Beggars All: Article 14 and ‘Ordination’ in Postmodern Quotation Marks
I had been looking for a confessional Lutheran church in Upper Michigan while we were up there, and during the trip home I spotted a little LCMS church at the side of the road. I pulled in. I had many miles to drive that day, so I just wanted to sniff around a little and keep going. Boy, did I get a noseful!
I knocked and asked if the pastor was there and was subsequently told that they had a deacon. Out came a friendly, burly guy in a flannel shirt, and we shook hands.I said that I was looking for a Lutheran church since we often visit that part of the state, and he began telling me about how young everyone was in this church. Once again, I asked about a pastor, and he said that he was the minister even though he wasn’t ordained.
But when he said the word “ordained” he held up his hands and made that little quotation marks gesture with his fingers while rolling his eyes. And the meaning of this was clear: Ordination doesn’t mean a thing.
I looked around and saw an Ablaze poster on the wall. I thanked him for his time and left, wanting to get back on the road.
As an ex-Evangelical, the victim of many such ‘pastors’ with little or no qualifications, I can attest to the fact that a church body that despises the Office of Holy Ministry is in deep trouble, for those who despise ordination despise the Word of God.
Oh my. Is this true? Have any of you encountered this? perhaps its just a Michigander anomaly? I fear it is not.
Related posts:
- Philippe, The Postmodern Evangelist | The Sacred Sandwich Hilarious. From the always funny Sacred Sandwich: Once there...
- Cyberbrethren » A Former Woman Lutheran Pastor on How She Realized Women’s Ordination is Wrong Remarks from a former ELCA woman pastor, now Roman Catholic...
- The Marks of Faith Last week, Wally Bronner of Bronner’s CHRISTmas Wonderland in Frankenmuth,...
- Ordination of Pastor for Beginners I suspect many of you have never been to the...
- Weedon’s Blog: Random Thoughts on the Church Weedon’s Blog: Random Thoughts on the Church There is only...
Welcome to my former world!
Not entirely ananomoly, unfortunately. I know (well) of one congregation where this has been the norm for a number of years now.
And yes, he performs complete Word and Sacrament ministry… although, oddly enough, I’m not sure he’s legally authorized to do weddings.
However, with our wrangling about AC XIV, what do we do with the Power and Primacy of the Pope, which under the heading, “The Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops” says, “But since by divine authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that
ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law [if a pastor in his own
church ordains certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law,
undoubtedly effective and right].” (Trig. par. 65) And (par. 69-70), “69] Lastly, the statement of Peter also confirms this, 1 Pet. 2, 9: Ye are a royal priesthood. These words
pertain to the true Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has
the priesthood.
And this also a most common custom of the Church testifies. For formerly the people elected pastors
and bishops. Then came a bishop, either of that church or a neighboring one, who confirmed tho one
elected by the laying on of hands; and ordination was nothing else than such a ratification.”
It seems that there’s more to the problem than the continued thumping of AC XIV. There are much larger questions (which I haven’t yet resolved even in my own mind), not the least of which is, is Synod “church”? There are numerous attendant Left/Right kingdom issues that revolve around that question alone. Another is, what exactly do we mean by, “ordination”?
I would appreciate hearing something on reconciliation of the Power and Primacy with AC XIV and current synodical Constitution and Practice…
Matt,
Do you ever provide an incomplete exposition in your commenting? :) I thought I had too much of an attention deficit from schoolwork!
Some on the first year folk expressed difficulty with preaching in fieldwork… They were concerned about the Confessions prohibition of such preaching.
Indeed what constitutes a proper call and ordination is an issue which seems to keep cropping up. We encountered it with Lutheran Church in America, yes?
In light of that history, one would argue it is the church’s (and not Synod’s) right to determine who is properly a pastor and who is not. The church joins the association of a Synod for the expressed purpose of aiding in the proper instruction (and to aid missions through collected effort.)
In the end, the call and examination do not come through Synod but through the church (and perhaps the “universal” one.) To wrangle this ordination away from the church and into a political entity seems little different than the situation of the reformers.
