The Plucked Chicken

I've been trying to keep before us the possibility that the PMW can be improved over time by suggesting specific improvements to its parts. It cannot be denied that some had sincere and weighty objections to the PCM document before it was adopted, and became known as the PMW. It also cannot be denied that these objections were not all answered before the adoption took place, and that the circumstances of adoption reflected a serious opposition to the document.

Though the point is arguable, I believe that these circumstances were the primary cause of the ensuing controversy that resulted in at least five pastors and more churches being separated from the synod. The objections and opposition to the PCM document that existed before its adoption continued afterward. Though this should not be surprising, it was regarded differently after the adoption than it was before the adoption. After the adoption, opposition to the document (now called the PMW) is regarded as a rejection of the synod's doctrine, which must place the opposition outside the synod's doctrinal fellowship. While in some cases this opposition has been treated with a measure of patience, that patience did not extend to those who expressed their conscientious objection to the PMW in the form of a statement, rather than in the form of questions and requests for clarification. Others (myself included) stated that the PMW would only be acceptable on the condition of a particular understanding of its meaning. Thankfully, that position has also been tolerated.

It has been my hope that those with reservations or objections about the PMW would be able to continue discussing it, and finally make changes that would be acceptable to all. This could potentially restore the parts of the synod that have been severed, though the animus that was begotten in the PMW's adoption has produced other sins on all sides that may render complete healing impossible for some time.

At this point, I will discontinue the thread I've been following, in which I have been suggesting for consideration certain changes to the PMW's wording. For those who have been reading that thread, it has already served its purpose. It should be apparent that further changes are at least possible, and may actually be desirable in some places.

I suggest a different approach. Pastor Jay Webber, who is now on the synod's Doctrine Committee, has restated the PMW with the intention of changing its format, but not its doctrine. The new format is "thetical." That is, it is stated as relatively short, numbered statements that carry the thought sequentially from start to finish. This is the same format used by Martin Luther in several works, including the 95 Theses and the Heidelberg Disputation. It has also been used by the ELS in earlier doctrinal statements.

Pastor Webber's thetical arrangement has some advantages. First, it isolates each point so that further discussion may focus on specific parts of the PMW's text unambiguously. Second, Pastor Webber has prefaced most of the theses with a statement of the particular context of each one, derived from the heading under which the statement is found in the original formatting of the PMW, and the heading's explanation in the text of the PMW. This explicit statement of context is invaluable in reading the statements, and may prevent some of the problems of interpretation that arose with the original formatting. Third, the thetical form of the PMW is technically not the PMW itself, so that strong criticism of it need not be regarded as a rejection of the synod's doctrine.

I suggest that further discussion of the PMW focus upon the thetical form that Pastor Webber has provided. It may be compared and contrasted with the original form, and the theses themselves may be criticized and specified by number.

Please allow me to note several things from my first reading of the thetical format of the PMW. Feel free to comment on these points as you like. My observations are not all of grave importance, but they are nevertheless food for thought. I'm surprised that there are so few. It speaks to the advantages of this thetical format of the PMW.

1. Theses 6 and 11 use the term "Universal Priesthood of All Believers." this term is a redundancy. It would be better to use the language of 1 Peter 2:9: "royal priesthood" of all believers, or simply "priesthood" of all believers.

2. In Thesis 7, the words "when they forgive the sins of those who sin against them" diverge from the definition of the Office of the Keys given in Thesis 1, where it is defined as an authority from Christ. Since it is an authority from Christ, the Office of the Keys applies to sins insofar as they are offenses against God, not insofar as they are offenses against anyone else. Hence, the words "when they forgive the sins of those who sin against them" are ambiguous. They may refer to the Gospel spoken to others, or they may refer to the personal forgiveness between us, which, though based upon the forgiveness of God, is not exactly the same thing. In fact, since this phrase follows a phrase that fully describes the way Christians may confer God's forgiveness, it would be redundant to say the same thing again. Hence, it probably describes the personal forgiveness between us, and does not really describe the Office of the Keys.

3. In Thesis 12, the words "they are to beware of false prophets" does not describe the Office of the Keys. It should be dropped. Furthermore, the statement that Christians use the Keys to judge the teaching of their pastors and teachers only applies to circumstances where false teachers are personally confronted with the sin of teaching falsely. This does not necessarily occur when Christians judge the teachings of their pastors and teachers. The statement should be clarified.

4. In Thesis 15, the words "throughout the New Testament" imply that the divine ordering, establishment, and institution does not occur also in the Old Testament. It does, though not every aspect of the ordering in the Old Testament applies since the death and resurrection of Christ.

5. In Thesis 19, the words "includes both a narrower sense and a wider sense" imply that both senses are instituted by God in the Public Ministry of the Word. Though I realize that "senses" are simply shades of meaning that are attributed to a term by human beings, and are not required by God, the way this thesis is worded still has the implication I mentioned, mainly because the words "divinely instituted" are joined with the word "includes."

6. I noticed that there is some repetition. Theses 27 and 37 are the same, and Theses 22 and 53 also say the same thing. These general statements seem to apply in more than one place.

7. Thesis 40 has caused a lot of confusion, and serves little purpose in the PMW. Its intent is to define how a person may be said to be "in" the Public Ministry of the Word, but it ends up saying that one may be "in" the Public Ministry of the Word in various degrees. That does not really make any sense. The thesis should be dropped, or possibly replaced with one saying "Only those are in the Public Ministry of the Word who are authorized by the call of the Church to exercise the keys publicly."

