The Waltherian Tradition of Ministry (Part I)

Why the Apostolic Succession Debate Matters (Rev. Heath R. Curtis)

C. F. W. Walther (1811-1877) was first President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It is contended here that Walther’s formal doctrine of ministry in the Church – what I refer to as the “Waltherian tradition” – has been faithfully preserved in the doctrinal literature of the LCMS. The Waltherian tradition comprises the following points, or affirmative theses:

1. Christ gave the Office of the Keys (in the words of the Small Catechism, the authority to forgive the sins of the repentant, or “loose”; and withhold forgiveness from the unrepentant, or “bind”) to the Church, to be effectively used by the governing body consisting either of laity and clergy or laity alone (e.g. lay voters’ assembly of a congregation, Consistory)
2. The authority of the Keys is communicated to the lay governing body (i.e. of a congregation) “immediately”; this authority can only be said to be vested in clergy, or bearers of the Office of the Ministry, mediately through the lay governing body.
3. Bearers of the Office dare not exercise the authority either to “bind” or to “loose” (with special attention to the latter) without assent of the laity.
4. Bearers of the Office exercise no function that is not the common right of every baptized Christian, but merely, for the sake of good order, perform them as though on behalf of every member of the congregation.
5. The Office of the Ministry is not transmitted through the rite of Ordination and the involvement of other bearers of the Office, but merely comes into existence by the consent (“call”) of the local congregation.
6. Ordination, while advisable whenever possible, is an adiaphoron not to be considered a means of grace.

Each of these points may be observed in Walther. By way of further definition, the following negative theses are denounced by Walther and others in the Waltherian tradition:

1. The authority to forgive sins is reserved to members of the clergy, or bearers of the Office of the Ministry.
2. The lay governing body (i.e. of a congregation) transmits (“ubertragen“) the Office in such a way that it surrenders its inherent right to exercise both the binding and loosing authority.
3. Bearers of the Office have regulative authority apart from the Word of God; the lay governing body has the authority to contradict the Word of God.
4. Those without a call (understood locally), whether laity or ordained clergy, are able to perform every function of the Office.
5. Hierarchical organization is to be eschewed (strict congregationalism).
6. The Office of the Ministry is indistinguishable from the common priesthood (cf. I Pet. 2:9) of which it is merely an expression.

Nonetheless, it is further contended that core components of this Waltherian tradition represent a departure from the modus loquendi of the Lutheran Confessions and rest on questionable Scriptural support.

What follows is a compendium of citations in this support. Key passages have been boldened for ease of reading.

Beginning with Walther’s Summary of Christian Doctrine, Sixteen Theses, 1872:

“When He gives the keys to Peter, He does not give them because Peter is an apostle, but be cause he is a believer. In Matthew 18:18, the keys of the kingdom are clearly ascribed to the Church: Whatever you [that is, you Christians] bind… [or] loose,” for the Savior is there speaking of the whole congregation. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5:2, censures the whole congregation for having omitted to exercise the power of the Keys by excommunicating the incestuous person; therefore, the whole congregation must have been in possession of the power.”

“It is, therefore, also clear from our thesis that the Church is not to let its pastors or bishops do as they please in their office, because that office is not a property of the persons administering it, but it belongs to the Church, and hence the Church, as being the true owner, is held to exercise a strict supervision as to how its ministers employ its precious prerogative. If all the pastors in the Church at any time should die or turn heretics, would not the Church then still have the Keys and the Office?”

“Christ has not, as Romanizing Lutherans have said, given the power of the Keys to a certain order of men who exercise the same “for the benefit of the Church,” but He has rather given it, immediately, to the Church itself, whilst the elected pastors exercise their office in the name of the Church.”

