International Foundation for Lutheran
Confessional Research - 1990 - 263 pages

Reviewed by Clyde T. Nehrenz

It seems quite simple. At least it used to. In brief, according to Walther's theses on Church 1 and Ministry 2, the official position of the Lutheran-Church Missouri Synod from 1854 3a to now 3b, the term "church" is used in only three senses in Scripture: a) the "invisible" church of all true believers in Christ, the communion of saints. b) the universal church, all those the world over who profess "allegiance to the Word of God that is preached and make use of the Sacraments." c) particular divisions of the universal church, local congregations of believers organized for the express purpose of publicly administering the power of the office of the keys, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Regarding the office of the ministry or pastoral office, which is the authority to publicly administer the power of the keys by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments, the theses hold that the office (authority) is conferred exclusively by a local congregation by means of it's divine call.

A synod a church?

It is clear from the theses that a synod is a church in no sense of the word as found in Scripture. Unlike a divinely-mandated local congregation 4 that "possess(es) all ecclesiastical power" (Ministry VII), a synod is a humanly-devised organization 5with not one speck of divine power to call its own. No one ever has, nor can they ever, give a human organization divine power to forgive sins by preaching the Gospel , baptizing, communing and absolving. Nor can such an organization be empowered to excommunicate anyone. A local congregation must do all of these things. A synod can do none of them.

On the second to last page 6 of The Church and her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance Prof. Marquart writes:

"Hence T. Graebner's fateful denial that anything beyond a local congregation is really church: `We can say, synod, territorial church, a formation like EKiD belong to Christendom, are part of it, but are not church'..... As for Walther and Pieper, it is not too much to say that they could not have imagined the Missouri Synod as a non-church."

Understanding "particular"

As far as I know Missourians in general have no problem understanding and agreeing with the biblical concept of the church "invisible" and the church "universal" found in Walther's Church and Ministry. Where the problems begin is with his church "particular." For nearly the entire first half of The Church it is quite clear what church is being referred to by Prof. Marquart when he uses the term. With few exceptions it is either the invisible or universal church that is meant, although things haze up a bit in the chapter on the ecumenical movement when the subject turns to the whole body of Christian ecclesiastical organizations, 7 including Lutheran, and the independent denominations within them.

But when Prof. Marquart's attention turns to local churches, synods and polity the subject of "particular churches" can no longer be avoided. As is always the case when attention turns to this subject confusion reigns. It begins here about page 195 with the introduction of the very last chapter, "Chapter 13 - Local Church, Larger Church, And Polity."

Shouldn't this chapter have been on page 41 immediately following Chapter 5, "The Church" (emphasis on invisible and universal), you find yourself asking? Shouldn't this chapter have come before the chapters on "Church Fellowship," "The Ecumenical Movement," "Priesthood and Ministry," "The Ministry and Auxiliary Offices," "Call and Ordination," and "The Two Kingdoms?" That's the way Pieper, Mueller, Koehler and The Abiding Word have it, almost exactly the reverse of Prof. Marquart. Is there some reason for this apparent dogmatics flip-flop, you wonder? Perhaps the mystery will be solved later on in the book.

Prof. Marquart:

"Those who urge that nothing beyond local congregations can really be church, often do so without adequate theological reflection, simply in order to avoid the spiritual tyranny of a `super-church' - whatever that is. This well-meaning argument is badly mistaken, however." (p. 203)

Walther, he says, agrees with him : "For Walther it was obvious that `particular churches' are not only local congregations but also the entire confessional fellowships of communions, such as the Lutheran Church."8 In a footnote, Thesis XXIII of Walther's True Visible Church is cited with the comment from Prof. Marquart, "Thesis XXIII is mistranslated as though `particular churches' meant simply local congregations." (p. 221 n149)

(One aggravating aspect of The Church is Prof. Marquart's frequent "correcting" of translations, the corrections in most cases grossly altering the meaning of the original translation with his "correction" conveniently supporting his own opposing viewpoint.

In an earlier citation of XXIII (pg. 75 n 58)he offers his own conflicting (with J. T. Mueller), private translation that makes "particular churches" include something other than local churches or congregations. He then comments that Mueller's translation is "slightly inaccurate."10

Slightly inaccurate? I don't have a copy of Mueller's translation of True Visible Church, but another translator (Dau) has this for Thesis XXIII: "True Ev. Lutheran churches are those only in which the teaching of the Ev. Lutheran Church, as laid down in its Symbols, is not only acknowledged officially but is also in vogue in the public preaching, Jer. 8:8; Matt. 10:32 f. " 11 This leaves no room for "churches" to mean anything other than local congregations.)

At any rate this only serves to add more confusion. Any time Walther made reference to entities like the Lutheran Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church he was by his own definition referring to what might be termed the universal Lutheran Church, not specifically to local congregations and certainly not to synods:

"The Ev. Lutheran Church is the total [the world over] of all unreservedly confessing agreement with the pure Word of God, of the teaching brought again to light through Luther's reformation and delivered summarily in writing to Kaiser and Reich at Augsburg in 1530 and repeated and expanded in the other so-called Lutheran symbols." (True Visible Church. Thesis X 12)

One is left wondering how so many people could be so wrong. J.T. Mueller's translation of Walther's Church and Ministry Thesis VI leaves no room for "particular churches" to mean anything other than local congregations. But J.'T. Mueller is not the only translator of Walther's work. There are four other translations ranging from A. Graebner" (1897) to J. Drickamer's (1981). They all with one accord use "particular churches" and all leave no doubt that by it is meant exclusively local congregations.13

Synod's original constitution 14 mandated that "Ordination shall be accorded only to him who has received a legitimate call from and to a particular congregation........" Why such a provision? Because it was the position of Synod even before Church and Ministry that a divinely-mandated local congregation alone holds the power of the keys and it alone has the authority to confer the office of the ministry of Word and Sacraments on men of its choosing.

Only those so empowered were eligible for ordination, which is "not by divine institution but is an apostolic church ordinance and merely a public, solemn confirmation of the call." (Ministry:Thesis VI) It was not until 1962 that the constitution was amended in such a way as to allow for men other than those called to a congregation to be ordained. 15(Old Missouri ended that day; New Missouri began. It has been downhill ever since.16)

Rev. Wollenburg stated in his paper delivered at the 2002 Walther conference:

"At the 1851 convention Dr. C.F.W. Walther presented his theses on Church and Ministry in eight sessions. The handwritten minutes of the 1851 convention obtained from the Concordia Historical Institute contain the following: The theses were adopted 'with their proofs and testimonies accepted.' They were 'recognized by the Synod as correct.' They 'received full acceptance of the Synod.' The 1851 Convention then directed the essay to be put in book form, which Walther did.17

"The draft of the treatise was submitted in 1851 to the Fifth Convention of the Missouri Synod at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and discussed in eight sessions. Unanimously the convention voted its enthusiastic approval of Walther's effort and ordered its publication." 18

It is ridiculous to claim as Prof. Marquart does by inference that at that period in its history, so soon after all they had suffered through dealing with Stephan, Grabau and Loehe and considering the fact that one of the chief bones of contention between Missouri and Grabau and Loehe was the latters' outspoken low opinion of local congregations and their insistence that local congregations have neither the authority on their own to administer the Word and the sacraments nor the authority to appoint pastors alone without the involvement of ordained clergy, it is ridiculous to think that right in the midst of doing battle over all of that and after eight no doubt exhaustive discussion sessions the pastors and laymen present would have accepted a document that served to codify those very positions and to have done so "enthusiastically."