8. In Thesis 49, the words "but is in accordance" imply that Romans 10:14-17 and AC XIV apply directly to the circumstance of school teachers. While I do not condemn someone who thinks so, this cannot be proven. What we can say is that the spirit of these passages would require that anyone who publicly teaches the Word of God be authorized to do so, and that a rightly-ordered call is the model used by the Church for that authorization.

9. Thesis 58 only lists Acts 1:15-26 as an example of a mediate call. Other examples could be mentioned, in which pastors receive their specific vocations through the mediation of apostles.

While I was on vacation, there was a lively little comment discussion at Cyberbrethren about copyright laws. Since the comment period is ended, and since I have my own blog, I'll add my two cents here.

Pastor McCain and those who left comments expressed one important purpose for copyright laws, and the reason we ought to abide by them. That is, the people who produce works under copyright should be certain that they will receive fair compensation for their efforts. Our society benefits as a whole by their work, so it is in our collective interest to assure creative people that their time and energies will support them and their families.

However, there is another, equally important element in the concept of copyrights. This element was largely left out of the discussion at Cyberbrethren, possibly because it does not apply to the immediate issue of contemporary works from CPH. Yet I think it does apply. The other important element is this: copyrights expire.

The expiration of copyrights is not an afterthought, but an essential part of the way they benefit society. You see, if they did not expire, then society would forever have to pay a premium to benefit from the copywritten works. How would you like to pay $35 today for every copy of Hamlet you might need to use? Or how about $3 per individual license of the lyrics to A Mighty Fortress? But thankfully, Hamlet is now in the public domain, like the Triglotta. Some day, Concordia will also be in the public domain. At that time, its benefits to our society will continue, possibly even increasing due to its expanded availability.

A copyright may be used by those who hold it for more than producing a monetary income. It may also be used to ensure that the copywritten work and its derivative works continue to be available for use by the public as long as the copyright remains in effect. For example, see Copyleft. This is a good thing, which is not to say that the traditional use of copyrights is necessarily a bad thing.

If you're the sort of person who looks for the most efficient and satisfying ways to get the job done, regardless of the conventional wisdom, then read on. If you're the sort of person who conforms to the expectations of others, and believes that the most popular or the most widely adopted way of doing something is always the best way to do it, then you may as well stop reading now.

I am not one of the latter types. Your way of doing things might work fine, but it won't necessarily work best for me. I want the freedom to work my way.

That's why I like the Unix environment, and why I use Linux for just about everything. It fits me. I have the freedom to do things in the ways that work best.

For about ten years now, give or take, I've been using a collection of utilities and systems that provide the following important features:

• High quality desktop publishing with a high degree of automation. I'm not talking word processors here.

• An extremely efficient and powerful editing environment in which I rarely have to move my hands away from the home row of the keyboard, even when executing complex procedures using multiple programs, like importing some extracted Bible verses, or search results.

• Independent programs where each does a specific task in a predictable and efficient manner, which can be interconnected easily to perform complex functions, even from the comfort of my editing environment.

• Efficient archival of important changes to my work, so that mistakes can be reversed, old versions found, etc.

• Network access to all of this work, so that I can use the system equally well here at my primary computing location, or anywhere I have connectivity.

• Freedom and access to adjust the way I work in any way that I might see fit. (This may be the most important feature.)

• The ability to expand and augment the system with tools of my own creation.

I enjoy these and other important features in my daily work, because I use Linux (Debian GNU/Linux, to be precise), Vim, LaTeX, Python, Git, SSH, Mutt, Gimp, and a many other programs and projects, representing many thousands of programmer's hours. I also use programs I've written too, though they're not so famous.

If you know what Libronix is and does, you probably already know where it falls short in my view. The problem is not that I want to rip off lots of copyright holders and distribute their work indiscriminately by means of the Internet. The problem is that I want to use those copywritten works fairly, yet without being hamstrung by a computing environment that (a) doesn't give me the freedom and power I need, and (b) charges me a lot of money for my loss of freedom, power, and stability, too.

Unfortunately, the Windows environment is automatically disqualified. (Case in point: DRM is supposed to be a step forward for Vista. It's actually a big step backward for someone like me.) The constant upgrade cycle alone is too expensive, though I'm sure MS shareholders think it's great. I'm probably one of them, come to think of it.

I've enjoyed using the Macintosh environment, mostly because I can use the same Unix tools that work together so efficiently. The next time I have $2k I don't know what else to do with, I might just drop it on a Mac. Macs are just priced out of my league, and they have an expensive upgrade cycle of their own.

As for Libronix, I understand the philosophy: control. It's like the Matrix. All those snazzy features: searches, hyperlinks, notes, etc. --- it's all about control. The software is written that way in the hope that you never want to leave it. The proof of this is that you can't export works from the digital library. Oh, you can export tiny bits and pieces, but not whole works. So just leave Libronix running all the time, and you'll always have access to your digital library. Do you need to search? Just enter the Libronix application. Do you need to extract something? Switch over to the mighty Libronix app. It's your go-to guy for everything related to your digital library.

I'm sure the approach works. It's one way to do it. But sometimes it doesn't work. (It locked up on me more than once when running it in Windows 98 under VMWare.) It also takes a while to load and run. It also interfaces only with whatever editing environments the Libronix designers anticipate, and that their marketing model will support. In case you haven't guessed, that doesn't include Vim. It also can't be used remotely over SSH. And so on and so forth. