tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post3523623899390707405..comments2024-01-02T16:09:57.364-07:00Comments on Intrepid Lutherans: C.F.W. Walther on the Layman's Role in the Congregation's MinistryIntrepid Lutheranshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-87109518669064492872010-08-21T20:45:34.714-07:002010-08-21T20:45:34.714-07:00Just to make sure that everyone is on the same pag...Just to make sure that everyone is on the same page, there are at least a couple of definitions of the term "public": (i) exposed to general view (the pianist performed in "public") and (ii) relating to the service of a community of people or representative (he was a "public "official). <br /><br />Both definitions are used in the article. (In at least one case it appears to me that both definitions are used the same sentence, e.g., " WELS has publicly made plain in their discussions with Missouri on the subject, that we hold to Walther's teaching on Public Ministry."<br /><br />When the term "public ministry" is used (as in the context of XIV) the term "public" does not mean "in public" but rather "representative" as in "public" servant or "public official".<br /><br />"Public ministry" can be private as in the case of private confession and absolution by the Pastor and acts by individual Christians may be done in "public" (using the other meaning of "public", i.e., the opposite of private). (See., e.g., Brug, The Priesthood Of All Believers And The Ministry: "Only those who are qualified and who are called by the church may exercise this gospel ministry publicly, that is, in the name of the church." )<br /><br />With best regards,<br />Harvey DunnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-83590005024989081392010-08-21T07:59:03.843-07:002010-08-21T07:59:03.843-07:00Pr. Krahn,
Thanks for the explanation. I guess w...Pr. Krahn,<br /><br />Thanks for the explanation. I guess we have to ask some questions. This is rather dated (early 2001), and doesn't help us with the practice in 2010, but it gives a little history. It's by Prof. Tom Nass, printed in Logia and available in the <a href="http://www.wlsessays.net/files/NassMinistry.rtf" rel="nofollow">WLS essays</a>:<br /><br /><em>It should be mentioned that discussion is continuing in the WELS about who should be ordained. Since 1991 the WELS has been ordaining its male teachers when they begin their public ministries. There has been ongoing debate within the WELS about this decision, however. It was restudied and reaffirmed at the 1995 synod convention. Some would like it to be reconsidered again at the 2001 convention.<br /><br />When the WELS ordains male teachers, however, this does not equate the office of teacher with the office of pastor. Teachers are ordained into the “teaching ministry” and pastors into the “pastoral ministry.” This action is also not a novelty in the history of the church. The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally ordained its deacons, and yet the ministry of the deacons is kept separate from that of priests and bishops. The “Seven” in Acts 6:1-6 went through a ceremony of the laying on of hands that seems like an ordination (Ac 6:6). Luther himself ordained George Roerer into the office of deacon in 1525.</em>Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-26943231210627788602010-08-21T07:46:23.828-07:002010-08-21T07:46:23.828-07:00I could be mistaken, but I believe we no longer or...I could be mistaken, but I believe we no longer ordain male teachers. I think it was a practice that only lasted a few years, and I think it was because of the reasons you mentioned - it was questionable whether they really met the IRS standard for 'minister,' and it sent a very confusing message to ordain men but not women who were serving the same call. <br /><br />A lot of "I think"s in there, but it's what I have heard.<br /><br />Pastor Rik KrahnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-7093551075741648222010-08-21T06:45:16.181-07:002010-08-21T06:45:16.181-07:00Joe,
Good questions! I'll let Douglas respon...Joe,<br /><br />Good questions! I'll let Douglas respond with his own thoughts. Here are a few of my reactions.<br /><br /><em>Laymen reading passages in church;</em><br /><br />I've heard this spoken of as a "beautiful expression of the universal priesthood." I disagree. I think it confuses the universal priesthood with the public ministry. When I served in Mexico, two formerly LCMS congregations (now in fellowship with WELS) insisted that their laymen read the Scripture Lessons every week - because they felt they had been "liberated" from the LCMS high view of the pastorate and were now "free" in the WELS to "participate in the ministry" of the congregation. That's messed up. The situation is even worse when the lay readers fail to practice the readings, or don't have the gift of public reading.<br /><br />That said, I've had Council members read some of the longer readings during the Easter Vigil service, after giving them the readings in advance and having them practice reading them.<br /><br /><em>laymen reading Bible lessons and adding their own sermonette during the service; </em><br /><br />They have no call to do this, and probably no training for it. Yet I have seen this encouraged in some WELS locations, again, as a "beautiful expression of the universal priesthood." I think we have problems.