Walther’s Works: Church Fellowship (St. Louis: Concordia, 2015), pp. 213-4

Below, from Walther’s Pastorale:

“Nevertheless, the preacher should above all keep in mind regarding the exercise of church discipline that he has no authority in any instance to carry out excommunication on any person unilaterally and without preceding hearing and decision by the congregation. Here the well-known axiom is doubtlessly valid: “Whatever concerns everyone – especially in matters of salvation – must also be attended to by everyone.” It is already against all reason and justice for one person to decide in what relation one member should stand to the whole and the whole to one member, especially when this has to do with the relationship between brothers in the faith. In addition, not only the preacher but the entire congregation is explicitly rebuked in God’s Word for neglecting excommunication, and they are told: “Purge the evil person from among you!” (1 Cor. 5:1-2, 13)”

“Finally, Val. Ernst Loscher writes: “In our church no one has ever said that excommunication and discipline belong only to the clergy; instead, it is commended by Christ to the Church. The latter decides and decrees, and the ministers of Christ, as the mouth of the Church, proclaim this to the sinners … that is, the administration or execution of the binding key”

Walther’s Works: Pastoral Theology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2015), pp. 381-4

 

“Regarding [the fact] that according to God’s Word excommunication must be enacted by the preacher alone, but must be decided by the entire congregation, cf. above” (p. 411)

“However, the contradiction between these last statements and the ones cited above is only an apparent one. The following passage in the church order of Württemberg, known as the Cynosura, is among those that resolve this apparent contradiction: “Ministers may advise against Communion, forbid it, or suspend [from it] by way of request, but no minister should exercise public excommunication by his own authority” (see M. S. Eckhard, Pastor conscientiosus genuinus, p. 177). Thus it is well within the authority of a preacher to “advise against” Communion for someone, even to “forbid” in the name of the Lord or “suspend by way of request” someone who is clearly impenitent or unreconciled. However, if such a person is unwilling to obey it, and if he protests against the judgment of the pastor, then the [pastor] should not regard himself as the highest judge in this. Instead, he should immediately report the case to the presbytery, consistory, or congregational assembly – depending on the existing constitutional form – so that the final verdict about it is rendered by this body.”” (pp. 193-4)

Elsewhere in the same work, Walther seems to denounce the concept of a consistory which consists entirely of clergymen (or “emergency bishops,” i.e., lay magistrates):

“Even here in America, where the church is independent of the state, the corporate rights are therefore mostly exercised in Lutheran congregations by presbyteries composed of preachers and laypeople, even by ministeria, whose members are only pastors, because it was believed that presbyteries, even ministeria, correspond to the German consistories as the authentic Lutheran constitutional institution. However, this is an error … The first constitution of our German Lutheran Church was only a stopgap measure and temporary arrangement by Luther and his co-workers.” (p. 434)

 

“By using excommunication on his own authority, Bishop Diotrephes revealed himself to be a precursor of the antichrist already in apostolic times (3 John 9-10).” (p. 382)

Diotrephes is never identified as clergy. Walther’s eisegesis of III John did not become standard.

Finally, from Walther’s Form of a Christian Congregation:

“Regarding the publication of the excommunication and its consequences Baldin writes: “Let the pastor announce to the congregation from the pulpit, that the person [excommunicated], though admonished repeatedly, contumaciously persisted in a manifest sin (which is to be mentioned by name); that, since this cannot be committed without great offense to the congregation and solved in a gathering of those who were delegated to act in this matter [in our case, the voters’ meeting] that the person should be cast out of the congregation”

The True Visible Church and The Form of a Christian Congregation. Trans. John Theodore Mueller. St. Louis: Concordia, 2005, p. 121

 

“No one is to be regarded as one who has been excommunicated until the church or congregation has passed sentence. This fact is attested and defended by Calov against the Arminians when he writes…” “It is wrong therefore to say that here no power is given to the congregation, for here we have the definite stipulation: ‘If he shall neglect to hear them (the two or three whom he has taken with him), then tell it to the church.’ If he refuses to hear the church, then regard him as a heathen man and a publican according to the sentence of the congregation and in agreement with it (for the final verdict after the degrees of admonition is here accorded to the congregation)” (p. 118)

Thus far Walther. From the foregoing, Affirmative Theses 1, 2, and 3 are easily deduced.