One last item:

"When I first went to the seminary I was also installed as an assistant pastor in a local congregation so that I would have a valid and legitimate call and not a professorial call only (without a congregation); but when I left the seminary last January, the power center had so shifted that I did not even ask a congregation for a release, just the school's Board of Control, and no one thought anything of it." (Rev. Lorman M. Petersen. North Wisconsin District Pastoral Conference essay. September, 1975. Rev. Petersen taught at the Springfield seminary for 25 years)

Claiming that "For Walther it was obvious that `particular churches' are not only local congregations but also the entire confessional fellowships of communions" is to accuse him of being guilty of the most deceitful and vile form of disingenuous intrigue. It means that he purposely altered the meaning of words and then argued in defense of the new meaning all the while knowing that his readers and listeners - and translators - were thinking in terms of the old as they read and listened, never dreaming that the man they held in such high esteem was in fact thoroughly dishonorable.

The office of the ministry

Since the position Prof. Marquart outlines in The Church is one held in principle today by many in the Missouri Synod, from here on it will be referred to simply as The Position.

Before moving on it needs to be understood that in the context of Walther's Church and Ministry the word "office" in "office of the ministry" must be taken in the sense of granted authority (the office of the judge is to hear cases; the office of the policeman is to protect the public ; the office of the housewife is to care for her family; the office of the ministry is to forgive sins) and not in the sense of an existing position that is, or is to be, occupied (he was placed into the position of auditor; she was hired to fill the position of superintendent of schools) The distinction is fundamental to a right understanding of the chasm that separates Waltherians from pseudo-and anti-Waltherians.

The office of the ministry of Church and Ministry is not some pre-existing position that one enters or is placed into or fills but rather an authority that is conferred. It is not a position like those in the workplace that people "fill" when hired and that involve the performance of a variety of duties. Rather it is an authority granted for the purpose of exercising, in this case, power, the power to forgive sins. When words like enters or fills are used in this context, as is often the case, they are used properly merely as shortcuts.

The best way to proceed at this point is to insert what has been learned in Chapter 13 (Local Church, Larger Church, and Polity) between Chapters 5 ("One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic") and 6 (The Nature of Church Fellowship). This will help in understanding what follows after Chapter 6 now that it's know from chapter 13 that, according to The Position, Walther meant by "particular churches" more than just local congregations.

Included in Walther's "particular churches," along with local congregations, are organizations like the Missouri Synod, the Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Lutheran World Federation, to name a few. They all, along with local congregations, in one way or another qualify as groups "in which the Word of God is preached and the holy Sacraments are administered," which means that all of these humanly-devised organizations have divine authority to forgive sins by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments .

The claim that humanly-divised organizations like these are "church" in the Scriptural sense of the word and that they possess divine power leads naturally to the question of what part these types of organizations play in establishing the office of the ministry. It is this point in the discussion where the fatal mistake is always made, inadvertent as it may be, of relegating the office of the ministry to the status of a secular position that a person fills when hired. It is also the point at which definitions of "church" begin, as it were, to cross pollinate. Prof. Marquart gets right to it:

"In the doctrine of the ministry the argument is not about whether something is conveyed (ubertragen), but about how and by whom this is done. Since, as nearly all agree, those who at some point become ministers were not such before, they must obviously have the ministry conveyed to them somehow and by someone. This is all that the word "ubertragen," in and of itself, means in this context. The whole argument is about how and through whom this happens" 19(Pg. 112)

Conveyed through whom?

Walther's answer to the how and through whom was straightforward and to the point as Prof. Marquart acknowledges:

"For Walther, the office [Predigtamt] is `an office distinct from the priesthood of all believers' (Thesis I), and is `not a human institution but an office that God Himself has established' (Thesis II). It is this divinely established office which `is conferred [ubertragen] 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' (Thesis VI)."(Pg114 -115)

That certainly seems definite enough, and since Walther backed each of his theses with copious evidence from Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions and the writings of the 16th and 17th century church fathers one would think that if there was an argument about how and through whom it must be over now. But that was before chapter 13. The argument is just starting.

Talk about conferral by "God through the congregation" and the congregation as "the [definite article] possessor" soon turns to "communal possession and transmission of the office by the church [undefined] ......,"and, "By her call, the church [undefined]........conveys the public administration of her common possessions.....that public administration being itself a divinely instituted office....," which was just what "Luther's faithful pupil, C.F.W. Walther, expressed in his 7th Thesis on the Ministry: `The holy ministry [Predigtamt, preaching office] ........exercise(s) the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office on the communality's behalf." (Pg.118-119)

This strange "communality's" is explained in a footnote where we discover that J.T. Mueller has come up short again. Prof. Marquart laments:

"Walther's `von Gemeinschaftswegen ` is not correctly translated `in the name of the congregation' (Church and Ministry, 268). Our `communality' is admittedly awkward, but `commonwealth' would have sounded too political. The idea is that of a community of goods, of a common and corporate possession." (119 20)

Considering what has been learned in Chapter 13 about the all-encompassing "particular church" and with the newly established "corporate possession" concept in mind it is easy to see that Walther's answer to the "through whom" has been effectively altered and it appears that his Thesis VI on the ministry should really read something like this: " It is this divinely established office which is filled by God through a local congregation, a synod, The Lutheran Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Lutheran World Federation, etc., etc., as the possessors of all ecclesiastical power, or the power of the keys, by means of their calls, which God Himself has prescribed' (Thesis VI)."

But that's not the way it really is. On further examination of The Position it will be discovered that not only has the answer to the `'through whom" been altered but so has the subject. "Through whom" no longer refers to the conveying of the office by a particular church. Particular churches have nothing to do with conveying the office of the ministry to ministers. That action is carried out through a process that has the "how" and "through whom" operating as a unit with particular churches, including local congregations, relegated to standing on the sidelines as mere observers.

The unit

It's all explained in Chapter 11 "Call and Ordination."

But first Walther:

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.

B. The ordination of the called [persons] with the laying on of hands is not a divine institution but merely an ecclesiastical rite [Ordaung] established by the apostles; it is no more than a solemn public confirmation of the call.

Wrongheaded, say the anti-Waltherians.

Prof. Marquart :

"What then is ordination? ......Applied to the ministry, "ordinare" (ordain)/"ordinatio" (ordination) means basically nothing else than "ordering" or placing someone into the "order" (better: office) of the public ministry. What specific ceremonies or rituals (e.g. laying on of hands) are to be used in this connection, is another, secondary question, which should not be mixed into the primary, substantive, and root meaning of "ordination" as placement into the public ministry." (Pg. 151)

"One must distinguish, therefore, between the theological `what' or substance of ordination, and its ritual form or `how.' The former is a divine institution, in the sense that the bestowal or communication ("Ubertragung"!) of the divine institution of the ministry through God's mediate call is itself part and parcel of the divine institution. "Vocation" or "call" and "ordination" in this substantive sense cover exactly the same ground....... In the narrow sense of the liturgical form or ceremony of the laying on of hands, however, ordination is not a divine institution, or something on which the validity of the ministry depends, but a good, apostolic and churchly custom (Acts 6:6; 13:3; I Tim. 4:14; 5:22; II Tim. 1:6), to be observed for that reason, but without superstition." (Pg. 152)

"Whatever of examination, negotiation, discussion, parliamentary `business,' and even legal contract-writing may have gone before in the calling of a pastor [or synodical bureaucrat] it all comes to a head in the public worship of the church, with the Word of God and prayer. Here the man is publicly and solemnly inaugurated into his sacred responsibilities , and commended to the church by God-and to God by the church." (Pg. 151)

Professor Marquart has finally found a "solution" to the troublesome - and meddlesome - "The ministry of the Word is conferred by God through the congregation, the possessor of all ecclesiastical power ....by means of its call," and "The ordination of the called [persons] with the laying on of hands is not a divine institution (and) is no more than a solemn public confirmation of the call." It's the secondary-smoke-kills break-through argument of the radical anti-congregation faction that recoils at the thought of local congregations, that is, laymen, being the exclusive "possessor(s) of all ecclesiastical power" with exclusive authority to establish the ministry of the Word (office of the ministry; pastoral office), apart from which establishment no such ministry exists.

