The following review relies heavily on Dr. C. F. W. Walther's theses on the church and the ministry. Although only the propositions themselves are quoted, it should be understood that in each case Dr. Walther supports them at length with "proof from God's Word," "testimonies of the church in its official Confessions," and "testimonies of the church in the private writings of its teachers."

Therefore it is my conviction that to use Dr. Walther's theses in examining the CTCR report is to examine it in the light of Scripture, the Confessions and the writings of the later church fathers. Walther's theses with supporting evidence can be found in Walther On the Church by John M. Drickamer and Walther and the Church by Dallman-Dau-Engelder.

May 1, 1983

A review of The Ministry (PDF), a report
produced by the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations

[2006 update:Drickamer; Nehrenz]

Question: Can only a local congregation establish the office of the ministry or pastoral office?

Answer: No.

This question and answer represent the sum and substance of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations' (CTCR) report, The Ministry. From beginning to end it is an effort to justify the answer by establishing that, yes, agencies other than a local congregation can indeed establish the office of the ministry.

In order to accomplish this it was necessary for the authors to attempt studiously to avoid defining the term "church" for 45 pages. They succeeded admirably. In the end the doctrine of the church and ministry of Scripture has been replaced by the rationalizing doctrine of the Wisconsin (WELS) and Norwegian (ELS) Synods, the same doctrine held also by Lutheran liberals the world over. It is this doctrine which has allowed our national contingent to surge ahead in its hierarchical quest, making comfortable its mating with the Episcopal Church. [ref. A Dramatic Shift, pp. 32-42; WELS Thesis on the Church and Ministry; 1970 Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly; ELS Doctrine of The Church]

Dr. C. F. W. Walther, in the forward to the first edition (1852) of his classic The Voice of Our Church on the Question of the Church and the Ministry, popularly known as Kirche und Amt ( Church [alternate] and Ministry [alternate] ), wrote: "We are persuaded that the present differences among Lutherans concerning the doctrine of the church and the ministry, and whatever is immediately connected with them, stem from the fact that the private writings of its orthodox teachers have been disregarded and abandoned." (Walther On The Church, Tr. J. M. Drickamer, p. 12). As it was then, so it is now.

Dr. Walther went on to prove by means of 19 theses that it was not he and the Missourians who shaped the doctrine of the church and the ministry, rather, it was the doctrine of the church and the ministry of Scripture and the Confessions that shaped them. It is this true scriptural doctrine, formalized by Walther at Synod's request, that more than any other set the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod apart from all other Lutherans. It is this doctrine that served for over 100 years as a guide in determining polity and practice, and the doctrine whose underlying principles prepared generations of Missourians to stand fast during the theological upheavals that seemed constantly to assail them.

It seems quite evident, then, that the delegates to the 1962 synodical convention were for the most part totally unaware of what they were being asked to do when Resolution 6-35 was presented to them for adoption. It seemed harmless enough. Up to that time in accordance with paragraph 4.15 of the by-laws to the constitution, only those who had received a call from a congregation to serve as pastor were qualified to be ordained:

"B. ORDINATIONS AND INSTALLATIONS. 4.15 Ordination of Candidates: A candidate for the ministry may be ordained only when he has received a legitimate call from and to a certain congregation and after previous examination has been found to be sound in doctrine, apt to teach, blameless in life, has made application for membership in Synod, and has submitted a request for ordination to the respective District President."

The delegates were asked in Resolution 6-35 to amend this paragraph in such a way that positions other than that of pastor qualified one for ordination. Since Synod was on record as holding to the scriptural position that ordination is nothing more than the public confirmation of the call to the office of the ministry (pastoral office), adopting this amendment would mean adopting a view of the doctrine of the church and the ministry that was entirely foreign to that held by Synod throughout its history. In fact, it was a view Synod had repeatedly rejected.

The delegates did adopt the amendment, thus setting aside the one distinguishing mark that set the Missouri Synod apart. Since that day, it has been necessary when talking about Synod prior to 1962 to refer to it as "Old Missouri".