Meanwhile, the Confessions meanwhile have this to say about the Office of the Keys:

“I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, in particular when they exclude openly unrepentant sinners from the Christian congregation and absolve those who repent of their sins and want to do better, his is just as valid and certain even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself.” (Small Catechism IV; LSB, p. 326)

 

“Our people teach as follows. According to the gospel the power of the keys or of the bishops is a power and command of God to preach the gospel, to forgive or retain sin, and to administer and distribute the sacraments.” (Augsburg Confession XXVIII 5-6; KW)

“The preachers should not mix civil punishments together with this spiritual penalty or excommunication.” (Smalcald Articles III X 1)

 

“Again our Confession declares: “It is certain that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those guilty of manifest crimes belongs to all pastors. This the bishops have tyrannically transferred to themselves” … (Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 74)

Though not without nuance, bearers of the Office are treated as the sole subject regarding both use and authority of the Keys. Therefore both the loosing and binding authority with the “bishop” (or pastor) without prescribed need for an intervening party (e.g. Pope, canonical bishop, or – one may infer – lay governing body).

Robert D. Preus (†1995) makes a startling admission in this connection about a possible “oversight” in the Confessions:

“It is interesting that Melanchthon above says that it is within the province of the pastor as he publicly administers the keys to excommunicate impenitent sinners (cf. AC, XVIII, 2). This might seem to be out of harmony with the Lutheran practice in our country, where the congregation has pretty well reserved that prerogative to itself, although no doubt in those days the pastor was always acting on behalf of the congregation and as its representative. I can find no evidence in our Confessions that congregations or synods as such carried out excommunication, and Matt. 18:15-20 is never used in our Confessions as a model for congregational discipline or excommunication, although this may have been an oversight.”

Robert Preus, Getting into the Theology of Concord (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), p. 61

This recent textbook on pastoral theology and practice from Concordia Publishing House (CPH) reiterates the position of Walther. Notice the change of subject:

“When the Church’s governing assembly convenes for excommunication, the pastor reviews the situation … The Church excommunicates with a resolution to this effect, supported by the unanimous decision of the assembly. If any person in the assembly dissents, they should either show just cause for their dissent or be admonished for obstructing the Church’s action. When the Church excommunicates, the pastor announces it to the larger congregation. He speaks in the Lord’s name and in His stead (John 20:23). The congregation – the Church in action – has formally bound the sin of the impenitent person (Matt 18:18).”

Richard H. Warneck, Pastoral Ministry: Theology & Practice (St. Louis: Concordia, 2018), p. 331

Muller-Kraus (the previous standard reference work) most explicitly separates the pastor from binding authority. Here is a departure to the modus loquendi of the Confessions:

““Overseeing” includes the process of excommunication. However, the authority to pronounce a person excommunicated belongs to the congregation (cf. Unit IV, 10)”

Pastoral Theology, Eds. Norbert H. Mueller and George Kraus (St. Louis: Concordia, 1990), p. 41

 

“The pastor should not accept the role of policeman, enforcer, prosecutor, judge, or jury. The verdict of excommunication must be rendered by the congregation. A unanimous ballot does not appear to be a Biblical requirement, though it may check impetuous action.” (p. 183)

Walther, for his part, requires unanimity before excommunication is rendered:

“If it is clear from God’s Word to a large majority of the congregation that a sinner should be excommunicated, but a member protests against it without, however, stating or being able to state compelling reasons for his refusal to consent to the communication – perhaps either manifestly from contempt for the Word and command of God, or from manifest partiality toward the sinner, or from pure obstinacy and wantonness and the like – then the one lodging the complaint is to be subjected to discipline before the excommunication is carried out, and the excommunication is not to be implemented until unanimity is achieved by removal of the objection (whether the one protesting withdraws his protest or he shows himself to be stubborn and must be excluded as one who has manifestly become non-Christian). Since, namely, excommunication is a matter of the congregation according to God’s Word, it cannot be legitimately carried out by a mere majority of the members, no matter how large” (Walther, Pastoral Theology, p. 405)

The impracticality of this approach is evident: something of a “hanging paradox” is not a difficult result to imagine.