Ordination, says he, according to the real Walther, comes in two parts. 1.- the substantive "Word of God and prayer." 2 - "the ceremony of the laying on of hands." Number one is a divine institution. Number two is not. Number one is what makes ordination ordination. Number two is an add-on. Number one is the implementing arm of the congregation's conferring call and by it (Word of God and prayer) the "bestowal or communication of the divine institution [office of the ministry]" is accomplished. Number two has nothing to do with anything except causing one to be known as "an obstinate ass" if it's not performed. 21

And then there's the finale:

"Three main focal points may be distinguished in the calling or vocation of ministers: (1) the examination and determination of the candidates' fitness or qualifications; (2) the election of a particular person or persons; (3) the public and solemn inauguration and installation of those properly qualified into the public ministry, in the public worship of the church [the ordination service]. Of these elements it is clear that the second pertains mainly to the hearers, while the first and third belong primarily to the public teachers, but never to the exclusion of the rest of the church." (22)(cp. Grabau, esp. p. 129ff. 23)

So there it is. Chapter 11 finally answers both the "how" and "through whom" questions: ordination by the ordained conveys the office of the ministry. Walther's Thesis VI on the ministry would be better understood if it read like this:

A. The ministry of the Word [Predigtamt] is conveyed by God through ordained ministers as the possessors of all ecclesiastical power, or the power of the keys, by means of ordination, which God Himself has prescribed.

B. The ordination of the called [persons] is a divine institution although the laying on of hands is not. Ordination ["the Word of God and prayer"], minus the laying on of hands, is not merely an ecclesiastical rite [Ordaung] established by the apostles or merely a public, solemn confirmation of the call but is a divine ordinance. The actual laying on of hands, however, though not divine and therefore not absolutely necessary, is neglected at the risk of ones being designated "obstinate ass."

Nothing could reveal more clearly the chasm that separates the position of the crypto- and anti-Waltherians on church and ministry from that of Scriptures, the Confessions and Walther's Church and Ministry: only a divinely-mandated local congregation of believers organized for the express purpose of publicly administering the forgiveness of sins by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments has the God-given authority to confer by means of its election and call the ministry of the Word on men of its choosing. Ordination is a human rite, a responsibility of the calling congregation delegated by it to others and the means by which it confirms publicly its already-accomplished conferral of the office.

To believe or teach the contrary in conformity with the position espoused in Chapter 11, is to conform to the teaching of Grabau 24, Loehe 25, the WELS 26, Sasse 27 and New (post-1962) Missouri.28 Those who do so and still claim to be Waltherian are in fact nothing of the kind. Rather, they and their conclusions are subjects for well-deserved ridicule, Prof. Marquart's quaint and knotted definition of ordination and its place in the new order of things topping the list of absurdities.

The one thing missing: where are the incumbents?

According to The Position the office of the ministry is conveyed by means of ordination by ordained ministers. But where are the incumbents of the office to be found?

Walther:

"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." (Thesis VI) "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 rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office in the name of the congregation."(Thesis VII)

Only those are incumbants of the office of the ministry who are authorized by a local congregation`s divine call to administer publicly in its name and in its midst the Office of the Keys, that is, the power to forgive sins by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. If and when a man resigns this authority he becomes once again an ordinary layman.

Wrongheaded say the anti-Waltherians.

Like always when the argument reaches this point the anti-Waltherians, having learned from their success with confusing the meaning of the terms "church" and "office of the ministry" to befog their converts (psuedo-Waltherians), work hard at creating more fog to confuse the issue of who is and who is not an incumbent of the office of the ministry.

Prof. Marquart certainly seems to get off on the right foot : "The ministry is for the distribution of Gospel-treasures and for that alone....." (121) "If the task of the church isn't the distribution of Gospel treasures but something else, then it is no longer an evangelical institution in the sense of AC V." (123)

Keeping in mind that according to The Position all who have been ordained are incumbants of the office of the ministry and that ordination is for life, it is clear that incumbency is in no way dependent on a local congregation or any other "particular church" but alone on ordination. The only part congregations or other particular churches play is that of providing incumbents a venue for the "distribution of Gospel treasures,... the (alone) task of the church, "

Where one serves, what "particular church" he serves in, what tasks (functions) he labors at, none of it has a bearing on his status as an incumbent of the office of the ministry. Once ordained, ordained for life with lifelong authority to distribute "Gospel treasures," which, as it turns out, includes much more than preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments and can be accomplished in a variety of ways within a multitude of vocations both "churchly" and secular. But no matter the vocation the incumbent has the authority for all time to claim "I am an ordained Lutheran minister with authority to publicly administer the means of grace anytime I am called upon to do so either with or apart from authorization by some `particular church.'"

Conclusion

With the principles of The Position firmly entrenched in the governing polity of a synod a member congregation - more particularly, the vested voters assembly of that congregation, Loehe's "mob" - is devoid of any ecclesiastical power. Its exclusive, God-given authority to by its call confer on men of its choosing the authority to publicly administer the forgiveness of sins by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments has been effectively wrested from it, usurped by a humanly-devised organization in open rebellion against God, the usurped authority handed down generation after generation from the ordained to the ordained, its genesis traced to 15th century Rome.

The position Prof. Marquart trumpets in The Church is totally at odds with Missouri's official position on church and ministry as reaffirmed in Resolution 7-17A, which is the position of Scripture and the Confessions. Continuing to tolerate the propagation of it in the classrooms of our seminaries is intolerable. It must end.

Epilogue

Lessons learned from professors residing in the ether regions of academia where opinings have little immediate consequences are often, in application, once the halls of ivy are left behind, ballooned into grotesque shapes.

A few months ago a message was posted on the CAT41 web site highlighting one of the principles of The Position applied out in the field where the action is.29In an effort to illustrate how The Position is justified in including organizations like a synod in its definition of "church," the writer conjures up a congregation partitioned into two mutually exclusive organizations. One is designated congregation-l, the congregation of the left hand; the other congregation-r, the congregation of the right hand.

Congregation-l has the cookies; congregation-r the Keys. Congregation-l's competition is Kiwanis, VFW and MADD; congregation-r's is TBN . Congregation-l is governed by the fussy voters assembly; congregation-r by the pastor. Congregation-l paves the parking lot, chooses carpet colors, fixes the roof; congregation-r is above all that, insulated from the l-congregation by the walls of the pastor's office, the door of which only the select may enter - as assistants on request - his. In short, congregation-l, or more particularly, in reality, congregation-l's vested voter's assembly, is devoid of any spiritual authority; congregation-r, more particularly congregation-r's head, the pastor, has it all. Summarizing: congregation-r has the Word and the sacraments. It is church; congregation-l has pots and pans, hammer and nails, basketball and bowling. It is not church.

Imposing this specter on a federation of congregation-ls and congregation-rs the writer comes up with a synod-l and a synod-r. Synod-l is an extension of congregation-l and is charged with doing busy-work like running colleges and seminaries, printing things, maintaining retirement funds, etc., etc., etc. This synod is not church. Synod-r conducts chapel services, does missionary work, chaplains the armed forces, meets in convention, things like that. This synod is church.

To a Waltherian this is pure nonsense and not worthy of serious discussion. Seen from the perspective of Synod's official position on church and ministry, a local congregation, organized for the express purpose of publicly administering the power of the Office of the Keys to forgive sins and unlike any other organization on earth, is always a church in the Scriptural sense of that word. A synod never is. Everything a congregation does must have as its purpose and end both the faithful proclamation of the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins and the sanctified actions that come as a result of that Good News. If an activity a congregation is involved in does not fit this criteria then that activity has no place in the congregation.

