Peter wrote about sacrificial living. The LCMS turned it into a governance doctrine. Part II examines what that substitution produces in ordinary congregational life, and at what cost.
Kurt Marquart has a phenomenal treatment of the two-fold nature of the keys in Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics: The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance:
“Ministers are not of course proprietors of the salvific treasures of the church but are rather stewards of them. Nor have they a monopoly of the faithful teaching, confession, and transmission of the evangelic truth. The ministry’s public proclamation is supported by and in turn supports that ceaseless “publishing” (ἐξαγγείλητε) of God’s “virtues,” which is the priestly duty and delight of all who live in and by “His wondrous light” (I Pet. 2:9). The ways in which this happens are as manifold as life’s providential opportunities and responsibilities (Mt. 5:16; Acts 8:4; 18:26; Eph. 5:19; 6:4; II Tim. 1:5; 3:15; I Pet. 2:12–15; 3:1.15). Every housefather and house-mother is to be bishop and bishopess “that you help us exercise the preaching office [Predigtamt] in [your] houses, as we do in the church.”18 Indeed, the Gospel as the power of salvation makes of believers not only priests but also kings and victors over Satan. In this sense—the context illustrates the unselfconscious interplay of formal and informal, priestly and ministerial teaching—Luther even calls the teaching Christian [Christianus docens] “the true God on the face of the earth.”19 This easy interplay between official and unofficial, public and private proclamation of the Gospel is not due to looseness of thought or language. It is rooted in the twofold communication of the Keys of the Kingdom, to the whole church (Mt. 18:18; cf. II Cor. 2:10; Tr. 24) and to her public ministry (Jn. 20:23; cf. Mt. 16:19; Tr. 60–61). But this two-foldness is not symmetrical. The priesthood and the ministry possess the Keys, that is, the liberating, life-giving Gospel, in different modes and respects. The priesthood is the church, the bride of Christ, who as “house-mother of Christendom” possesses all the salvific treasures lavished upon her by her Bridegroom—especially the ministry of the Gospel (Eph. 4:7–13; I Cor. 3:21.22; Tr. 69). The ministry, in turn, administers and distributes the common treasures of God and of the church (Mt. 18:20; Rom. 8:17.32; 10:6–15; I Cor. 4:1; II Cor. 2:14–5:21), and this clearly not in the sense of a pragmatic human arrangement, but by divine mandate, institution, and appointment (AC XXVIII.5–6).”
Good article. For good and for ill, Walter's theses on Church and Office (Kirche und Amt) were canonized as official public doctrine in the LCMS at its 2001 synodical convention. As a pastoral delegate, I argued vigorously in floor committee and from the floor against this move, as it elevated a contextual solution to the level of binding doctrine. Your analysis perfectly describes the "two-ditches" approach to the authority issue in our churches and why we veer from one ditch to the other. For the best treatment of the Priesthood of Believers I know of, see Kenneth Korby's essay to the Montana District. I think it's published somewhere, and I hope to see it published in a more readily available form in the near future. Having heard Dr. Korby expound on the topic, I realize how far we've drifted from the biblical concept of the baptized priesthood by cherry-picking from certain writings of Luther. Also helpful is John Hall Elliot's "The Holy and the Elect," and exegetical treatment of 1 Peter 2:9-10 and my good friend Dr. Thomas Winger's dissertation on the same topic.
You are absolutely correct that the priesthood is not about power or authority but vocational calling, as Luther repeatedly stresses. Our problem is that we tend to pick from Luther's anti-papal writings, which tend to make Luther sound like a low-church Baptist, and we do not balance these with Luther's anti-Enthusiast writings which make him sound like a high church Catholic.
We need to stop repristinating old solutions and return to Scripture and Confessions for our guidance. AC 5, 14, and 28 with the Apology along with the Treatise are all the doctrine of priesthood and ministry that we need. And probably all that can be gleaned from the Scriptures.
I am not sure about Walther & Grabau. But this is how the Scriptures stand in relation to the normed norm of AC V and AC XIV. AC V is substantiated by the Great Commission passages and the 'binding and loosing' passages: Mt 16:16-19, 18:18-20; 28:16-20; Mk 16:14-18; Lk 24:44-49; Jn 20:19-23; Ac 1:4-8; Rm 10:14-15; 2Co 5:17-21. The common theme is the authority on earth to forgive sins, which is a divine authority that had been received by the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus according to his human nature) then transmitted to his body, the church, as an endowment and responsibility. This divine authority is held in common by all who are baptized into and abide in Christ by faith. This authority is then exercised on behalf of an entire congregation by a mature leader who has been tested and approved. AC XIV is thus substantiated by the passages about human forms of leadership: overseers, elders, deacons, and leaders: Ac 20:17, 28-32; Hb 13:17; 1 Pt 5:1-5; and the Titus & Timothy passages. This much seems very clear to me. Scripture also describes the office of the ministry in terms of 5 functions distributed among 'each and every', Eph. 7, 11; apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/shepherds, teachers. Because these are divinely given in Jesus' ascension they pertain until he comes again, as corroborated by 1Co 12:28-31 where the exhortation to desire the higher gifts of prophecy and apostleship implies their continuance. Unfortunately there is much confusion about prophecy and apostleship, but it seems best to me to see these as gifts of grace for contextualizing the Gospel (and law) where new linguistic and cultural boundaries are crossed and new churches established (because the pure Gospel is essential to the church), so that then local leaders (elders) will be raised up and equipped (not least by being gifted by grace) to teach and shepherd at the local level. Thus, divine authority communicated by Christ after his death and resurrection, per 'the great commission;' gifts of grace given by Christ in his ascension, and human positions of servant leadership which require those spiritual giftings. If anyone finds this outline disagreeable, at least please respect my conscience as being bound by what I hold to be clear teachings of Scripture, and keep any discussion focused on the Confessions as a normed norm, with Scripture as the norm for our faith and practice.