<br /><br /><em>laymen as worship leaders in contemporary formats; </em><br /><br />Same problem. Not questioning the sincerity of those who do this, just the Scriptural justification for it.<br /><br /><em>called female staff ministers; </em><br /><br />I suppose the ancient term for this would have been "deaconess." I don't know the scope of the calls that are out there, but if it includes gospel ministry to the men of the congregation, or any sort of "pastoral" responsibility, then we're in trouble.<br /><br /><em>and this one has always boggled my mind...men are called as teachers and it is considered a divine call and they receive all of the tax benefits that pastor has and yet the women who have the same education get a different call and a different tax status.</em><br /><br />This one really bothers me. As I understand it, male teachers were never ordained until the IRS tax code changed and only gave certain tax benefits to "ministers of the gospel." This required "ordination." However, we couldn't ever bring ourselves to officially "ordain" women (for valid Scriptural reasons), thus the unequal treatment.<br /><br />I'm no tax expert, but my understanding is that we are not even following the tax code on this. I believe that the IRS considers "ministers" to be those who regularly preach and do such ministerial functions as baptizing, administering the sacraments, etc.<br /><br />Even if we are following the law, this seems to me like a very irresponsible practice (at best). If someone has a better explanation that would justify our practice, I would like to hear it.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-91237353686507680292010-08-21T01:44:12.707-07:002010-08-21T01:44:12.707-07:00Mr. Lindee,
Thank you for the prompt and thorough...Mr. Lindee,<br /><br />Thank you for the prompt and thorough response. Suffice it to say, I am no learned scholar. This issue is particularly pertinent to me though; the leadership of my congregation has seen fit to replace the regular Divine Service with a lay-led "Alternative Worship Experience" on a monthly basis. In the past I would have been all for it, but by the grace of the Holy Spirit I have seen the error in that line of thinking. As I said though, I am an infant in my learning, so thank you for taking the time to expound on this portion of Scripture and suggest further readings.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Daniel G. BakerDaniel Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167233773588648850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-21998158030370290322010-08-20T21:23:22.847-07:002010-08-20T21:23:22.847-07:00...Continued from previous post
So how is it that......Continued from previous post<br /><br />So how is it that advocates of “pastor-less” church gatherings can use this section to overrule the manifold and clear statements of other sections of Scripture requiring a Called and Approved Minister of the Word? By the fact that this section <i>uses the situation</i> of Public Ministry in the Corinthian congregation to teach something other than the Doctrine of the Public Ministry. Because this <i>situation</i> is used, those who are untrained or who are unclear in their thinking or who simply lack orthodox reading materials, are evidently confused and mistakenly regard this section as authoritative qualification of other sections of Scripture which <i>do</i> directly treat the Doctrines of the Ministry and the Call. In other words, they are using anecdotal evidence in this text to derive doctrine which overrules the direct positive teaching of other texts. This is flawed hermeneutics which results in doctrinal error.<br /><br />My advice in determining Scripture Doctrine is that of Martin Chemnitz: <i>It is necessary that the meaning of these passages whence dogmas or articles are derived be sure, proper, and natural, consisting of the proper and genuine force and true sense of the words, so that the sense of these words can in no way be twisted with respect to other passages so as to make them appear to be in conflict.</i> (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Supper-Coena-Domini/dp/057003275X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282363330&sr=1-2" rel="nofollow"><i>The Lord’s Supper</i></a>, pg. 77). David Kuske puts it this way: <i>Scripture must interpret Scripture, Luther insisted. The meaning of a given passage is determined only (1) by comparing what is says with <b>all other passages of Scripture which address the same subject</b> in the same or similar words; and then (2) by letting what God said in all those other passages explain what God means by the words in the passage under study. This is the only proper way to interpret a passage of Scripture because it is only in this way that God himself becomes the arbiter of what he means by those words.</i> (<a href="http://online.nph.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?10418&productID=150571" rel="nofollow"><i>Biblical Interpretation: The Only Right Way</i></a>, pg. 115). This passage from 1 Co. 14 does not treat of the Doctrine of the Public Ministry other than to assign gender restrictions, and it does not treat of the Doctrine of the Call at all. It cannot overrule clear teaching of Scripture on these doctrines from other passages. Therefore, those who use this chapter to defend “pastor-less” church gatherings are in error with respect to their hermeneutics and understanding of Scripture teaching.Mr. Douglas Lindeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08326973217859277204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-65707906567536552142010-08-20T21:17:36.267-07:002010-08-20T21:17:36.267-07:00Mr. Baker,
