes on to outline that one cannot be excommunicated:

...about whom the congregation cannot agree that they deserve to be excommunicated (1 Cor. 5:13).17

Further:

Since according to God's Word the excommunication is a matter for the whole congregation, it cannot be carried out by a mere majority of the members, no matter how large.18

Excommunication by the one or a few is condemned specifically by Walther when he writes in a comment:

Since, according to God's Word, the power to exclude or excommunicate from the fellowship of the congregation is an authority of the whole congregation (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:2, 4, 13), and excommunication which is not unanimous, [but is] resolved by a simple majority, with the exclusion of the minority, without even the tacit consent of all members, is illegitimate and invalid.19

In speaking concerning the readmission of the excommunicated Walther again consistently insists that it is a function of the congregation. Although the pastor is a conduit for information and acts on behalf of the congregation to pronounce absolution, nonetheless it is the congregation which directs such action on the part of the pastor. Here Walter quotes Martin Chemnitz by saying, "...then the congregation, having seen that discipline had achieved its desired goal, applies such mildness ..." (Examen Concil. Trident., Loc de indulgentiis, p.m. 75-78).20

Even concerning the admission of new members to the congregation Walther writes: "Just as it does not belong to the pastor alone to exclude a person from the congregation , it does not belong to him alone to accept new members. The decision about that belongs rather to the whole congregation, the preacher and the listeners."21

Now it is my hope, that at this time, even the dimmest of bulbs among us will begin to be able to see a pattern of thought and purpose developing here! Certainly those theological truths which Walther puts forth were not lost on those who soon followed in his footsteps. It is to those fathers which we now turn. Besides Walther, these are the men who have authored the volumes which we were directed to learn and study in Seminary. It was these authors and works which we were led to believe were at least somewhat normative in the theology and belief system in the LC-MS. Rather than being taught to "question everything", we should be incubated in the faith as we digest these writings. Indeed, as the title of one of my citations indicates, what we are exposing ourselves to is THE ABIDING WORD!

In 1902 G. H. Gerberding published The Lutheran Pastor. In the work he echoes much of the theology set forth by Walther. He especially councils that all church discipline has but one goal - that of the reclaiming of the erring party. In all cases of possible discipline cited, each one is clearly an offense of doctrine or practice which left unchallenged would certainly lead to the offender's eternal damnation. Excommunication was never to be carried out in a capricious or haphazard manner, but in each case copious records need to be kept by the congregation, and the offense must be well documented as being contrary to God's word.

The pastor's role in excommunication is addressed in the following manner:

The pastor alone can neither exclude nor suspend from membership in the congregation. In special cases, known to him alone, where there is a good reason for not yet informing the church council, or where there is not time, the pastor alone may refuse to administer the communion to the offender. Of course he will inform the offender, privately, before communion, of his decision.

We have known pastors, to their shame be it said, who would strike the names of persons who refused to support them, or against whom they had a personal pique, from the church roll. They should themselves be called to account before their synod or conference. The pastor can no more exclude than admit to membership in the congregation.22

(N.B. - This author sees little difference between excommunication and "taking one off the list". If we as a church rightly exercise the Office of the Keys, then to "remove from the rolls" is tantamount to excommunication.)

Francis Pieper, who first published his Christian Dogmatics in 1920 writes concerning the pastor, the congregation, and excommunication. Particularly in dealing with the lesser ban we read:

"The thing that must be maintained is that the pastor is personally and directly responsible not only to the congregation, but also to God, with regard to the persons he admits to the Lord's Supper."23 He then quotes Walther's Pastoral Theology: "A pastor, though without authority to excommunicate a member of his congregation, must suspend...It must, however, be kept in mind that the pastor by suspending does not excommunicate, as many mistakenly have claimed, but he merely demands postponement of the person's communing...Of course, the suspended person always retains the right of appeal to the congregation..."24

In his discussion of the public ministry, Pieper again citing Walther and others, establishes the proper relationship between pastor and congregation.