That’s my opinion. No doubt, the Synod is not “church” but the church may be found within it. This stance helps me deal with the ignorant and errant behaviour of the original post.
You’ll have to wait for that STM paper until a suitable candidate arises! :)
I think I’ve finally resolved the “preaching/teaching in fieldwork” issue — at least in my own mind — I was sent by the one who has been entrusted with the care of that flock — namely, my fieldwork supervisor — and I remain subject to him (as the one ultimately responsible for the souls under his care).
In this sense, AP XIV’s (par. 28) agreeing to remaining subjected to the Episcopal structure is helpful — to paraphrase: so long as such subjection is not a hinderance to the Gospel – it can be retained. Since my own abilities to carry out ministry have not been “confirmed” (by ANYONE except my own over-inflated ego), I serve — subject to the direction and oversight of another. And, (and this is important) – only among those for whom he has jurisdiction and those to whom he has sent me.
The way that I’ve begun to synthesize this whole mess (and I emphasize, these are preliminary thoughts) – is that by being bound to Synod, a congregation voluntarily gives up its right to call anyone it wishes and agrees to the rules of Synod as to who is and who is not a “qualified candidate” (i.e. on “roster” as a candidate).
In this (i.e. LCMS Synodical) context, “ordination” becomes the rite of passage which puts a candidate on “roster” and makes him eligable for a call to a(nother) Synodical congregation (or those in Altar and Pulpit fellowship with Synod) (i.e. it is the “ratification” of his fitness for office spoken of in the Power and Primacy par. 70 quoted earlier).
In any case, the “jurisdiction” of the individual pastor exists only in-so-far as he serves in Altar and Pulpit ministry (which, I think, is a clear teaching of AC V, AC XXVIII especially par. 4-8,21-22, as well as various portions of Power and Primacy). Outside of that context, he has no more “authority” than any other lay person (remember, in Luther’s time these lines of “jurisdiction” were fairly clear cut — just consider cuius regio, eius religio).
This *seems* (to my lightly educated and heavily ego-boosted mind) the only consistent position to take. However, in practice things have become inconsistent.
When viewed from the vantage point I’ve outlined here, the inconsistency seems to be restricted to the rules, policies and procedures of Synod – but not confessionally or dogmatically.
Thus a “deacon” serving in the manner described above is fully a called Minister of the Gospel having jurisdiction over that flock at that location — but since he lacks the requisite theological training and examination which characterizes a person on the Synodical Roster, he is not “ordained” and thereby not eligible for a call to another congregation.
Those who would claim a “Witchita Amendment” to the Augustana (some of whom I highly respect) seem to ignore AC XXVIII, the Smallcald Articles (SA X) and the Power and Primacy on this issue. It would seem to me that Witchita it is not an amendment to the Augustana, but definitely a circumvention of the original rules of Synod which were originally put in place to protect congregations from ill-trained or theologically inept individuals.
Of course, this begs the question about the status of those who are not called to a specific congregation to serve the Altar and Pulpit and shepherd a flock… but simply brining this up is likely making various educational and institutional professionals (and Politico’s) ears red and their nostrils flare (and, now, thanks to my big mouth, will no doubt be a question on my T.I. in a little over a year — one of these days I’ll learn to lay low… obviously neither July 16/17, 2006 are it.).
–
Note: I try my best not to be incomplete… because being incomplete leads to ambiguity — ambiguity leads to confusion — confusion leads to frustration — frustration leads to anger — anger (caused by frustration versus righteous anger) leads to hate — hate leads to disunity, schism, and all sorts of ungodliness — all because of incompleteness/ambiguity.
–
NOTE 2: Comments are my own. I reserve the right to change my mind at any time if confronted by previously unconsidered argumentation or evidence… (i.e. if you disagree— tell my why *specifically* and you might win me over). I also reserve the right to ignore denounciation without evidence.