The doctrine of the ministry cannot be correctly understood apart from the doctrine of the church. And to discuss either without first defining what is meant by the term "church" must necessarily lead to ambiguity, equivocation, and confusion. This is exactly the case with the document under consideration.

It is difficult to understand how they did it, but the authors of the CTCR document managed to employ the term "church" no less than 270 times on 32 pages of copy and yet were able the whole while to avoid defining the term.

Walther did not have this trouble. His first order of business was to define the term and tell us exactly what the church is - in concise, unequivocating language:

Theses I - "The church in the proper sense of the term is the congregation of saints, that is, the totality of all those who have been called by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel out of the lost and condemned human race, truly believe in Christ, and are sanctified and incorporated into Christ through this faith."

Theses III - "The church in the proper sense of the word is invisible."

Theses IV - "Although the true church in the proper sense of the term is essentially invisible, its presence can nevertheless be definitely recognized, and its marks are indeed the pure preaching of God's Word and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ's institution."

Theses VI - "In an improper sense Holy Scripture calls "church" (the universal church) also the visible totality of all the called, that is, of all who confess and adhere to the proclaimed Word and use the holy sacraments, which consists of good and evil persons; so also it calls "churches" (particular churches) its several divisions, that is, the congregations that are found here and there, in which the Word of God is preached and the holy sacraments are administered. It does so because in these visible assemblies the invisible, true, and properly so called church of believers, saints, and children of God lies hidden...."

From this it can be seen that Walther recognized, in agreement with the Lutheran confessors and the later church fathers, that Scripture uses the term church in only three senses: 1) the entire invisible body of believers (the Holy Christian Church, the communion of saints); 2) the visible totality of all the called (universal church); 3) the individual visible assemblies or congregations (particular churches).

Common - and essential - to all three concepts of "church" is the proclamation (preaching) of the Word and the administration (use) of the sacraments. Each, in other words, has the authority to publicly administer the office of the keys, the power to forgive sins and to withhold the forgiveness of sins. Included in this authority is the power to pronounce absolution and the power of a spiritual court (excommunication). (A Dramatic Shift, pp. 3-6)

Thesis IV - "It is this true church of believers and saints [invisible church] to which Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And it is therefore the proper and only possessor and bearer of the spiritual, divine, and heavenly goods, rights, powers, etc., which Christ has procured and which are found in His church."

Thesis VII - "As visible congregations which still essentially have the Word and the sacraments bear the name "church" according to God's Word because of the true invisible church of true believers which is found in them, so also they possess the authority which Christ has given to His whole church, on account of the true invisible church which is hidden in them, even if there were only two or three."

Taking leave of Walther's work - so clearly expressed - to consider the CTCR document is like wandering off a well-marked path into a maze. The authors, while avoiding defining the term "church", do use it in just about every sense that can be conceived - including the three Scriptural senses. But in most instances it is left to the reader to decide in which sense it is being used, guided only by the context in which it appears. Even then it is not always clear. Furthermore, if the reader does not understand the ways in which use of the term is limited in Scripture or is not even aware that it is at all limited in Scripture he will become easily misguided. And even if one fully understands all the senses conceivable he will time and time again be uncertain as to exactly how the term is being used.

"The Church", "The Lutheran Church", "The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod", "the whole church", "in the church", "to the church", "of the church" , "from the church", "in a church", "through the church", "the church exists", "the church has", "our church", "wider church", "segments of the church", "the whole church". This is but a sampling of the array of 270 instances where the word "church" is used.

In the great majority of cases it appears, from the context, that the synodical organization is being referred to. However, interspersed here and there the same phrases are used to indicate the invisible church of true believers, the universal church, and, occasionally, specifically the congregations or a congregation. Thus, by means of association and interpolation, rights and duties that are prerogatives of the latter three alone are made to be prerogatives of the synodical organization. It is as if Synod were being made to rub shoulders with the congregations in the hope that it might take on some of their God-given aura; that, being thus puffed up, it might itself appear God-ordained.

It is not.