Hase says correctly that "evangelical teaching" makes the congregation the source of all authority in the Church. All that the pastors of a congregation do as pastors is delegated, that is, done solely at the command of the congregation. This is true in particular when they pronounce excommunication. The Smalcald Articles say: "It is certain that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those guilty of manifest crimes belongs to all pastors." But this is not to be done "without due process of law." (Trigl. 525, Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops, 74; 521, 60.) This "due process of law" includes, above all things, the hearing of each case by the congregation and the verdict of the congregation. Luther's strong term for an excommunication which has been pronounced without investigation and verdict by the congregation is well known. (St. L. XIX:950ff.) He says: "The congregation which is to treat him as excommunicated should know and be convinced that he has deserved and fallen under the ban, as this text of Christ (Matt. 18:17-18) states; else it may be deceived and accept a lying ban and thus do the neighbor wrong... . Here, where the souls are concerned, the congregation, too, should be judge and mistress." Loescher correctly states as Lutheran doctrine that the congregation passes judgment and pronounces the excommunication, while the pastor as the public servant of the congregation declares, or proclaims, the excommunication.25

John H. C. Fritz in his Pastoral Theology (published in 1932) explicitly gives credit to Walther in his preface. Listening to the following quote, could there be any doubt that in 1932 Walther's understanding of what our church should be theologically was accepted without reservation?

In writing this new Pastoral Theology, I have used Walther's Pastoraltheologie as a basis; I desire at this place to make full acknowledgment of this fact. The principles laid down by Walther in his book on the basis of Holy Scripture have not changed, neither can they change.26

In addressing proper procedure for excommunication Fritz states: "A Christian congregation which has excommunicated any person must, in order that any pastor or congregation can convince themselves of the correctness of the procedure, submit its official minutes if requested to do so."27 One can deduce that a pastor or council cannot be synonymous with a congregation.

Concerning Church Discipline Fritz writes:

It goes without saying that a pastor has no right of his own accord, without having presented the case to the congregation, to excommunicate any person. What concerns all, especially in matters of one's salvation, must be taken care of by all. It is contrary even to good common sense and to common justice that one person decide what the relation of one member should be to an entire group or the relation of a group to that member, especially when the fraternal relation of believers is under consideration, Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5, 1. 2. 13; 3 John 9, 10. "It is certain that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those guilty of manifest crimes belongs to all pastors. This they have tyrannically transferred to themselves alone and have applied it to the acquisition of gain. For it is certain that the officials, as they are called, employed a license not to be tolerated and either on account of avarice or because of other wanton desires tormented men and excommunicated them without any due process of law. But what tyranny is it for the officials in the states to have arbitrary power to condemn and excommunicate men without due process of law! And in what kind of affairs did they abuse this power? Indeed, not in punishing true offenses, but in regard to the violation of fasts or festivals, or like trifles. Only, they sometimes punished adulteries; and in this matter they often vexed [abused and defamed] innocent and honorable men. Besides, since this is a most grievous offense, nobody certainly is to be condemned without due process of law." Smalcald Articles.

"In our Church," says Valentine Ernst Loescher, "no one has ever said that excommunication and church discipline are things about which only the clergy should be concerned, but these things have by Christ been put into the charge of the church; the church examines and decides; the servant of Christ, or the pastor, being the os ecclesiae, announces the result to the sinner and according to God's established order has the duty to excommunicate that sinner.28

Concerning the Ratification of Excommunication Fritz says:

Since the power to excommunicate is vested in the entire congregation, Matt. 18, 17; 1 Cor. 5, 2.4.13, a resolution to excommunicate would not be valid if no opportunity had been given to all the members of the church to voice either their approval or disapproval. Therefore a resolution which has been passed to excommunicate a person should not be considered final until at a following meeting properly called such resolution has been ratified.29

May we from the above comment assume that a so-called excommunication voted on by only a pastor or a council or Board of Directors should be considered invalid?