–
NOTE 3: Comments above on the Office of the Ministry refer to a SINGLE office. It is not an amalgam of tasks which can be “parted out” to multiple individuals. The congregation is responsible for establishing and maintaining THE OFFICE in their midst. The HOLDER of THE OFFICE, mediately called by God through the congregation, is responsible for the carrying out of the tasks entrusted to THAT OFFICE by GOD Himself. The Office Holder does so by utilizing (exclusively) the tools available (the Word and Sacraments). (Just in case someone chose to claim I was going the direction of WELS).
Mr. DM42,
I would like to respond in full but Hebrew and LCA are calling me! Either way, thanks for the complete response. I’ll have to read (reread) the source documents you cited… someday!
So in light of this discussion, what might one think of this?
Thoughts of Steven
Here’s the mentioned photo:
Hmm… I still am convinced the licensed deacon program really is only a step towards the true intent of those instituting it. While I question both their rationale and the real need for such an office, this post makes you wonder if the motive isn’t something less innocent, i.e. women’s ordination?
Ah, yes, motives… context… complete quotes… I know, it is dangerous to jump to conclusions! Yet…
But wait, there’s more! Little Mouse on the Prairie has a great exposition too on this topic! This is part of her HMS Pinafore parity! Enjoy…
Little Mouse on the Prairie: Scene IV
At the very least, we can definitely say it’s an intentional dimunation of the view of the Office.
The Office of the Ministry has been entrusted with Holy Things. Most people would at least make sure their cardiac surgeon went to medical school before going under the knife… why should we expect less for someone who is a soul surgeon?
I mean, if a cardiac surgeon makes a mistake, there’s malpractice insurance to help make things easier for the survivor to cope. However, the only thing that can save the person who died is the Grace of God.
The Office of the Ministry is the office entrusted the tools by which that grace is distributed (the Word and the Sacraments). It is the Office holder’s responsibility that such grace is distributed purely and as far and wide as possible.
If the person to whom these mysteries were entrusted was not capable of carrying it out, there’s no malpractice insurance that can even begin to make up for it… it could mean an eternity in Hell for someone.
Not that a full-blown seminary education can fully prepare someone for the task, but I wouldn’t want a 6 month correspondence course to be my only background given the stakes… Just like I wouldn’t want to be the patient of a heart surgeon who only went to correspondence school.
I’m a good swimmer, but a millstone is quite a ballast to try to overcome. (cxref Matthew 18:5-7) — If the person who teaches one of the “little ones” wrongly get’s a millstone, what kind of culpability do you think there will be for leaders who created the situation which permitted the teacher to teach wrongly in the first place?
Yes indeed. The Office is one to be taken seriously.
I’ve been trying to resolve through some informal polling of laity an answer to the WHY this dimiunition of the Office is accepted. Almost always those who wish to downplay the necessity for the office have old wounds from a negligent shepherd. (Or negligent in their minds.) The pastor neglected the flock, not offering proper pastoral concern and/or lording his authority over them.
So rather than make effort to correct the abuses or at least address them at the seminary level, they would rather downplay to the office and make the “everybody a pastor” out of 1 Peter 2:9.
In some cases there was a false elevation of the person of pastor to more than God’s voice but their own “little Jesus”, the perfect moral teacher. They placed the person of the pastor on the same pedestal as the Word.
All this is easily avoided by just returning to inward-looking piety and transforming the Office into one of pastor-as-CEO. This sounds frightengly similar to our friend SS Schmucker.
Ouch.
[...] Rev. Weedon ruminates on the lectures of Dr. Korby. In light of the discussion in the comments of my recent post: ‘Ordination’ in Postmodern Quotation Marks, Pr. Weedon provides (via Korby) the emphasis that is often missing…. the efficacy of the Word. So much emphasis is placed on the marks of the pastor which while valid, don’t make the Gospel efficacious. Unfortunately the marks of ‘American Lutheranism’ which predates the Saxon arrival and founding of the LC-MS are pervasive and thoroughly invasive. This Halle-influenced (pietism) Christianity promotes Jesus to simply moral teacher is its radical form. There is no vicarious atonement. [...]