Avoiding defining "church" in the scriptural sense is, of course, essential to the CTCR document's governing proposition expressed in passing - and somewhat matter-of-factly - in two places:

Service in a local congregation is not the benchmark in determining who is in the office of the ministry or its auxiliary offices. [p. 41]

Confusion arises when we assume the the church (sic) can function only as one congregation at a time, or that the ministry of the Word and sacrament must be defined only in terms of the activity of a parish pastor. [p. 21]

Defining "church" in the scriptural sense, after all, necessitates expressing the truth that "since the congregation or church of Christ, that is the assembly of believers, has the power of the keys and the priesthood immediately [Matt. 18:15-20; I Pet. 2:5-10] so through it and it alone can the ministry of the Word [office of the ministry; pastoral office] which administers the office of the keys and the priestly offices in the congregations be conferred upon certain competent persons, namely through the election, call, and commission of the congregation." (Walther On The Church, p. 86).

Later, Dr. Pieper would write, "Only a congregation can establish the public ministry [pastoral office]." (Christian Dogmatics III, p. 442). And in an essay on this subject published by CPH after his death, he wrote, "These are matters which are generally known and practiced among us." (What Is Christianity?, pp. 108 -123, esp. p. 113; A Dramatic Shift, pp. 6-l0).

It is clear, then, that the authors of the CTCR document have eliminated as a tenable position one of the essential features of the true, scriptural doctrine of the church and the ministry. Having accomplished this, the way is clear to counsel practices that can be supported only by adoption of the rationalistic church-and-ministry principles long held by the Wisconsin and Norwegian (Church; [2006 update: Ministry]) Synods, practices emphatically rejected by our Missouri forebears.

The results are devastating to the one office established by Christ Himself, namely, the office of the Word or pastoral office. It is likewise devastating to the assembly of believers or local congregation and its position in God's order. On the other hand, it elevates those organizational structures established by men and those who labor in them to positions of eminence so lofty that it is not inaccurate to say that the prerogatives of God have thereby been usurped by men.

Synod is a church in no sense of the Word as it is used in Scripture. It does not have the marks of the true church and therefore does not have the authority to establish the office of the ministry. Furthermore, nowhere in its constitution is there any indication that Synod or anyone in the employ of Synod has been given authority to administer the office of the keys in the name of anyone. That is, no one in Synod - the organizational structure - or any of its agencies has been given, nor can they be given, the authority to publicly forgive sins in the name of others by means of preaching the Gospel, baptizing, administering the Lord's Supper or pronouncing absolution. Nor does anyone have the authority of a spiritual court or the power to excommunicate.

Nevertheless, since 1962 it has come about that synodical officials, seminary professors and anyone with a theological degree who serves in any agency of Synod, in agencies established by federations of congregations, and even agencies outside Synod and the congregations have come to be considered incumbents of the office of the ministry or pastoral office. In addition, a multitude of "ministry" positions have been created for the purpose of fitting people to the requirements of government, insurance retirement plans and accrediting agencies.

The CTCR - 20 years of confusion later - was given the unenviable task of trying to justify all of this and make it palatable to those who have become increasingly alarmed by it.

The first problem confronting the CTCR was the necessity of establishing that Synod is a church on a plane with the local congregation. But this could not be done since Synod is a man-ordained organization and can never carry the name church in the sense that its congregational members carry it; that is, in the scriptural sense. Therefore it was necessary to confuse and obscure the distinction by a "blitzkrieg" of the word church.

The next problem was the necessity of supplying a rationale for this "church's" recently developed "ministry". That took some doing.

Dr. Walther, in his theses an the ministry, Thesis V, wrote, "The ministry of the Word [pastoral office] has the power to preach the Gospel and administer the holy sacraments and the authority of a spiritual court." The office of the ministry, in other words, has the power of the office of the keys, the power to forgive and to retain sins. This is the essence of the office. It is an office of power.

Thesis VI: "The ministry of the Word" - together with its power - "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." Note the word "the". The congregation is the possessor, not a possessor. It is not one possessor among many. It is the exclusive possessor. This is scriptural.