Also worthy of note is Muller-Kraus’ theology of ordination and the call:

“The rite of installation publicly declares the new relationship entered into by pastor and congregation. During the candidate’s first installation (i.e., ordination), he declares his intention to make the office his life’s vocation. However, the rite per se does not admit him into the ministry. Note the words of the officiant in the rite of ordination, first from The Lutheran Agenda and then from Lutheran Worship Agenda: The Lord pour out upon you his Holy Spirit for the work committed to you by the call [i.e., not “by ordination”].” (Muller-Kraus, Pastoral Theology, p. 23)

Holy Scripture meanwhile has this to say about ordination, which suggests much more than simple advance recognition of functions to be performed in behalf of a local congregation:

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (II Tim 1:6)

St. Paul’s two accounts of Timothy’s ordination mention his own involvement and that of the “presbytery” (I Tim 4:14). Nowhere, in fact, in the New Testament record is there absence of explicit Apostolic agency in conferral of the Office. By way of contrast, lay involvement is missing from Paul’s account of Timothy’s and Titus’ ordination.

Francis J. Pieper (whose three-volume Christian Dogmatics is the standard reference for the LCMS and Lutheran Church-Canada) argues contrariwise from the case of the Ephesian congregation:

“Moreover, the word used Acts 14:23, χειροτονησταντες, clearly states that in ordaining the elders a vote or election by the congregation took place. Meyer translates χειροτονειν with ‘stimmwaehlten.’ To quote: ‘Paul and Barnabas chose by vote presbyters for them, that is, they directed their election by vote [“stimmwaehlten“] in the congregations.’ To explain this translation, Meyer adds: ‘The analogy of Acts 6:2-6 demands this connotation of the word “chosen,” a word that, taken from the ancient method of voting by raising of hands, occurs only here and 2 Cor. 8:19 in the New Testament, and this analogy forbids the wider sense constituebant [appointed, placed] (Vulgata, Hammond, Kuinoel, and many), or eligebant [chose for them], (de Wette), sο that the appointment took place entirely by Apostolic authority (Loehe)”

Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III (St. Louis: Concordia, 1953), p. 453

The context of II Cor 8:19 far from establishes an election by a lay governing body, leave alone the gloss of χειροτονησταντες as “election by vote”. Concordia St. Louis professor Kurt Marquart (†2006) departs from Pieper’s exegesis while maintaining the same position:

“While the word can mean electing by a show of hands (so probably in II Cor. 8:19), it hardly means that in Acts 14:23 (“having appointed presbyters in every church”), as our older theologians have assumed. Still less of course does the word as such mean ‘ordain with the laying on of hands.’ It often means simply appoint, designate, set in place. On the other hand, it would be absurd to assume that either Paul or Barnabas (Acts 15:23) or Titus (Tit. 1:5) were able or willing autocratically to impose unacceptable ministers on unwilling churches. Fraternal consultation, accommodation, and cooperation are simply the self-evident rule of the New Testament church (Rom. 14:1-3; I Cor. 9:19-22; Phil. 2:1-11; I Pet. 5:3).”

Kurt Marquart, The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance (St. Louis: Concordia, 1990), p. 146

Evident is the crass suspicion of abuse of apostolic – by extension, clerical – authority which seems to characterize the Waltherian tradition (cf. Muller-Kraus, p. 183 above).

The principle of scriptura scripturam interprens would naturally suggest that the ordination rite described in II Tim. 1:6 was observed in this “appointment” – as the term is also used in Tit. 1:5, which has parallels to I and II Tim. Any such connection, however, Marquart here does not with to acknowledge.