What bothers me is the assumption that a particular polity is mandated by Scripture. That is a reformation approach. The classical Lutheran approach is that polity is a adiaphra. We are free to choose whatever polity works. As long as we have congregations and the Holy Office everything else is a matter of freedom. For years Lutheran polity had the church governed by the prince, Cesaropapism. All the Orthodox dogmaticians were just fine with this form of governance. The reformed argued about Episcopacy versus congregationalism versus Presbyterial governance. Lutherans historically not so much.
Also the Old Missouri Synod did not explain 1 Pet 2:9 from the royal priesthood aspect only, look to Stoeckhardt's commentary on that book. Naturally, the royal priesthood has a wider definition than that of the authority within the congregation. But that is an important issue too and was taught by Luther an also Melanchthon, as you can read in the Tract about the Primacy of the Pope and the Power of the Bishops.
That there might be problems within the LCMS today does not change the Biblical truth, that the Christians are the direct and original owners of the keys, which they confer, for public administration, according to divine order, to the public ministry, a divine institution, but without suspending themselves from the ownership. The problems, as are articulated in the article too, might have their reason in a lack of sanctification, even in a doctrinal error regarding sanctification (antinomism, law-gospel-reductionism). That cannot be solved by attacking the authority of the royal priesthood, but only by true doctrine regarding law and gospel, the right distinction of both and the correct use. Walther's book an that item is very instructive and should be used also today, also, for better understanding sanctification, Luther's doctrine on repentance, the Large Catechism, Luther's Freedom Tract, his sermon on good works, his sermons on the twofold and the threefold righteousness. Study Luther's, Walther's, Stoeckhardt's, Lochner's sermons, they are very helpful, since they have both, law and gospel, justification and sanctification.
Kurt Marquart has a phenomenal treatment of the two-fold nature of the keys in Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics: The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance:
“Ministers are not of course proprietors of the salvific treasures of the church but are rather stewards of them. Nor have they a monopoly of the faithful teaching, confession, and transmission of the evangelic truth. The ministry’s public proclamation is supported by and in turn supports that ceaseless “publishing” (ἐξαγγείλητε) of God’s “virtues,” which is the priestly duty and delight of all who live in and by “His wondrous light” (I Pet. 2:9). The ways in which this happens are as manifold as life’s providential opportunities and responsibilities (Mt. 5:16; Acts 8:4; 18:26; Eph. 5:19; 6:4; II Tim. 1:5; 3:15; I Pet. 2:12–15; 3:1.15). Every housefather and house-mother is to be bishop and bishopess “that you help us exercise the preaching office [Predigtamt] in [your] houses, as we do in the church.”18 Indeed, the Gospel as the power of salvation makes of believers not only priests but also kings and victors over Satan. In this sense—the context illustrates the unselfconscious interplay of formal and informal, priestly and ministerial teaching—Luther even calls the teaching Christian [Christianus docens] “the true God on the face of the earth.”19 This easy interplay between official and unofficial, public and private proclamation of the Gospel is not due to looseness of thought or language. It is rooted in the twofold communication of the Keys of the Kingdom, to the whole church (Mt. 18:18; cf. II Cor. 2:10; Tr. 24) and to her public ministry (Jn. 20:23; cf. Mt. 16:19; Tr. 60–61). But this two-foldness is not symmetrical. The priesthood and the ministry possess the Keys, that is, the liberating, life-giving Gospel, in different modes and respects. The priesthood is the church, the bride of Christ, who as “house-mother of Christendom” possesses all the salvific treasures lavished upon her by her Bridegroom—especially the ministry of the Gospel (Eph. 4:7–13; I Cor. 3:21.22; Tr. 69). The ministry, in turn, administers and distributes the common treasures of God and of the church (Mt. 18:20; Rom. 8:17.32; 10:6–15; I Cor. 4:1; II Cor. 2:14–5:21), and this clearly not in the sense of a pragmatic human arrangement, but by divine mandate, institution, and appointment (AC XXVIII.5–6).”
(Ch. 9, Kindle edition)
Thank you.