Synod does not possess this power. If it does not have it, of course, it cannot confer it. If the office of the ministry is a conferred office of power; and if Synod does not have this power to confer; and if, in spite of this, Synod still claims that it can establish an office of the ministry, the question then arises: what kind of an office is this synodical office of the ministry? More importantly, what is the essence of this office? The CTCR enlightens us:

....Public ministry - To be in "public ministry" a person must be formally assigned to labor in the work of the church on behalf of those in the church who are not in public ministry (laity). It refers to offices that have specific duties, responsibilities, and accountability.

....The office of the Public Ministry - It is the divinely established office referred to in Scripture as "shepherd", "elder", or "overseer". This term is equivalent to "pastoral office". Within this office are contained all the functions of the ministry of the Word and sacraments in the church....

....the word "public" connotes accountability to those who have placed them into "public" office....

....There is a bishops office and oversight is one of its definitive functions....

....Paul admonishes the elders: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which He obtained with the blood of His own Son...."

....the office of the public ministry....may exist in various forms, that is, the "flocks" to which a man ministers have various forms....

....The question is also asked: Is it possible to exercise the office of shepherd and overseer in the church only in a parish situation? In the case of "administrative officials", for instance, is the church calling as an "elder of the church" a man qualified to exercise oversight when it calls him to be a District President? Or a seminary professor? Or a campus pastor? The answer may be yes or no. It depends on the call. If a man is asked merely to perform a necessary but only secular function for the church but is not called to public accountability as an overseer in the church, he is not in the office of the public ministry. However, District presidents who are charged with the oversight of the overseers of the flock, or professors who are charged with the oversight of the men who are preparing to be shepherds of the church, or men who are charged with the oversight of the faith and life of the church's youth on a college campus or in the military can be properly said to be serving in the office of the public ministry of the church....

....If the office (District or synodical officials) is such that it is an exercise of the office of the ministry by virtue of its functions, or if the functions are definable as directly auxiliary to the pastoral ministry, then a person accepting such a call retains ministerial status in the church....[emphasis added]

So. Now we know what the essence of the synodical "office of the ministry" is. Function. It is not that the CTCR has ignored the Word and the sacraments. They quote the pertinent passages from the Confessions, e.g., "....the power of the keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer the sacraments...." "Christ gave the apostles only spiritual power, that is, the command to preach the Gospel, proclaim the forgiveness of sins, administer the sacraments, and excommunicate the godless."

But the problem is that not one person within the synodical structure has the authority to do any of these things in the name of anyone - nor can anyone give this humanly-devised organization or anyone employed by it this authority. Therefore if one is to find the synodical "office of the ministry" he must search not for Word and sacraments but rather for its mark, namely, functions.

This ministry of function is quite a novel idea. It works something like this:

The office of the ministry instituted by Christ when He called the apostles has the power to remit and to retain sins through the administration of the Word and the sacraments. It is conferred by God through the local congregation by means of its call. In order to administer something one must perform a task - function. Besides functioning by preaching, baptizing, administering the Lord's Supper, absolving and judging in spiritual matters, scripture directs pastors to perform other functions. Taken all together the functions are referred to as "shepherding" and "overseeing" the "flock". In all of these things the pastor is, according to God's Word, accountable to those who conferred the office on him.

The congregations of Synod have authorized certain men to perform for them certain auxiliary functions which are the responsibility of the office of the ministry each has established in its midst. The men who are "formally assigned" these functions fulfill in varying degrees the pastoral "responsibilities" of "shepherding" and "overseeing". In addition, each has a "flock" - all of Synod, pastors of congregations, students, whatever. Although God chose them and they are responsible to Him, they also have "accountability" to those who placed them in office. Most important of all, they have a theological education, proof that God has chosen and prepared them to be presented to the church as His gifts. Since they perform pastoral functions, have a "flock", are accountable to others and have a theological degree they are in the office of the ministry.

The office of the ministry, of course, administers the Word and sacraments which are the marks of the one true (invisible) Church. Since these men are incumbents of the office of the ministry by virtue of their functioning, they also have the authority to perform the function of administering the office of the keys through the administration of the Word and sacraments. Conclusion: their ministry is the ministry of Word and sacraments.

Very novel. Very specious. Very false. If you can't get in the front door, try the back.