By way of further proof, Marquart applies the same principle to the call of Matthias to the Apostolic Office:

“Two examples are always cited to show the necessity of the church’s consent in the appointment of her ministers. One is the nomination of Joseph and Matthias to Judas’ vacant apostolate, in which the hundred and twenty appear to have collaborated (Acts 1, 15-26). The other is the election of the Seven (Acts 6:1-6). The argument in the first instance is from the greater to the lesser: if even the apostolic vacancy was not filled with the consent of the church, then how much more necessary is that consent for the appointment of ordinary ministers.” (p. 146)

Even by way of extrapolation, the context of Acts 1 does not establish lay involvement. Peter addresses the “crowd” (οχλος) of 120 with the words ανδρες αδελφοι, which translates redundantly into English as “men brothers” (Acts 1:15). These same “brothers” he petitions to select a candidate from among “the men who have accompanied us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when [Jesus] was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” (vv. 21-22) The first first-person address applies to the hundred and twenty “brothers”, the second to the eleven surviving Apostles. It was not left to a haphazard gathering of people, a mixed company of male and female believers, but to a specially qualified group of Jesus’ personal followers beyond the number of the Twelve Apostles (yet in all likelihood inclusive of the 70 or 72 preachers commissioned by Jesus in Luke 10).

While the whole group cannot be defined as “ministers”, neither can they be as “lay”; neither distinction applies here. Peter’s use of the term ‘brothers’, however, suggests a collegiality not shared with “the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers” (v. 14) – the latter of whom, apparently for this very reason, are singled out in Luke’s narration.

Furthermore, the definitive choice between candidates cannot by any stretch be credited to the “crowd”. The Apostles instead “cast lots” (v. 26), not in line with democratic vote but rather Old Testament precedent. The agent which confers the Office upon Matthias is Holy Spirit, whom Christ commissions (John 15:26) (with the same word, πεμπω, as the commission of the Apostles [20:21]!). No “immediate” exercise of Christ’s authority by a lay assembly is observable here!

Walther and Marquart do stipulate that laity and clergy are ordinarily involved in placing into the Office (properly recognizing the “Church” as consisting of both laity and clergy; cf. Tr 11: “the church is more than [supra] her ministers”. As will be treated further below, this clause has been mistranslated as “above her ministers” in the Concordia Triglotta, ensuing no small damage).

“The ‘consent of the church’ always implies the involvement of the whole church, so that in their choosing and calling both presbyters and people are partners.’ Walther, too, insisted that the church or congregation, ‘when properly [ordered] consists of both preachers and hearers.” (p. 147).

At the same time, Marquart construes the “call” to the Office in local terms:

“In its only two relevant occurrences (of a total of four) in the New Testament, “επισκοπη” refers to the apostolic office in Acts 1:20 and to the bishop’s office in I Tim. 3:1 … Unlike the universal apostles, however, presbyters/bishops were appointed to and for particular churches and places (Acts 14:23; 20:17.28; Tit. 1:5; I Pet. 5:3; cf. “αλλοτριεπισκοπος,” meddler in another’s office, I Pet. 4:15) (p. 138)

This sets up a conundrum. On the premise that a member of the clergy may only function as a member of the clergy within his respective locale, then in the case of installation of a new (or, for that matter, already ordained) member in another local congregation, it must be concluded that he is acting in no more than a lay capacity. And not even that – since his membership does not belong to that particular congregation!

Observe in Mueller:

“Finally also the Romanizing Lutherans, who regard the ministry as a “special spiritual estate” (ein besonderer geistlicher Stand), which is self-propagating, change the church rite of ordination into a divine institution, or ordinance. These Romanizing Lutherans emphatically deny that the Christian minister receives his office through the call of the congregation, though this doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture.” (Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p. 576)

 

“The power conferred by Call and ordination is none other than exousia, authority in terms of mandate and gifts the Lord gives: the Holy Gospel, which is to be preached, and the Holy Sacraments, which are to be rightly administered (AC XXVIII 8-9). This authority derives not from the Office as such, nor from or through instrumentality of the clerics in the laying on of hands. It is from Jesus Christ, Lord of the Church.” (Warneck, Pastoral Ministry & Practice, pp. 53-4)

Resolving that conundrum, however, lies beyond the present concern, beyond the issue of “immediacy.” Orthodox Lutherans should be wary of any concept of “immediacy” in connection with divine authority and power. Those who have adopted such language stemming from Walther by all appearances discount any mediating agent.