Good article. For good and for ill, Walter's theses on Church and Office (Kirche und Amt) were canonized as official public doctrine in the LCMS at its 2001 synodical convention. As a pastoral delegate, I argued vigorously in floor committee and from the floor against this move, as it elevated a contextual solution to the level of binding doctrine. Your analysis perfectly describes the "two-ditches" approach to the authority issue in our churches and why we veer from one ditch to the other. For the best treatment of the Priesthood of Believers I know of, see Kenneth Korby's essay to the Montana District. I think it's published somewhere, and I hope to see it published in a more readily available form in the near future. Having heard Dr. Korby expound on the topic, I realize how far we've drifted from the biblical concept of the baptized priesthood by cherry-picking from certain writings of Luther. Also helpful is John Hall Elliot's "The Holy and the Elect," and exegetical treatment of 1 Peter 2:9-10 and my good friend Dr. Thomas Winger's dissertation on the same topic.
You are absolutely correct that the priesthood is not about power or authority but vocational calling, as Luther repeatedly stresses. Our problem is that we tend to pick from Luther's anti-papal writings, which tend to make Luther sound like a low-church Baptist, and we do not balance these with Luther's anti-Enthusiast writings which make him sound like a high church Catholic.
We need to stop repristinating old solutions and return to Scripture and Confessions for our guidance. AC 5, 14, and 28 with the Apology along with the Treatise are all the doctrine of priesthood and ministry that we need. And probably all that can be gleaned from the Scriptures.
Thank you, Pastor. Will dive into the sources you recommend.
I am not sure about Walther & Grabau. But this is how the Scriptures stand in relation to the normed norm of AC V and AC XIV. AC V is substantiated by the Great Commission passages and the 'binding and loosing' passages: Mt 16:16-19, 18:18-20; 28:16-20; Mk 16:14-18; Lk 24:44-49; Jn 20:19-23; Ac 1:4-8; Rm 10:14-15; 2Co 5:17-21. The common theme is the authority on earth to forgive sins, which is a divine authority that had been received by the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus according to his human nature) then transmitted to his body, the church, as an endowment and responsibility. This divine authority is held in common by all who are baptized into and abide in Christ by faith. This authority is then exercised on behalf of an entire congregation by a mature leader who has been tested and approved. AC XIV is thus substantiated by the passages about human forms of leadership: overseers, elders, deacons, and leaders: Ac 20:17, 28-32; Hb 13:17; 1 Pt 5:1-5; and the Titus & Timothy passages. This much seems very clear to me. Scripture also describes the office of the ministry in terms of 5 functions distributed among 'each and every', Eph. 7, 11; apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/shepherds, teachers. Because these are divinely given in Jesus' ascension they pertain until he comes again, as corroborated by 1Co 12:28-31 where the exhortation to desire the higher gifts of prophecy and apostleship implies their continuance. Unfortunately there is much confusion about prophecy and apostleship, but it seems best to me to see these as gifts of grace for contextualizing the Gospel (and law) where new linguistic and cultural boundaries are crossed and new churches established (because the pure Gospel is essential to the church), so that then local leaders (elders) will be raised up and equipped (not least by being gifted by grace) to teach and shepherd at the local level. Thus, divine authority communicated by Christ after his death and resurrection, per 'the great commission;' gifts of grace given by Christ in his ascension, and human positions of servant leadership which require those spiritual giftings. If anyone finds this outline disagreeable, at least please respect my conscience as being bound by what I hold to be clear teachings of Scripture, and keep any discussion focused on the Confessions as a normed norm, with Scripture as the norm for our faith and practice.
I will be charitable and not assume you are using these terms the way they are used in the New Apostolic Reformation.
What bothers me is the assumption that a particular polity is mandated by Scripture. That is a reformation approach. The classical Lutheran approach is that polity is a adiaphra. We are free to choose whatever polity works. As long as we have congregations and the Holy Office everything else is a matter of freedom. For years Lutheran polity had the church governed by the prince, Cesaropapism. All the Orthodox dogmaticians were just fine with this form of governance. The reformed argued about Episcopacy versus congregationalism versus Presbyterial governance. Lutherans historically not so much.
Also the Old Missouri Synod did not explain 1 Pet 2:9 from the royal priesthood aspect only, look to Stoeckhardt's commentary on that book. Naturally, the royal priesthood has a wider definition than that of the authority within the congregation. But that is an important issue too and was taught by Luther an also Melanchthon, as you can read in the Tract about the Primacy of the Pope and the Power of the Bishops.
That there might be problems within the LCMS today does not change the Biblical truth, that the Christians are the direct and original owners of the keys, which they confer, for public administration, according to divine order, to the public ministry, a divine institution, but without suspending themselves from the ownership. The problems, as are articulated in the article too, might have their reason in a lack of sanctification, even in a doctrinal error regarding sanctification (antinomism, law-gospel-reductionism). That cannot be solved by attacking the authority of the royal priesthood, but only by true doctrine regarding law and gospel, the right distinction of both and the correct use. Walther's book an that item is very instructive and should be used also today, also, for better understanding sanctification, Luther's doctrine on repentance, the Large Catechism, Luther's Freedom Tract, his sermon on good works, his sermons on the twofold and the threefold righteousness. Study Luther's, Walther's, Stoeckhardt's, Lochner's sermons, they are very helpful, since they have both, law and gospel, justification and sanctification.