Concerning the power of the local Church John Theodore Mueller writes in his Christian Dogmatics (first copyrighted in 1934):

From all this it follows that it is indeed God's will and ordinance that Christians should establish and maintain local churches; for without them these Christian obligations [the exercise of the Office of the Keys], enjoined so definitely, cannot be performed.

This principle is in full accord with the practice of the apostles and their followers, who consistently gathered the believers into local churches and commonly instructed, admonished, and comforted them as such in their epistles,…

For this reason we rightly insist that the ban, or excommunication, Matt. 18,17; 1 Cor. 5, 13, should be declared by local churches and not by assemblies of Christians which have not been divinely instituted.30

With respect to the power of the pastor and excommunication, we read further:

With respect to the power which Christian pastors possess by virtue of their call our dogmaticians rightly say that all power which they have as ministers is conferred upon, or delegated to, them by the congregation, so that their jurisdiction is limited by the call.

The power of excommunication, commonly called the ban, the pastor must never administer without the congregation, Matt. 18, 17.18; 1 Cor. 5,13. It is properly the function of the pastor rightly to guide the congregation in judging each case and, if the sinner under discipline is found to be impenitent, to publish and declare publicly as a servant of the church what the congregation has decided to do, 1 Cor. 5, 1-7, 13.

Again, if the sinner repents, it is the duty of the pastor to urge the congregation to forgive him, 2 Cor. 2,6-11, and then to publish, or declare publicly, the absolution of the congregation. A ban which a minister executes contrary to God's Word and without the congregation Luther calls a "lying ban" (Luegenbann). (Cp. St. L., XIX, 950ff.)31

Certainly, Waltherian thinking and practice continued to be prescribed through this generation of churchmen in our synod. To demonstrate that this thinking continued to be accepted to the next generation, we turn now to The Abiding Word.

The supremacy and power of the congregation is declared by George H. Perlich in his essay on The Lutheran Congregation. He says, (in part) "The local congregation stands supreme, unequaled in splendor, power, and influence among the organizations of the world and surpasses in importance all other institutions."32

The most telling article, however, is that which was written by Edgar J. Otto entitled Church Discipline. I would like to quote the entire treatise, but time will not permit, so I encourage each one to complete its reading at a later date.

Debunking the possibility of the use of excommunication for the purposes of clearing the rolls of detractors or banishing those who are not "in line" with a certain mode of thinking, Otto quotes a Wisconsin District convention and says: "In a Synodical essay read before the Wisconsin District convention of 1886, G. Kuechle stated: "Whoever is not guilty of mortal sins or soul-destroying error must not be subjected to church discipline." (Wisconsin, 1886, p.35.)33

He goes on, "Whatever specific designation may be employed, whether it be "loss of grace" or "loss of spiritual life," the terms include trespasses of a twofold nature: (1) persistent adherence to false doctrine and (2) manifest sins of the flesh.."34

How dare anyone seek to remove from the Christian congregation those who are guilty of anything less than that which would lead to the eternal ruin of the soul! This certainly excludes mere disagreements among the saints, as well as those who on the basis of our common confession who question the doctrine and practice of the congregation or pastor. In any case, all things of such a nature must be carried out in the best interest of the offending brother.(My emphasis added)35

This is echoed as Otto quotes Walther:

In presenting his reasons for employing the evangelical method in church discipline, Dr. Walther says: "As always, so here, too, love is the highest law..."36

Under Thesis X - The excommunication of a member from the church must be unanimous. Otto writes of the obligations and rights given only to the congregation.

When Christ our Lord says: "Tell it to the church," He confers upon the local congregation the final and supreme authority to excommunicate a former brother when that becomes necessary. The pastor can therefore not order the congregation to exclude a certain person who might be undesirable to him personally, neither may he prohibit the excommunication of an impenitent sinner for reasons of intimate friendship.