I examined 1 Co. 14. Verses 23-40 seem...Mr. Baker,<br /><br />I examined <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2014&version=KJV" rel="nofollow">1 Co. 14</a>. Verses 23-40 seem to comprise the section you are referring to. I see very plainly the error that those who use this section to support “pastor-less” models of church & ministry are making with respect to their handling of Scripture. This section of Scripture has very little to do with the Doctrine of the Ministry, or of the Call, in terms of its <i>doctrinal content</i>, outside of an appeal to the Law in directly assigning gender restrictions upon those who may address the congregation and serve as its Ministers (vv. 34-35).<br /><br />That isn’t to say that there isn’t other doctrinal content in this section. There is, in fact, quite a bit of such content. It commands decency and good order in “in all things” (v40), especially regarding the execution of what we would call the Divine Service – that is, “when the whole church comes together in one place” (v.23). It requires that all things be done with the purpose of edifying believers in the congregation (vv.22,26). It establishes that authority comes from the Word – from outside the congregation – as given by the Prophets and the Apostles (vv. 36-37). It warns and rebukes those who choose to remain in ignorance (v.38, <a href="http://www.kretzmannproject.org/EP_MAJOR/1CO_14.htm" rel="nofollow">see also Kretzmann</a> from his <a href="http://www.kretzmannproject.org/" rel="nofollow"><i>Popular Commentary</i></a>).<br /><br />The major teaching in 1 Co. 14 seems to be the distinction between meetings of the more learned – i.e. those gifted, skilled or trained in languages, doctrine, knowledge, etc., which may not be known by others, (vv. 3,5-22) – and meetings of the “whole congregation” (v.23ff), which includes those who may or may not be learned. In the latter case, emphasis is placed on catechesis (v.19), prophecy or preaching (v.22), and teaching of doctrine (v.26). Martin Chemnitz has much to say on this in his <a href="http://www.cph.org/p-6920-chemnitzs-works-loci-theologici-set-vol-7-8.aspx?SearchTerm=Chemnitz" rel="nofollow"><i>Loci Theologici</i></a> (pp. 392-393, in my 1989 edition). It does <i>not</i>, however, teach regarding who may address the congregation as its Ministers and under what circumstances, only teaches regarding what mode of address those called as Ministers ought to engage.<br /><br />Continued in next post...Mr. Douglas Lindeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08326973217859277204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-77710564708796805102010-08-20T09:42:25.957-07:002010-08-20T09:42:25.957-07:00Dan/Joe,
Just want to pop in here, quick -- I int...Dan/Joe,<br /><br />Just want to pop in here, quick -- I intend to respond to both of you, but have been consumed with business responsiblities the past couple of days. I'm not ignoring you! I'll try to respond later this evening or tomorrow.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />DouglasMr. Douglas Lindeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08326973217859277204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-5336604478188276722010-08-19T17:09:05.801-07:002010-08-19T17:09:05.801-07:00Interesting subject matter. Thank you for the his...Interesting subject matter. Thank you for the history lesson. I'll be interested where this all goes. I'll be curious if you touch any of these: Laymen reading passages in church; laymen reading Bible lessons and adding their own sermonette during the service; laymen as worship leaders in contemporary formats; called female staff ministers; and this one has always boggled my mind...men are called as teachers and it is considered a divine call and they receive all of the tax benefits that pastor has and yet the women who have the same education get a different call and a different tax status.<br /><br />I'll be honest, I'm a bit of a mixed bag on these points and would like to see some scripture addressing the points one way or another.<br /><br />Peace,<br />Joe KrohnJoe Krohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08675123326627773329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-38936298229415115412010-08-19T15:43:11.136-07:002010-08-19T15:43:11.136-07:00Greetings,
Would it be possible to address how 1 ...Greetings,<br /><br />Would it be possible to address how 1 Corinthians 14, specifically the portion dedicated to orderly worship, fits into this model? Those in favor of lay-led ministries often cite this portion of Scripture in defense of the pastor-less model. <br /><br />Also, thank you for these continually enlightening posts. They are a blessing to me, as I am sure they are to many others. <br /><br />In Christ,<br />Daniel BakerDaniel Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167233773588648850noreply@blogger.com