Without citing any particular source, in this pastor’s theological education, the “chicken-and-egg” fallacy which is apparent in the Waltherian tradition has been addressed as follows:

“Question: Which came first, the ministry or the congregation? Answer: the congregation.“

This seems to beg the question: How did the congregation first obtain the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” and the “Means of Grace” (chez Pieper) in order to allegedly vest its authority in a candidate for the Office of the (Public) Ministry? Pieper’s definition becomes problematic if followed to its logical conclusion, as this would violate the Aristotelean principle that a thing cannot be it own sufficient cause. Faith simply cannot produce the means by which faith is “obtained” (to use the wording of Article V of the Augsburg Confession). Referring to the Augsburg Confession, now, this Confessional document sets up two premises from which the opposite conclusion may be drawn:

Major: Believers who form a congregation “obtain” their faith through the ministry of the Word and Sacraments (AC V.1).

Minor: “[N]o one should publicly preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper call”, namely, to the Office of the Ministry (AC XIV; KW).

Conclusion: The Office of the Ministry is necessarily prior to the congregation.

The only alternate means of cutting the Gordian knot of Pieper’s ecclesiology appears, in the eyes of this pastor, concession to Enthusiasm. It would be necessary to trace back to an initial deposit of faith to some immediate activity of the Holy Spirit apart from the external means by which faith is created – i.e. the Office! 

This would in turn suggest the necessity of a continuity (“succession,” if you will) between bearers of the Office.

It is thus noted that the Waltherian tradition precludes the notion of “apostolic succession” (that is, succession of bearers of the Office) with its denial of the existence of a “clerical estate.”

Yet there is no such explicit denial in the Lutheran Confessions. Contrariwise there is, at the back of the Confessions – particularly the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope – a consciousness of apostolic succession which, in the eyes of this pastor, earmarks the insidious threat of Enthusiasm.

Concordia, St. Louis professor Arthur Karl Piepkorn (†1973) handles the apostolic succession debate this way:

“Without discussing the necessity of a succession of ministers, the Symbolical Books operate explicitly with the concept of a de facto succession of ordained ministers (SA III, 10; Tr 72, adhibitis suis pastoribus, “using their own pastors for this purpose”).”

Arthur C. Piepkorn, The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church, in The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Eds. Michael P. Plekon and William S. Wiecher (Dehli, NY: ALPB Books, 1993), p. 60

(Piepkorn, a pioneer of the High Church movement in North American Lutheran context, must be criticized for arguing against the inerrancy of Scripture. Notwithstanding, his reverence for the Confessions is surpassing; and nothing in his formal dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church should be considered aberrant.) At all events, out-of-hand dismissal of the existence of what some may call a “clerical estate” (or “holy orders) may be supported by private statements of Luther, but goes beyond catholic principles governing church order at the back of the Confessions themselves. Namely, that bearers of the Office place others into the Office, as clearly seen in Scripture. Embedded here is a paper which treats the subject in full:

Why the Apostolic Succession Debate Matters (Rev. Heath R. Curtis)

(A reward for making it this far!)

To return to the case under review here. By way of reminder, the Waltherian tradition stipulates that:

The authority of the Keys is communicated to the lay governing body (i.e. of a congregation) “immediately”; this authority can only be said to be entrusted to clergy, or bearers of the Office of the Ministry, mediately through the lay governing body; and Bearers of the Office dare not exercise the authority either to “bind” or to “loose” (with special attention to the latter) without assent of the laity.

It has been furthermore argued that the Waltherian tradition has been supported by departure from the modus loquendi of the Confessions, which locates both the binding and loosing authority of the Keys in the minister.

In light of this argument, the following is an interestingly nuanced assertion of the exercise of the keys which avoids using the word “authority”:

“Therefore, although the public enforcement of excommunication belongs to and must remain with the incumbents of the ministry of the Word, according to the Lord’s command and sacred institution, nevertheless, it must be carried out according to the Lord’s express command and order only after the whole congregation (that is, the minister and hearer) has considered and made the final judicial decision on the matter”

Walther and the Church, Eds. William Dallmann, W. H. T. Dau, and Theodore Engelder (St. Louis: Concordia, 1938) p. 83; cited in Pastoral Ministry, p. 184

But how does even this formulation square with the Scriptural witness?