This bizarre idea of a left- and right-handed congregation and an all-powerful ordained minister apart from whom there can be no "church" is an example of how the junk theology emanating out of our seminaries and the Commission On Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) on all matters concerning this subject is carried into our congregations. It misleads our people and undermines the God-given authority that they alone have to confer on men of their choosing the highest office in the church, namely, the authority to publicly forgive sins in the name and in the stead of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Once the authority to publicly administer the power of the Office of the Keys to forgive sins is removed from those to whom God gave it, namely, local congregations of believers, and put into the hands of an exclusive, humanly-devised order of ecclesiastics chaos must always follow with justification the ultimate victim. History is witness to the inevitability of this outcome. We are witness to history headed in that direction right now in the Missouri Synod.

Dr. Walther had it right:

"We are not fighting for a particular constituted division which calls itself Lutheran....The object of our struggle is nothing else than the true faith, the pure truth, the unfalsified Gospel the pure foundation of the apostles and prophets." ( Concordia Theological Monthly; Oct., 1961, pp. 601, 605).

Endnotes

1. -Church and Ministry:Church - http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/textchurch.html

2. - Church and MinistryMinistry http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/textministry.html

3a. - 1851 to 2003

a -From Dau, Engelder, and Dallmann Preface - "The draft of the treatise was submitted in 1851 to the Fifth Convention of the Missouri Synod at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and discussed in eight sessions. Unanimously the convention voted its enthusiastic approval of Walther's effort and ordered its publication" -http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00004.htm

3b. -July 2001 Convention - http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/text717A.html

4. -

Is the formation of congregations or membership in already existing congregations left to the option of the Christians, or is it God's will and ordinance? This question is of great practical importance because there have at all times been people who, while they claimed to be Christians, declared that they were free to join or not to join a congregation, that this was an adiaphoron. We maintain: (1) Because it is the will and order of God that Christians who dwell in one locality should not merely read God's Word privately, but also fellowship with one another, hear God's Word publicly preached, to that end establish the public ministry among themselves and after its establishment make use of it; and (2) because it is the duty not only of the individual Christian, but also of the congregation to admonish and reprove the sinning brother, the whole congregation is enjoined to exercise Christian discipline; and (3) because in particular the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar is not merely a church custom, but a divine order for the exercise of brotherly communion (1 Cor. 10:17; 1 Cor. 11:17-21, 33): therefore the formation of Christian congregations, and membership in them, is not a human, but a divine mandate. Accordingly, our Church accepts no "resignation" from membership in a Christian congregation, because neither individuals nor a whole congregation have the authority to grant a dispensation from a divine institution.

4b. -

2. THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF LOCAL CHURCHES.

The question whether local churches exist by divine institution or command, so that believers living at one place must either organize such churches where they do not exist or join them where they do exist, is of great importance.

To the objection of those who deny this point on the ground that membership in the Church Universal is sufficient for salvation and that Christ has given His followers no direct command to establish or to join local churches, so that local churches are free organizations, founded by men as the practical needs of believers in this world have made them necessary, we reply that it is indeed God's will and appointment-

a) That all believers living at one place should establish in their midst the public ministry and make diligent use of it by hearing and learning God's Word as it is proclaimed by the divinely called ministers, Eph 4, 3 - 6; Acts 2, 42 - 47; 14, 23; 20, 28; 1 Cor. 12. 28; 1 Pet. 5, 2. 3; Titus 1, 5

b) That they should together celebrate Holy Communion, 1 Cor. 11, 26; 10,17, and exercise the duties of Christian fellowship and love, 1 Cor. 11, 33; 1, 10; Acts 6, 1-6; Col. 3, 15. 16;

c) That they should not only privately reprove an erring brother, Matt. 18,15.16, but also as a church, or congregation, rebuke and discipline impenitent sinners, Matt. 18,17; 1 Cor. 5,13.

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, enjoined so definitely, cannot be performed.

This principle is in full accord with the practise 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, 1 Cor. 1, 2; Rom. 1, 7; Gal. 1, 2; Eph. 1,1; Phil. 1,1; Acts 20, 28; 14, 23; 1 Cor. 5, 13; 2 Cor. 2, 6 - 8; Titus 1, 5; Rev. 1-3.

For this reason we rightly insist that the ban of excommunication, Matt. 18, 17; 1 Cor. 6, 13, should be declared by local churches and not by assemblies of Christians which have not been divinely instituted. Among such bodies we may classify all conferences, synods, and similar convocations which are established for the furtherance of Christ's kingdom and cause. Yet even with respect to synods, conferences, and similar organizations, Christians must always be guided by the rule of Christian love, 2 Cor. 13,11; 1 Cor. 16,14; Rom. 13,10.

4c. -

The local church, or congregation. -The Bible speaks of "churches" throughout Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria (Acts 9: 31), of the "church which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1: 2), and of the "church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts S: 1). In these texts the word "church" does not refer to Christians here and there in the world, but to those in a certain place or locality, among whom existed a definite fellowship (Acts 2: 42; 4: 32).

A local congregation is a visible organization; it is the natural outgrowth of following God's command to assemble for the hearing of God's Word and the administration of the Sacraments. Hypocrites belonging thereto are members in name only, and not in fact; they do not form an integral part of the congregation. Only they that were "sanctified in Christ, called to be saints" constituted the local church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1: 2); "all that believed" were members of the church at Jerusalem. Hence, only the true believers in a given congregation really constitute that church to which the Office of the Keys is given by Christ. (Cf., Apol., Art. VII, VIII, 3, Triglot, p.227)

Since Christians should establish the ministry of the Word in their midst, exercise brotherly discipline, partake of the Lord's Supper in testimony of the communion of faith, every Christian will gladly become, and remain, a member of a local church.

The local congregation is recognized as the visible Church in the Scriptures (Matt. 18: 17. 20; Acts 9: 31; 1 Cor. 1: 2; Acts 8: 1). We read nothing about synods and similar organizations in that day. In our day synods and similar organizations are formed by a number of congregations for purposes other than the establishment of the public ministry; they exist by human right, and because their purposes, while related, are not the fundamental purposes of a local congregation, they do not possess the prerogatives and powers of the local church. They, nevertheless, serve as great blessings to local congregations and to individual Christians, because by united effort certain great things can be achieved for the kingdom of God.

5a. - Pieper VOL. III

p. 421 - On the other hand, the union of congregations into larger church bodies, such as conferenes, synods, etc., has not been ordained by God. The command "Tell it unto the church," according to the context, pertains to the local church, or congregation. and it must be restricted to the local church. "Tell it unto the synod," etc., is a human device. Accordingly, WaTther (Pastorale, p. 393) remarks correctly: "An association of a number of congregatons to form a larger church body with governing officers, e.g., by means of a synod with the authority of supervlslon, a so-called superior board [Oberkirchenkollegium), a consistory, a bishop, etc., is not of divine right, but only a human arrangement and therefore it is not absolutely necessary, of this there can be no doubt because there is no divine command for it." On this fact is based our synodical practice to accept the resignation of congregations from synod if a congregation, in spite of all efforts to dissuade it, remains of the opinion that because of circumstances it would be better for it to sever its connection with synod. (p.421)

p. 427 - Christ has commissioned neither some one person (Pope, princes, governors, presidents, etc.), nor a college of persons (bishops, pastors, board of directors, consistories, parliaments, conferences, synods, councils, etc. ) to decide and ordain ecclesiastical matters for the Church in any binding the conscience.....Of course, the Church is free to take care of some things through representatives chosen by it for this purpose. Thus the elders or the church council can represent a congregation, and conferences, synods, councils, etc., can represent other Christians and small or large groups of congrations. But if we ask what authority or power these representatives, these ecclesiae representativae, have, the answer is: With respect to the congreation and the individual Christians they always have only advisory power.

5b. - J. T. Mueller

Neither individual persons (Popes, princes, presidents) nor assemblies (church councils, synods, pastoral conferences, parliaments, consistories) have been ordained by our Lord to decide questions of faith or church polity. For all questions of doctrine, Scripture is the only source and norm, 1 Pet. 4, 11, while questions pertaining to the external management of the churches are adiaphora, Acts 4, 32; 15, 22-29; 1, 15-26, which must be decided in brotherly love according to the principle of Christian order and expediency, 1 Cor. 14, 40.