Luther reminds us that although Saint Paul was an Apostle, he would not presume upon his own right to ban the incestuous person at Corinth. He required the congregation to act in the matter. (C.F.W. Walther, Pastorale, p.324.)

Excommunication as an official church act is valid only upon the unanimous vote of the congregation.37

Two later sources are also of note. Hermann Sasse in his book on The Church (July 1949) rightly explains the Missouri Synod position on the primacy of the ministry or the congregation when he says, "When Walther and Missouri contended for the priority of the congregation, they could justly call on Luther and the old Lutheran Church as witnesses. In his To the Christian Nobility Luther gives the following well-known illustration of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Some Christians find themselves in the desert. There is no ordained priest among them. They elect one of their number to the holy ministry. By this election he has whatever rights and responsibilities belong to one who occupies the church's ministry (WA 6, 407 [American Edition 44, 128]).38

A reference is also made to the question of authority and excommunication in Pastoral Theology (ed. Mueller/Kraus -1990). A few key comments are: "Because a Christian congregation excommunicates in the name of the entire Christian church ..." "On behalf of the congregation, the pastor announces the excommunication ..."(My emphasis added to both)39

It is clear that Walther posited that all authority, especially that of the exercise of excommunication, was given to the local congregation! To relinquish such power to the one (the pastor) or the few (a board or council) is either an abrogation of that power or the abuse of same. In any case, such a view clearly does violence to Walther's contentions!

Those who would seek to usurp this power by any means, take to themselves an office which they have not been given, and a responsibility which is far greater then any one (or few) can rightly endure. Just as we believe that the Lord Jesus did not place the power of the church in the hands of Peter (a clay vessel), so none of us dare claim such authority for ourselves and make ourselves popes over the souls of others. The Lord gave this power to the whole congregation so that it may be rightly carried out for the benefit of the erring soul, not to further any human contention or agenda. Frankly, as one poor servant in God's Kingdom, it puzzles me as to why anyone would desire or want exclusive use of such a power. The burden is certainly too great for any clay pot!

In terms of the church polity given us through the writings of Walther, the congregation is represented in such matters by a Voter's Assembly. It is the form of self government that represents the whole congregation. No one is denied a voice, everyone has the right to be heard and attend. What better solution can be brought to fulfill God's injunctions and care for His people. But the process does require integrity! Integrity on the part of the congregation that they hold to the Word of God and those things to which they have pledged themselves. Integrity on the part of the pastor, who will understand that he is the servant of the congregation and not its lord. These two, working in harmony, according to "His divine command", will alleviate and ultimately solve our current conundrum.

So, where have we gone wrong? What has caused many to seek their own ways and refuse in word or practice to "walk together" as a synod. The cause is as old as creation itself. It is the ego of man, seeking self aggrandizement and looking to build kingdoms of our own. It comes in the same words as that of Satan in Genesis, "Did God really say?" It overtakes us when we fail to respect our history as a Synod (something that Dr. Suelflow would have said), and instead we parse words and look for "modern" solutions to old problems and questions which have already been answered.

This is not something that has come upon us overnight. It has been slowly and steadily grinding away our foundations over the years. It greatly reared its ugly head in the 60's and the 70's in a form that led to our Synodical divide. Some thought they had conquered and the battle was over, but to think so would underrate Satan himself, and assume that he would no longer attack the Church of Christ! The enemy continues, but now in a more subtle form. It is an insidious and persistent enemy which will never relinquish, and just as "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" so eternal faithfulness is the boon of faith! Indeed, to paraphrase the late Barry Goldwater, "Extremism in defense of God's Word is no vice." We MUST be extreme as we hold to God's truth!