The CTCR tried hard to convince us that Synod is a church in the same sense and on the same plane as the local congregation. To do this it was necessary to confuse the meaning of and avoid defining the term "church." It tried to convince us that Synod has the authority to establish the office of the ministry. To do this it was necessary to virtually ignore the true essence of the office - power to forgive sins and to withhold the forgiveness of sins -concentrating instead on its auxiliary functions and duties.

But in spite of all its efforts the fact remains: Synod is not a church in the scriptural sense of the word and cannot establish the office of the ministry. If it is still maintained, in view of this, that Synod has an office of the ministry, it must be concluded that it is a charismatically contrived ministry. It cannot be the one true office of the ministry established by Christ and conferred through the local congregation. It is, in short, a ministry without a church.

Paragraph 5.21 (old 4.15) of the by-laws to the synodical constitution is unconstitutional because it is based on the false teaching that agencies other than a local congregation have authority to establish the office of the ministry. Since Synod is pledged to Scripture as "the only rule and norm of faith and practice," this will have to be dealt with soon. No group of Christians pledged to God's Word can continue compromising it for long without harm coming to the group.

The danger is real. Dr. Walther wrote: "We are convinced that the great decisive battle of the Reformation which our fathers fought against the papacy in the 16th century centered in the doctrine of the church and the ministry." (Walther On The Church, p 12)

When the doctrine of the church and the ministry fails to be preserved from all error, the administration of the Word and sacraments will ultimately be affected. If the administration is affected, so must the power being administered. The power being administered is the power to forgive sins, the "ministration of righteousness", justification. To contend for the doctrine of the church and the ministry is to contend for the doctrine of justification.

The Wisconsin-Norwegian doctrine of the church and the ministry now firmly entrenched in the Missouri Synod promotes hierarchism. It invents a "church" that is not divinely instituted and an "office of the ministry" that has no connection with the office established by Christ. Neither has the power of the keys to forgive and to retain sins.

Yet, in practice, this "ministry" becomes a powerful, autonomous class of "clergymen" separated from and out from under the control of the priesthood; this "church" becomes its protector. Thus an environment is created which history has shown serves as an incubator for the development of all kinds of false notions about God's Word. Given time, history has also shown, the doctrine of justification is attacked, subverted and finally lost. And when it is lost to the hierarchy it is lost to the priesthood which looks to the hierarchy for training and guidance.

Hierarchism is well on its way to full maturity in the Missouri Synod, having had twenty years to develop in an atmosphere of unopposed freedom. One necessity, however, has eluded it. It needs legitimacy. Since it cannot get the legitimacy it covets from its man-ordained "church"; and since the local congregation or God-ordained church cannot and will not give it legitimacy, it must look elsewhere to justify its existence. It must look to ordination - but to ordination redefined.

"Ordination of those called, with the laying on of hands, is not a divine institution, but is an apostolic ecclesiastical arrangement and only a solemn public confirmation of the call." (Walther, Thesis VI)

Synod does not ordain. Congregations do: "The power to ordain inheres in the congregation and other persons have this authority only by commitment." (Pieper, III, p. 455nl9). Synod merely acts as an agent of the congregation in performing the rite. Only in this sense is it correct to say that Synod ordains. It is the congregation who confers the office of the ministry and it is the congregation who through the rite of ordination is telling not only its sister congregations but the whole world: we have conferred the office of the ministry on this man, he has the authority to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments publicly in our name. For this reason, prior to 1962, Synod insisted that "The ordination or installation shall take place in the presence of the congregation which has called the candidate or pastor." (former 4.19)

[2006 update: cf.]

Throughout Synod's history ordination and installation were viewed as qualitatively similar. Ordination was reserved for first-time calls; installation for all subsequent calls. Both were merely public confirmations of a call to serve as pastor of a congregation and the occasion to pray for God's blessings on the ministry of the one called. But things changed sometime after 1962. Ordination and installation became distinctly dissimilar rites.