However, it is not contrary to Scripture to have Christian believers, in certain ecclesiastical affairs, represented by persons duly elected by them. Thus elders may represent local congregations, and special delegates may represent entire groups of local churches at synods or conferences. But such a representative Church (ecclesia repraesentativa) has only so much authority as has been delegated to it by the express declaration of the local churches which it represents. In itself it has not legislative, but only advisory power; that is to say, what the representative Church decides must be in agreement with the will of the churches which it represents and must always be ratified by them.

In accord with this principle the Constitution of the Missouri Synod declares with respect to the relation of Synod to the local churches (chap. IV): "So far as the self-government of the local churches is concerned, Synod is only an advisory body." This declaration rests upon the correct, Scriptural principle that the local church is divinely appointed and is vested not only with the Office of the Keys, but with supreme authority to direct all matters pertaining to church polity, Matt.18,15-18; 1 Cor.5,11-13; 14, 33-36. (Cp. Luther, St. L., IX, 1253f.; X, 1540ff.; XIX, 958ff.; Christl.Dogmatik, III, 492-501.)

Hence there is no ecclesia repraesentativa in the sense that either the clergy or church councils or synods or church conventions have authority to "determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of His Church, . . . which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in His Word" (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, XXI).

Synods and councils which arrogate to themselves such authority imitate the papistic practise and set aside the rights and privileges of the local church, which is indeed "an ordinance of (God, appointed thereunto in His Word."

Once more, however, let us repeat that local churches have authority neither to set aside God's Word nor to offend against Christian love. In all matters of doctrine and life they are bound to Holy Scripture, and in all cases of church management or church polity (adiaphora) their supreme concern must be the highest welfare of the Church, Christian love being the deciding factor in all disputes or differences of opinion.

Synods and councils (Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians) are not a sort of superchurch, but it is the local church that is supreme, because it is an ordinance of Christ. All other questions on this point belong to the domain of Pastoral Theology.

6. -

"New Missouri," on the other hand, has tended to see the churchly nature and dignity of the local congregation and its ministry more and more in juridical or organizational, rather than theological terms.10 This attitude, reflected also in A Statement of 1945,11 implied that synods and their officials might behave in unchurchly ways, since they were not churches and ministers anyway. This fostered organizationalism and unionism. 12

As for Walther and Pieper, it is not too much to say that they could not have imagined the Missouri Synod as a non-church. The whole point of the Synod's constitution was to enable "the confessing and teaching church" to attend jointly to "every particular churchly purpose," with the church's confession not a perfunctory formality, but actually shaping and permeating "the whole constitution and the church's entire way of acting" and "the discipline and governance of the church in general."13 For Walther it was obvious that "particular churches" are not only local congregations but also entire confessional fellowships or communions, such as the Lutheran Church14. In his famous Iowa District essay on the chief duties of a properly Lutheran synod Walther spoke of a synod as "a living member of the Body of Christ" and of the Missouri Synod as "a true daughter of her mother, namely, of the Lutheran Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession."15Pieper too defined "churches" as both "congregations and church bodies",16 and in his essay on "Church and Church Government" insisted on the right government of the church through synodical arrangements. 17

--------------------------

10. Y. Brilioth, ed., World Lutheranism of Today, 115.

11. Thesis Six wanted "questions of fellowship" shifted more to "the local congregation."

12. The Crucible, published briefly from London in 1939 by the brilliant W. M. Oesch, was founded to counteract especially in Missouri also "the Calvinistic and Romanistic views of the nature of the Church (as though it were essentially visible and a sector of society) and of the functions of the Church (as though it were one of its functions to assist society)."

13. Der Lutheraner, vol. 3, no. 1 [5 Sept. 1846], 2.

14. Church and Ministry, p. 111; True Visible Church, esp. theses IV [which cites the BC's "entire churches inside or outside the Holy Empire of the German Nation"], and V-XXV. Thesis XXIII is mistranslated as though "particular churches" meant simply local congregations.

15. 1879 LCMS lowa District Proceedings, 116,118.

16. Christian Dogmatics, III:422-427.

17. "Kirche und Kirchenregiment," 1896 LCMS Proceedings, 27-46

7. - Marquart

From the very beginning the LWF was troubled by the problem of its own nature. Was it a churchly fellowship, or was it purely a forum or conference for external co-operation and for the pursuit of common interests, such as theological discussions? The question was pressed by the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia (UELCA), which belonged to the LWF, but was engaged in merger negotiations with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia (ELCA). The latter church shared the Missouri Synod's objection to the LWF as in fact involving a "union in spiritual matters" without doctrinal unity.

The issues raised by the Australian church went "to the very heart of the nature of a federation and particularly the nature of the L.W.F." The next LWF Assembly in Helsinki (1963) was torn in opposite directions on this point. On the one hand, expert opinions both in theology and in "church-law" had made it crystal clear that the LWF was theologically already a church, and was becoming more so also organizationally. Moreover, in the lecture which received by far the most tumultuous and prolonged applause of any in Helsinki, E. C. Nelson (ALC) argued that the various Lutheran churches of the world by virtue of their common confession made up a "Lutheran World Church," and should simply "declare themselves to be in fellowship," such a declaration being "long over-due." On the other hand, "the church-political motive of facilitating a hoped for membership of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in the LWF influenced the whole debate" at Helsinki. The result was a down-playing of the LWF's churchly nature, and the adoption of minor constitutional amendments designed to stress the federative, instrumental nature of the LWF. Such church-political dissimulation, or "prudential concern," as Nelson's Helsinki essay described it more elegantly, had evidently been a policy of long standing:

No doubt the leaders of the Lutheran World Convention and the Lutheran World Federation felt they were acting wisely in making disclaimers of intentions to being or becoming "a church" in a constitutional sense. But, that organized world Lutheranism was an expression of the ekklesia had already been recognized (Jorgensen: "It is a Church"). Nevertheless, a prudential concern dictated then that haste be made slowly, in order to dissipate anxieties and to avoid shattering by precipitous action what had already been achieved.

In the event the tactical retreat proved in vain. The Missouri Synod did not join the LWF, and the Australian UELCA was actually obliged to withdraw from the LWF for the sake of church fellowship (1965) and amalgamation (1966) with the ELCA into the Lutheran Church of Australia (LCA). The LCA's Document of Union spelt out the basic "ecclesiological problem" with exemplary clarity: "Can a federation with a specific doctrinal basis act in essential church work (in sacris) on behalf of its member Churches without itself assuming the character of Church in the New Testament sense?"

This way of putting the matter cuts through the confused shadow-boxing about whether or not the LWF is a "superchurch." To define "church" in terms of power to compel or chains of command is to follow Roman Catholic or possibly Anglican models. For Lutherans it should be clear that the LWF need not be a "superchurch" in order to be a church. In fact the anti-superchurch constitutional provision of 1963 - that the LWF, as "agent" of its member churches, "shall not exercise churchly functions on its own authority" actually documents the LWF's churchly nature: "For the first time in the history of the Federation the Constitution clearly admits that the Federation exercises churchly functions."

On the basis of the biblical and confessional teaching about church-fellowship one can only agree that "wherever continued co-operation in the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments and worship exists, there we have a witness to the world of unity in the faith and a profession of church fellowship." This necessarily means also that whether something is "church" or not depends not on what it calls itself or on assorted legal formalities, but on what it actually does. If it does what only the church can do then it thereby lays claim to being church in the New Testament sense. To argue, "It is not a church because it is a federation," is rather like saying, "This is not money because it is paper." The terms simply move on different semantic tracks. "Church" says something theological, while "federation" only specifies an organizational form. There is no reason why a church (e.g. a Lutheran church independent of the state) cannot be organized in the shape of a federation of congregations, indeed that is often the case. For Lutherans, only realities, not formalities, decide whether something is or is not church.