From Theodore J. Mueller’s epitome of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics:

“b. Not the local churches, but Peter received the Office of the Keys, Matt. 16, 18. 19. This objection does not hold, since Peter, on this occasion, did not come into consideration as an apostle or as a leader of the apostles (primus inter pares), but merely as a believing follower of Christ, who professed the divine truth … Inasmuch as all believers are entrusted with the means of grace, they possess the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics: An Handbook of Theology for Pastors, Teachers, and Laymen (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), p. 573

The surprising equivocation in the final statement – namely, that the “keys” are “the means of grace” as a whole rests not on the Confessions but by way of paraphrase from Pieper:

“The objection that in Matt. 16:18-19 the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given originally not to believers, but only to Peter as a special privilege, has been fully refuted above, p. 413, footnote 18. In this passage Peter comes into consideration only in so far as he believes, not in so far as he is an Apostle or a privileged person. Note also that the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” are nothing else, and can be nothing else, than the means of grace, the Gospel. Through the offer of the Gospel, and through nothing else, Christians remit sins and thus open heaven; through withholding the Gospel, they retain sins and thus lock heaven. Now, since the believers are the persons to whom Christ has entrusted the means of grace, they have eo ipso been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, p. 453)

Obviously it cannot be asserted on Scriptural grounds that Peter was given the Keys before he could be considered an apostle. There is simply no exegetical case that Jesus has all believers in mind. The Gospel of Matthew singles out the twelve “disciples” already in 10:1-4; the parallel passage in Mark (3:13-20), which also precedes the Confession of St. Peter (Matt 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30), applies the name “apostles” to the same group. The Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20) was given in exclusive assembly of the surviving eleven apostles. The so-called “Johannine Pentecost” (John 20:19-23) also occurred in company of the apostles (minus Thomas). In no instance is a governing body (e.g. representative majority in a congregational setting) addressed by Christ as the subject of “loosing” or “binding,” nor “baptizing” and “teaching.”

The question of Peter’s status in regard to the Office circles once again to what I construe to be a quasi-Enthusiast view latent in Marquart:

““In 1 Cor. 3:4-8 Paul places ministers on an equality and teaches that the church is above its ministers” (Tr. 11). So then the church, having the priesthood, has the Keys directly or immediately, and through her Christ commits their public exercise to His and her public ministry, to which in that sense she is subject. In publicly transmitting the office the church acts as of course normally through her public ministry [see Latin of Tr. 72], a point to be addressed in detail later.” (Marquart, The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance, p. 110)

Furthermore, do Mueller and Pieper consider ordination among the Means of Grace? Recall their impulse to collapse the Means of Grace into faith which resides within each individual believer (fides qua).

“The ordination of called ministers is not a divine institution, or ordinance, but a church rite; for while it is mentioned, Acts 14, 23, it is not commanded in Scripture. We therefore rightly classify ordination among the adiaphora and affirm that not the ordination, but the call makes the minister.” (Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p. 574)

The Confessions lend a far higher dignity to the “church rite” of ordination:

“”If ordination is interpreted in relation to the ministry of the Word, we have no objection to calling ordination a sacrament. The ministry of the Word has God’s command and glorious promises: ‘The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith’ (Rom. 1:16), again, ‘My word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isa. 55:11). If ordination is interpreted in this way, we shall not object either to calling the laying on of hands a sacrament. The church has the command to appoint ministers; to this we must subscribe wholeheartedly, for we know that God approves this ministry and is present in it. It is good to extol the ministry of the Word with every possible kind of praise in opposition to the fanatics who dream that the Holy Spirit does not come through the Word but because of their own preparations.” (Ap XIII.11-13)

(The concluding paragraph sits uncomfortably with the anti-clericalism fostered by the Waltherian tradition.)