Ordination took on new meaning. While it continued - and continues - to be insisted that installations "must always take place in the presence of the (calling) congregation", "the President of the District in which the calling congregation is located may permit the ordination to take place in the home congregation." (5.25a,b) Furthermore - and especially significant - not only men who had already been ordained and were already pastors but also candidates were to be installed: "The installation of candidates and pastors shall always take place in the presence of the congregation to which they have been called." (5.25b)

It is not uncommon today for a candidate to be ordained in his home congregation and then travel to his calling congregation to be installed. Other candidates talk about being ordained and installed on such and such a day in the presence of the calling congregation.

The CTCR enlightens us on the subject. At first glance it seems to affirm the "Old Missouri" (orthodox) position: "(Ordination) is a public ratification of the call...." (Of course we know now that by "call" and "minister" is meant not only candidates called by congregations but also those called to the "office of the ministry" of the synodical "church").

But there is more: "We stress the fact that ordination is the declaration of the whole confessional fellowship....admission into the pastoral office is not an act of a single congregation." "Since ordination is a public statement of the whole church body, one cannot say that it must take place in the local congregation." "This is seldom advisable (since) it is fitting [not necessary, but nice] that the calling agency (sic) of the church should be involved in the ordination." [emphasis added]

Ordination has been taken from the only legitimate ordaining authority, the local congregation, and handed over to synodical officialdom as an exclusive right and responsibility. Installation however, remains with the congregation. Since candidates are installed in addition to being ordained it is obvious that ordination has been imbued with a quality that installation does not enjoy and has been placed in a different realm.

At this point the checklist of the developing synodical hierarchical system looks like this: 1) A synodical "church" has been created; 2) A synodical "church" "office of the ministry" has been instituted; 3) Exclusive authority to ordain has been secured.

All efforts to legitimize this "church" and its "office of the ministry" by providing a scriptural foundation have been abandoned as futile since there is no such foundation. Attention instead has turned to ordination. What is needed is to find a way to make ordination the means by which the office of the ministry is empowered - both the office instituted by Christ and the synodical "office". If this can be done the hierarchical system will be completed.

A document published by the Ft. Wayne seminary, Ordination: Human Rite Or Divine Ordinance, already defends such a position. The author comes very close to setting ordination alongside baptism as a means of grace through which special gifts are given and the pastoral office is conferred.

The authors of the CTCR report attempt to bridge the chasm that exists between this position and the orthodox position:

....Ordination as an act does not impart an additional authority that the call does not have....
....Ordination is a public ratification of the call....
....(Through ordination) a qualified member....is presented to the church as a gift of the Holy Spirit....

The first sounds traditional enough and will serve to still the fears of those who are aware of the Ft. Wayne Movement. And the qualifying phrase "as an act" will, for the moment, satisfy the Movement leaders.

The second sounds traditional too. But by replacing the traditionally used word "confirmation" with the word "ratification" ordination is given a new connotation. When something is confirmed it is simply recognized or acknowledged as already in effect. When something is ratified it becomes effective at that point.

The last comes closest to making ordination, if not an empowering act, then an act by which we know whether or not a man is a gift from God. This does in a sense give power to the one being ordained. And it replaces the conferring act of God exercised through the congregation as the sign that a man is God's gift to the church (in all the scriptural senses).

The CTCR report, however, does not quite finish the job of making ordination the means of empowering the office of the ministry. That task has been taken up by others and we must wait for the results of their endeavors.

The CTCR concludes its report by appending Walther's 10 theses on the ministry and adds in a note that it is doing so "as a testimony to the theological and practical consistency of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod." We could wish for its integrity's sake that it had not made that statement because it is patently untrue. The principles laid down by Walther in his theses and those promoted in the CTCR report stand in direct opposition to each other. They cannot exist together. Likewise the former practices of the Missouri Synod and the practices promoted in the CTCR report: the latter replace the former; they have nothing in common.

The CTCR has done the congregations, pastors and teachers of the Missouri Synod a great service. It has shown us, twenty years after the scriptural doctrine of the church and the ministry was replaced by the Wisconsin-Norwegian doctrine, what happens when God's people desert His Word for the doctrines of men. Thanks to its report the members of Synod have been given fair warning: return to God's Word or suffer the consequences experienced by other Lutheran bodies.

[ Top ]