8. - Marquart - note 6

9. - Marquart-note 6, n14

10. - Marquart (p. 75, n 58)

This so called "doctrinal dicipline" must not be confused with "church discipline" in general, which is an additional mark of the church for the Reformed, but not for Lutherans (FC SD XII, 34). If anti-evangelical teaching is granted equal rights with the truth in pulpits, seminaries, and publications, this is no mere lapse in discipline. It is rather a church-divisive and church-destructive attack on the Dominical and apostolic foundations of the church, Eph. 2:20. A necessary corollary of the above is Walther's thesis: "True Evangelical Lutheran particular and local churches or congregations are only those in which the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as set out in her Symbols, is not only legally recognized, but also holds sway in public preaching" (True Visible Church, 133. The translation given there is slightly inaccurate). On the basis of Jer. 8:8 Walther adds that the lip-service of "nominal Lutherans" to the orthodox Confessions- when in fact false doctrine prevails among them-"must be rejected as vain boasting." (emphasis added)

11. - Dau

True Ev. Lutheran churches are those only in which the teaching of the Ev. Lutheran Church, as laid down in its Symbols, is not only acknowledged officially but is also in vogue in the public preaching, Jer. 8:8; Matt. 10:32 f.

12. - True Visible Church - pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/visiblechurch.html

13. - Original Church:VI and 6 translations - http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/6church6.html

14. -

Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 16 (April, 1943) no. 1:1-18 Public Domain

11. Ordination and induction of newly called pastors shall be performed by the President in accordance with the restrictions placed on him in VI, A, 11. Ordinations are to be performed with at least one neighboring pastor assisting, and if possible, before the respective congregation, with a ceremony in which the candidate promises to adhere to the Symbolical Books, and according to the formula of a recognized orthodox agenda.

Ordination shall be accorded only to him who has received a legitimate call from and to a particular congregation and who has by a previous examination been found to be sound in faith, fit to teach, and beyond reproof in his life. The so-called licenses which are in use in this country are not given by Synod, because they are against Scripture and proper church practice.

15. - Cleveland Resolution http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/text6-35.html

16. - Home - http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/textindex.html

17. - Wollenburg paper - http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/textwollburg.html

18. -Dau-Engelder-Dallmann C & M - http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00004.htm

19. - Marquart

p. 112 - The term "Ubertragungstheorie" ("transfer theory") may sound satisfyingly precise, but really it is not. It has become a handy bugaboo, almost as sinister when deprived of its xenophobic overtones by translation into English, as in the original German. Actually the word "ubertragen" need not mean precisely "transfer." The context sometimes demands the less pointed sense of "convey," "bestow," or "confer." In the doctrine of the ministry the argument is not about whether something is conveyed (ubertragen), but about how and by whom this is done. Since, as nearly all agree, those who at some point become ministers were not such before, they must obviously have the ministry conveyed to them somehow and by someone. This is all that the word "ubertragen," in and of itself, means in this context. The whole argument is about how and through whom this happens.

It is interesting that S.P. Hebart's classic 1939 Lohe-interpretation, despite its anti-Missouri tenor, repeatedly described Lohe's own position in terms of the office being "ubertragen," conveyed, not indeed "by the local congregation, but by Christ through men." Nor is this all. Hebart pointed out that according to Luther and the Confessions the Gospel office is properly conferred [ubertragen] by the church even without the particular forms of ordination rgarded a divinely instituted and necessary by Lohe.

20. - Marquart (pp. 118 - 119)

Finally, it is vital to note that "when Luther lets the office act on behalf of or in the name of the universal priesthood, he wants thereby to say something not about the origin of the office what he has to say about the origin of the office treats of its divine institution-but rather something about the meaning of the office." This communal possession and transmission of the office by the church has nothing to do with a "social contract" or other secular ideologies. Here is the church of God, in which Christ "has become one cake with us," so that all heavenly treasures are held in common. This [Greek word] (fellowship, communion, participation), weakly reflected in the [Greek word] of earthly goods (Acts 2:42; 4:32), transcends all creaturely limits in making Christians [Greek] (partakers) of the very divine nature (II Pet. 1:4). It is in this context that Luther sees the ministry of the Gospel and sacraments as gifts belonging to the church, and so to all Christians (I Cor. 3: 21.22; Eph. 4:8.11). But: "what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called." It is not a matter of "many individual rights, which the many delegate to particular Christians. Luther maintains the exact opposite: what is the common property of all, to that no individual has a right." By her call, the church does not gather individual functions into one cumulative bouquet. Rather, she conveys the public administration of her common possessions, that public administration being itself a divinely instituted office, and as such also part and parcel of the church's treasures.

It was just this, and not any Schleiermacher/Hofling version of the "social contract," that Luther's faithful pupil, C.F.W. Walther, expressed in his 7th Thesis on the Ministry: "The holy ministry [Predigtamt, preaching office] is the power, conferred by God through the congregation as the possessor of the priesthood and of all church power, to exercise the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office on the communality's behalf." 26 Today the "Lutheran" thesis "that Word and sacrament are assigned to the whole church and are performed [vollzogen] by the priestly people communally [als Gemeinschaft, as fellowship, communion, community]," is, despite confessional variations, becoming an ecumenical commonplace, being represented "with emphasis" also within Roman Catholicism. 27

26. Walther's "won Gemeinschaftswegen" is not correchy translated "in the name of the congregation" (Church and Ministry, 268). Our "communality" is admittedly awkward, but "commonwealth" would have sounded too political. The idea is that of a community of goods, of a common and corporate possession.

27. W. Stein, Das Kirchliche Amt bei Luther, 214. See his impressive references to Roman Catholic theologians. The Lima Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry document has a section entided "The Calling of the Whole People of God," but the text is diplomatlcally iclusive and therefore theologically nebulous.

21. - Marquart - (pp. 151 - 156)

p. 151 - What then is ordination? The word "ordination" comes from the Latin ordo (order), and is a close relative of "ordinance." It is in this general, substantive sense of "ordering, arranging, appointing"-as distinct from any ritual, ceremonial meaning-that the English Bible uses "ordain," for instance in Acts 10:42 [Greek word], Acts 13:48 [Greek], Acts 14:23 [Geek], Acts 17:31 [Greek], Rom. 13:1 ([Greek], cf. v.2, "ordinance," greek), nt. 1:5 [Greek], and Heb. 8:3 ([Greek], cf. 7:28). The old hymn reflects this meaning exactly: "What God ordains is always good." The Book of Concord likewise uses "ordinare/ ordinatio" mainly in the sense of "order, institute/ ordinance, institution"- as applied for instance to marriage, civil arrangements, and sacraments.14 Applied to the ministry, "ordinare" (ordain)/"ordinatio" (ordination) means basically nothing else than "ordering" or placing someone into the "order" (better: office) of the public ministry. What specific ceremonies or rituals (e.g. laying on of hands) are to be used in this connection, is another, secondary question, which should not be mixed into the primary, substantive, and root meaning of "ordination" as placement into the public ministry.

14. See for example AC and Ap. XVI; AC XXVII.18; Ap. Vll/VIII.50; XV.43; XXII.2, 5, XXIII.7-9, 12; XXVII.46; XXVIII.2; LC Baptism.l9, 22, 39, 60.

p. 152 - One must distinguish, therefore, between the theological "what" or substance of ordination, and its ritual form or "how." The former is a divine institution, in the sense that the bestowal or communication ("Ubertragung"!) of the divine institution of the ministry through God's mediate call is itself part and parcel of the divine institution. 'Vocation" or "call" and "ordination" in this substantive sense cover exactly the same ground. Luther: "For ordaining should consist of, and be understood as, calling to and entrusting with the office of the ministry. . . Our consecration shall be called ordination, or a call to the office." In the narrow sense of the liturgical form or ceremony of the laying on of hands, however, ordination is not a divine institution, or something on which the validity of the ministry depends, but a good, apostolic and churchly custom (Acts 6:6; 13:3; I Tim. 4:14; 5:22; II Tim. 1:6), to be observed for that reason, but without superstition.