One last word of example as we see how words changed slightly alter the meaning of things and lead people astray. In The Lutheran Agenda published as a companion to the 1941 edition of The Lutheran Hymnal, The Announcement of EXCOMMUNICATION, OF SELF-EXCLUSION, AND OF REINSTATEMENT reads as follows:

Beloved in Christ: It is my painful duty to make known to you that our fellow member, N., was under discipline and, although repeatedly admonished from the Word of God, has manifested no evidence of true repentance. The assembled congregation has, therefore, excommunicated him until he give evidence of repentance. May the almighty and merciful God grant him grace to know his sin, work in him true repentance, and awaken him to reformation of life. Amen. (emphasis added)

Beloved in Christ: Whereas N., after being under excommunication for a time, has now, by the grace of God, give evidence of repentance, the congregation, in meeting assembled, has removed the excommunication from the said N. and has restored him to Christian fellowship in this congregation. May God, by His Holy Spirit, graciously enable him to continue steadfast in faith and godliness unto the end, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. (emphasis added)

Clearly this reflects Walther's view of the church and its polity!! It is the congregation that is clearly empowered!

Now we turn to the 1984 Lutheran Worship Agenda. The rites of excommunication and reinstatement read thus:

Beloved in Christ, I am bound as a called and ordained servant of the Word to make known to you that our fellow member _______ was under discipline and, although repeatedly admonished from the Word of God, has refused to repent. Following the direction of our Lord in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, one and two or three members have pleaded with him/her on several occasions, but without success. Others have done likewise, but to no avail. Finally, _______refuses also to hear the Church.

So that the seriousness of his/her sin may be more fully shown to him/her as a last effort to win him/her back to the Lord, I announce that he/she is excommunicated from the Church. He/she may not come to this or any other Christian altar until he/she repents. May the almighty and merciful God grant him/her grace to confess his/her sin and work in him/her repentance.

Beloved in Christ, because ______, having been under excommunication for a time, has now by the grace of God given evidence of repentance to the Church, I joyfully announce that his/her excommunication is removed and that he/she is restored to Christian fellowship in this congregation.

Notice, that over 43 years we have lost the emphasis on the congregation. No indication is given in the 1984 rite that the congregation is necessarily involved in the excommunication. Walther's view of the church is lost and our theology is diminished in this rite. Certainly this rite opens the door for the abuses we now see. Although in the reinstatement it talk about the "Church", one would be free to assume that the church is something other than the congregation!

We conclude with a quotation from Luther's Small Catechism. A passage from the Office of the Keys which we have all learned and memorized.

What do you believe according to these words?

I believe that, when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, especially when they exclude manifest and impenitent sinners from the Christian congregation, and, again, when they absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing to amend, this is as valid and certain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us Himself.40

Let those who are called take heed that the power they wield is only by virtue of their call to the people of God in a congregation. May we solely act according to the divine commands of Christ, and so only have the welfare of the souls in our charge as paramount in all we do.

May the Lord continue to embolden us by His Holy Word, that we may stand firm on the Biblical faith and doctrines which have been handed down to us through our faithful fathers!

 

Soli Deo Gloria


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.  C. F. W. Walther, Church and Ministry, trans. by J. T. Mueller (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987), p.19.

2.   Ibid.

3.   Ibid. p. 22.

4.   Ibid. p. 22.

5.   Ibid. p. 23.

6.   C. F. W. Walther, The Congregations Right To Choose Its Pastor, trans. by Fred Kramer (Fort Wayne, Ind: CTS, 1987), p. 23.

7.   Ibid. p. 40-41.

8.   C. F. W. Walther, The Form of a Christian Congregation, trans. by J. T. Mueller (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961), p. 48.

9.   Ibid. p. 54-55.

10.   Ibid. p. 136.

11.   C. F. W. Walther, American Lutheran Pastoral Theology, trans. by John. M. Drickamer (New Haven, MO: Lutheran News Inc., 1995), p. 125.