Philipp Melanchthon’s willingness to list ordination among the Sacraments seems to be undermined in the Treatise:

“Finally, this is confirmed by the declaration of Peter, ‘You are a royal priesthood’ (I Pet. 2:9). These words apply to the true church which, since it alone possesses the priesthood, certainly has the right of electing and ordaining ministers. The most common custom of the church also bears witness to this, for there was a time when the people elected pastors and bishops. Afterwards a bishop, either of that church or of a neighboring church, was brought in to confirm the election with the laying on of hands; nor was ordination anything more than such confirmation.” (Tr 70)

However, this apparent case of doublespeak is easily dismissed. The Lutheran Confessions certainly leave no room for a view of ordination in which the laying on of hands bestows a caracter indelibilis upon the ordinand.  It is toward this end Melanchthon deprecates the rite of laying on of hands (but also cp. II Tim 1:6 above!). But citing the boldened clause in isolation is also disingenuous to the aim of the Treatise. Given its context, episcopal ordination is specifically in view. It being the circumstance Lutherans in Germanic lands were denied regular episcopal ordination by bishops who remained loyal partisans of the Pope, the Confessions establish the legitimacy of ordination done under the auspices of priests alone.

Recall the proper reading of the Treatise which defines the “church” as consisting both of laity and clergy (Tr 11). To read this passage also according to its context, Melanchthon (in the same vein as Luther in SA II.IV.9!) is arguing against the exclusive rights claimed by the Roman bishop by citing the alleged preeminence of Peter. It is interesting that Melanchthon closes that paragraph with this peculiar citation of the Vulgate: “Not domineering over the clergy” (I Pet. 5:3; emphasis added).

It is acknowledged that these passages from the Confessions cannot easily be systematically reconciled. But this reality all the more calls for prudence not to dismiss one in order to let the other stand. This understood, at the same time, it is improper to harness Melanchthon’s rhetoric in the Treatise, aimed at the hesitant bishops and the Roman bishop in particular, against the entire clerical estate. It cannot be asserted on authority of the Confessions that ordination is not necessary. Though by way of definition, ordination is an adiaphoron, that is, lacking a Dominical command, Paul’s purpose clause in Tit 1:5, “that you might… appoint elders in every town as I directed you,” comes fairly close. If Paul’s qualifications for elders and deacons in the same Epistle are to be treated as normative, so should the injunction to ordain. “[A]s I directed you” must also reasonably be read in parallel with I Tim. 1:6 which describes the “laying on” of hands.

Also seeming to be at irreconcilable odds with Pieper’s construal of the Office (suggesting that faith is the sole efficient cause of ordination) is Luther’s appeal to canon law stipulating those ordained by heretics are duly so (SA III.X.3). More will be said of this later. 

The following citation from Pieper provides a neat segue from discussion of the manner in which the Office is conferred to a discussion of its intrinsic authority – or, chez Walther and company, lack thereof:

“The incumbents of the public ministry are correctly called the public servants among the Christians (ministrantes inter Christianos). The Word and Sacrament, in which they minister, are and remain the immediate property of the congregation, and merely the administration of them in the name of all is delegated to these persons by the congregation. In this sense Scripture calls the incumbents of the public ministry not only God’s or Christ’s ministers (1 Cor. 4:1; Titus 1:7; 2 Tim. 2:24; Luke 12:42), but also ministers, or servants, of the congregation. 2 Cor. 4:5: “And ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake [δουλοι θμςν δια ’Ιησουν].” (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, p. 457)

Pieper significantly follows a variant reading of II Cor. 4:5 which renders what might be a genitive clause (δια Ιησου) an accusative one (δια Ιησουν). This is no innocuous matter. The genitive reading would translate: “servants through Jesus Christ” (genitive of agent). I entreat the reader to consider and compare the implications of these alternatives: “servants for Jesus’ sake” or “servants through Jesus Christ.”

With that, to keep this post from becoming excessively long, this discussion will be taken up in a later installment. Stay tuned!

Father Heide