Mere apostolic custom and example cannot constitute a sacrament. The Lord Himself never "ordained" the apostles with the laying on of hands. He did in fact breathe His Spirit upon them (Jn. 20:22). This action, in the absence of an express Dominical mandate, instituted ordination-by-spiration no more than Mk. 10:16 establishes child-blessing ceremonies apart from Baptism.16 Even the Roman Catholic K. Rahner, having described Pius XII's insistence on the laying on of hands in ordination as "a positive ecclesiastical directive," says: "This mode of the transmission of a ministry through the laying on of hands is certainly not divine Law. Really such a transmission of ministry can be thought of as taking place in any way, provided it is evident and clear."

p. 153 - Biblically, the question about the laying on of hands comes to a head when we compare I Tim. 4:14, "the gift which was given you through [Greek] prophecy with [Greek] imposition of the presbyterium's hands," with II Tim. 1:6, "the gift of God which is in you through [Greek] the imposition of my hands." Assuming that both texts describe the same event, the simple [Greek]of the shorter, more telescoped version must be resolved into the instrumental [Geek] plus the merely associative [Greek] of the more detailed account. Strictly speaking then, the "gift" came through prophecy, to the accompaniment of the laying on of the hands of the college of presbyters, Paul's among them. If, on the other hand, a contrast is intended between the mere [Greek] in respect of the presbyters (who likely included both teaching and '1ay" elders, I Tim. 5:17) and a fully instrumental [Greek] in Paul's own case, then we are face to face here with Paul's distinctively apostolic prerogatives (Acts 8:18; 28:8; II Cor. 12:12; etc.), from which no conclusions may therefore be drawn for the efficacy of the imposition of non-apostolic hands, including Timothy's. Hands were laid on in various connections in both Old and New Testaments. We accept with Kelly that "ordination or appointment to office in the apostolic Church was modeled on the contemporary Jewish rite for the ordination of rabbis," and that this "in turn found its inspiration in Joshua's ordination as described in Num. xxvii. 18-23 and Deut. xxxiv. 9. . ."19 The laying on of hands has always been understood in Reformation theology basically as pointed or focused prayer.

p. 154 -That is the meaning of the standard rubric that the pastor is to place his hands on the baby's head while praying the Our Father at Baptism. Similarly, the rubric about touching the bread and the cup at the words of consecration reflects the ancient practice of the laying on of hands on the elements, and signals that it is this bread and this cup, and not all the bread and wine in the city or in the building, to which, by the mandate and promise of Christ, His Word is being added, to make them a sacrament (St. Augustine). No Lutheran theologian has ever imagined, however, that the pastor's hands add any "second blessing" to Baptism, or that the celebrant's touching-or not touching-the elements in any way affects the consecratory power of Christ's words. Just so in ordination the imposition of hands concretely invites the prayers of God's people for, and invokes His blessings upon that particular man being ordained. "And this earnest prayer at the ordination of ministers is not without effect," says Chemnitz, "because it rests upon a divine command and promise."

When the Apology states, by way of concession, that "we shall not object either to calling the laying on of hands a sacrament" (Ap. XIII.12), this is clearly meant as synechdochc letting a part stand for the whole. The argument is that the public ministry of Word and sacrament-as distinct from a neo-Levitical caste of mass-sacrificers is divinely instituted. Therefore, if ordination [Latin: ordo] means putting someone into this divinely instituted of fice, the action may be called sacramental in that sense. And if all this-the whole mediate call by God through the church-is thought of as culminating concretely in the prayer-gesture of the laying on of hands, then even that action may for that reason and in that sense be called "sacrament." The whole point is not that the laying on of hands is divinely instituted or has any intrinsic sacramental power, but that it shines in the reflected light of the real divine institution, the Gospel ministry: "For the ministry of the

p.155 - Word has the mandate of God and has magnificent promises. . . For the church has the mandate to appoint ministers" (Ap. XIII. 11, 12). The theological that, not a ceremonial how, is divinely instituted, and the how is synechdochically-spoken of as sacramental only for the sake of, and by virtue of its connection to, the that. Any other interpretation would fly in the face of everything that is known about Luther's and Melanchthon's understanding of this matter. The Apology and the Treatise were written by the same author, and cannot reasonably be construed to contradict each other. And the Treatise gives the standard Lutheran view, which at least on this point quite remarkably anticipates what seems to be evolving into a modern ecumenical commonplace: "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 [comprobatio, co-approval, attestation]" (Tr. 70). One can only agree with Fagerberg therefore in rejecting various "attempts to attribute a sacramental significance to [the laying on of hands] on the basis of [Ap.] XIII.12."

p.156 - That said, however, one must likewise agree with Fagerberg that "according to Ap. XIV the call also includes a form of ordination." Dogmatically this means that the whole church or congregation, that is, both hearers and preachers, must be allowed their rightful roles in the process of placing a man into the ministry. Good, churchly, apostolic order further requires-by human right-that the candidate be ordained with the laying on of hands by those already in office. The validity of ordination does not, as we have seen, depend on the laying on of hands as such. That is why in exceptional situations of utter isolation the ceremony may be omitted, or administered by the congregation's lay-leaders. Yet on no account is ordination with the laying on of hands to be omitted in normal circumstances. To despise this apostolic custom and order of the church is to be "an obstinate ass" (Dannhauer).Typical of the Old Lutheran attitude is the 1564 reply by the Rostock theological faculty to the question: "Whether a doctor theologiae who himself has not been ordained may administer sacramenta and ordain others?" The long and the short of it is that while the necessity for such ordination is not absolute, practically "the public ceremony of the ordination with the imposition of hands is for highly important reasons customary in all churches of these lands, which also the Apostles have observed, Acts 6:13,18,19, I Tim. 4:5; 2 Tim. 1; Heb. 6, etc." Therefore "it is useful for the maintenance of Christian order, for the unity of the church, and for the dignity of the holy ministry, that the ordination be maintained uniformly with all persons who are in the ecclesiastical office."

22. - Marquart (p. 149)

p. 149 - Similarly the Apology charitably surmised that "it is likely that here and there in the monasteries there are still some good men serving the ministry of the Word. . ." (Ap XXVII.22). In other words, the Gospel ministry and its transmission are and remain valid even if the supporting church takes on quite eccentric outward shapes. Nor need conscientious ministers worry that some maneuverings behind the scenes might thwart the will of God for them. He who graciously overruled the evil intent of Joseph's jealous brothers (Gen. 45:5; 50:20), is well able to outwit cantankerous committees and scheming prelates, in order to work His will upon His church and ministry, whether in judgment or in gracc but the former always for the sake of the latter!

These considerations have already touched on the question of the ministry's proper contribution to the calling of ministers. We shall not go far wrong if we always remember the underlying relationships: the church is Christ's, and the ministry is His gift to her, and so part of her. Since the ministry is the church's "public service," public actions of the church are normally and naturally performed through that public ministry. It is pointless to ask therefore: "Is it the church or the ministry doing this?"-as though two separate entities were acting. It is rather Christ's church which baptizes, confesses, teaches, consecrates, prays, serves, and does everything else, including the appointment of ministers and in so far as she acts publicly and officially, she does all this with and through her (and Christ's!) public, official ministry, without any competition between them.