12.   Ibid. p. 126.

13.   Ibid. p. 238.

14.   Ibid. p. 244.

15.   Ibid. p. 244.

16.   Ibid. p. 247.

17.   Ibid. p. 247.

18.   Ibid. p. 248-249.

19.   Ibid. p. 250.

20.   Ibid. p. 252.

21.   Ibid. p. 261.

22.   G. H. Gerberding, The Lutheran Pastor, (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1902), p. 264.

23.   Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol III, (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), p. 389.

24.   Ibid. p. 389-390.

25.   Ibid. p. 458-459.

26.   John H. C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology, (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1932), p. III.

27.   Ibid. p. 58-59.

28.   Ibid. p. 236.

29.   Ibid. p. 242.

30.   John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1934), p. 555-556.

31.   Ibid. p. 578.

32.   Geo. H. Perlich, "The Lutheran Congregation," in The Abiding Word, Vol. II, ed. by Theodore Laetsch (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947), p. 449.

33.   Edgar J. Otto, "Church Discipline," in The Abiding Word, Vol. II, ed. By Theodore Laetsch (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947), p.543.

34.   Ibid. p. 543.

35.   Ibid. p. 545.

36.   Ibid. p. 548.

37.   Ibid. p. 555.

38.   Herman Sasse, We Confess The Church, tr. by Norman Nagel (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), p.76.

39.   Norbert H. Mueller & George Kraus, eds, Pastoral Theology, (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1990), p. 183-184.

40.   A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther's SMALL CATECHISM (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943) p. 18.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fritz, John H. C. Pastoral Theology. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1932.

Gerberding, G. H. The Lutheran Pastor. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1902.

Joerz, Jerald C. and McCain, Paul T. eds. Church and Ministry. Saint Louis: The Office of the President LC-MS, 1998.

Lueker, Erwin L. ed. Lutheran Cyclopedia. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1975.

Lutheran Worship Agenda. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1984.

Mueller, Norbert H. and Kraus, George, eds. Pastoral Theology. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1990.

Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1934.

Otto, Edgar J. "Church Discipline." The Abiding Word. Edited by Theodore Laetsch. Vol. II. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947.

Perlich, George H. "The Lutheran Congregation." The Abiding Word. Edited by Theodore Laetsch. Vol. II. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947.

Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. Vol. III. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953.

Sasse, Herman. Here We Stand. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966.

Sasse, Herman. We Confess - The Church. Translated by Norman Nagel. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986.

The Lutheran Agenda. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943.

Walther, C. F. W. Church and Ministry. Translated by J. T. Mueller. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987.

Walther, C. F. W. The Congregations Right To Choose Its Pastor. Translated by Fred Kramer. Fort Wayne, Indiana: CTS, 1987.

Walther, C. F. W. The Form of a Christian Congregation. Translated by J. T. Mueller. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961.

Walther, C. F. W. American Lutheran Pastoral Theology. Translated by John M. Drickamer. New Haven, Missouri: Lutheran News Inc., 1995.


Rev. Martin Kiesel was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1950. His formative years were spent in the area of his birth, attending St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church in Philadelphia. He was blessed for his entire youth to have the Rev. Martin A. Berner (a 1917 St. Louis graduate) as his pastor. Rev. Berner instilled a love for the Lord in Martin as well as a burning desire to stand firmly on the truth of God’s Holy Word.
Rev. Kiesel graduated Concordia College at Bronxville in 1971 and Concordia Senior College in 1973. He completed his primary Seminary training and received his M.Div. from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, in 1979. From 1979 until 1990 he served as pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Hillsboro, MO. Since 1990 he has served as the pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Waterbury, CT.
Rev. Kiesel has held a number of positions in Synod and District. He was a regional coordinator for His Love - Our Response, as well as Alive in Christ. He served two terms as Circuit Counselor. He has been active as a member of the Board of Directors for a local Birthright, and very supportive of Lutherans For Life. He currently serves on his district Finance Committee, Conference Committee, and is the Lutheran Layman’s League district advisor. He is also on the Board of Directors for the National Evangelical Lutheran Conference.

November 5, 1999