Three main focal points may be distinguished in the callmg or vocation of ministers: (1) the examination and determination of the candidates' fitness or qualifications; (2) the election of a particular person or persons; (3) the public and solemn inauguration and installation of those properly qualified into the public ministry, in the public worship of the church. Of these elements it is clear that the second pertains mainly to the hearers, while the first and third belong primarily to the public teachers, but never to the exclusion of the rest of the church. So, for instance, "[i]t goes without saying that those who are already in the ministry and profess the pure doctrine can best judge the qualities if such as are to be called into the ministry." 12 (emphasis added)

12. J Gerhard, quoted in Walther's Church and Ministry, 232

23 & 24- Grabau

1. The First Years in America

It is not my purpose to write a history of the emigration of our congregations, but only a brief biography of my sainted father. Nevertheless, since his course of life was so intimately associated with the history of our congregations and particularly with their emigration, I cannot skip over certain events which will be necessary for a better understanding of later events which took place in Buffalo.

2. The Beginning of the Doctrinal Controversy with the Missouri Synod

In 1840, due to a preacher shortage, disorders occurred here and there in the ministry. Certain individual laymen undertook to officiate contrary to the 14th Article of the Augsburg Confession. Pastor Grabau took occasion to warn in a pastoral letter (Hirtenbrief) against such officiating without a call. He also pointed out the necessity of a proper call, and what was required to explain the Word of God and the Symbols of the Church.

Such a pastoral letter Grabau also sent to the Saxon pastors in Missouri in order to prepare for a Christian fellowship with them. But as they criticized the same in a review and through their published constitution, teachings and theses, Pastor Grabau found it necessary to reject them as contrary to the Word of God. Consequently there began the controversy which has now existed for thirty-nine years between the Buffalo and Missouri Synods because the Missouri preachers continued to defend their views and acted accordingly by accepting excommunicated members and organizing opposition congregations.

In the First Synodical Letter of 1845 the following may be read concerning this matter: "You know that since 1840 false spirits arose in our own congregations who in a foolish and a selfish zeal falsified the pure doctrine of the Church concerning the person and states of Christ, the union of His two natures, the Law and the Gospel, etc., and considered their own opinions more highly...............

129

"In 1840 we also sent with brotherly confidence a copy of this pastoral letter to the Lutheran preachers in Missouri, who had separated at the time from Stephan, seeking Christian fellowship which we did not achieve with them in Germany. Contrary to our expectation and without our will we thereupon were placed in sharp opposition to them, partly with regard to the rightful call to the holy ministry in general, and partly and especially concerning the Christian ordination of prospective servants of the Church [angehender Kirchendiener]. We contend, namely, that according to the Word of God: 2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Tim. 5:22; Acts 1:23-26; 14:23; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:1-2- I. examination for qualification, II. election by the congregation, III. ordination of the candidate all belong to the Church, and indeed all three parts without any factional separation and wanton schism from the orthodox Church. We consider these three elements as necessary for a rightful call according to divine order and an orderly manner.(emphasis added)

130

"Contrariwise, the Missouri preachers consider necessary only the examination on the part of the congregation ('Examine the spirits'; 1 John 5:1) and are not concerned whether the calling congregation is a part of the Church or a faction. In connection with ordination they claim that 2 Tim. 2:2 is a command to Timothy and not to the Church. Ordination has therefore no permanent Apostolic command, but is merely commanded for the time, similar to the command to the heathen to abstain from blood (Acts 15).

"These opinions they already held in their new church regulation of 1839, which they imparted to us. We had to cut short our controversy with them because they no longer behaved like honorable colleagues towards our pastors, sending faction preachers (Rottenprediger) to the rebellious slanderers and thus publicly allying themselves with our church enemies. Consequently we sent them another letter as conciliatory as possible, still addressing them as brethren, asking them to change their practice; but received an almost mocking reply. It is certainly more advisable to bear mockery than to answer them again."

In their present extreme every Christian was said to have the right to administer the office because by virtue of his Baptism he has become a priest. Yet he could not usurp this right over others without interfering with theirs. Therefore he must first be called by the congregation. Every cobbler apprentice and every cheesemonger could administer the Holy Supper (Professor Walther's expression at the Buffalo Colloquy). For a proper call only the congregation's election was necessary. Ordination was not of divine origin and therefore was not absolutely necessary! When a congregation took an unlearned, unprepared, and untried man as

131

their preacher, it was not a misconduct, but merely a blunder. (Review of the Pastoral Letter, page 31.) The congregation, as possessor of the office, had all rights pertaining to the Church, but, as prescribed by God, must transfer it to one so as to exercise it in the common interest of all. (italics in the original.) (Cf. Walther's theses in Kirche und Amt.) Therefore the ministerial office consists in this, that "the rights of the spiritual priesthood be exercised publicly by a representation of common interests." Cf. Buffalo Colloquy, p. 12.

Church discipline belongs to the congregation in conjunction with the pastor, who administers the Office of the Keys, etc, but not without the congregation, to whom particularly belongs the final decision in disputed cases. (According to Missouri practice: by vote.) "The decision in matters of conscience belongs to the congregation when the application of the Word of God in certain cases and actions is doubtful" ! ! ! (Cf. Missouri Church Regulations, 1839.)

25. - Loehe - " In 1853 Loehe broke with the Missouri Synod. After the organization in 1847 Loehe commented concerning the Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States; "We fear, certainly with a perfect right, that the fundamental strong mixing of democratic, independent, congregationalistic principles in your constitution will cause great harm, just as the mixing of princes and secular authorities in our land has done." (22) Loehe did not agree with the doctrine of church and ministry which the Synod held. Loehe said that the Office of the Ministry begets the churches, not the other way around. He said, "The office stands in the midst of the church like a fruitful tree that has its seed in itself." He held that the office perpetuates itself from one generation to the next, as one pastor examines and ordains another. He specifically rejected the Missouri Synod's understanding that the Office of the keys have been given to the church or congregation, and that the church confers the office of the public ministry upon a man by a call. (23) " (p. 7)(emphasis added)

Several years later (1859) Loehe conceded that the doctrine of the Missouri Synod was the doctrine of the ministry held by Luther and the Lutheran confessions. In his `Church News From and About North America' - (Kirchliche Nachrichten ous und ueber Nord-Amerika), no. 8:1859 he writes, `The sad experiences which the former Stephanites had with their hierarch, Stephan, have made their hearts very receptive to the doctrine of the ministry held by Luther and subsequent theologians, a teaching also reflected in the Lutheran symbols, especially since this doctrine not only commends itself highly to the Christian mind, but also seems made to order for American circumstances.' (24) Loehe makes it clear that he regards the conception of the ministry that he held and practiced to differ `from the specific-Lutheran and Lutheran-theological course' but opines that his position has a more `artless attachment to Holy Scripture and antiquity and (by) greater truth in practice.'" (p. 8) (Dr. George Wollenburg. Church and Ministry. Paper delivered at the 2002 Walther conference.) (emphasis added) http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/textwollburg.html

26. - WELS Church and Ministry - http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/textwelscm.html

27. - Sasse. We Confess the Church.

p. 81 - "In the light of the foregoing we may then recognize, as our Lutheran fathers did quite clearly, the impossibility of making an essential difference between call and ordination or even making this difference divisive of church fellowship. It is God who calls into His ministry, usually through men, The how is not the decisive thing. Whether He does it through one person, through a collegium, or through a congregation assembled in divine service, it all happens in the name of the church, the whole church, which is the body of Christ, and so it happens in the power of the Holy Spirit."(emphasis added)

p. 107 - "The witness of the Lutheran Confessions will then have to be heard outside the Lutheran World Federation. May this happen only in humility and love! However conscious we may be of our poverty and weakness, this is the great service that is ours to do for those who have lost the confession of the Lutheran Reformation or are in danger of losing it. It is the task of those whose ordination to the Lutheran ministry gave them the authentic apostolic succession. This is no mysterious something that rests on a myth of consecrations. Rather it consists in the clear commission which our Lord gave to His whole church, to proclaim the pure apostolic doctrine and administer the sacraments according to the Gospel!"

28. - New Missouri (CTCR) http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/textdrick.html

29 - Is Schellenbach 'WELSian'? - pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/schellenbachessay.html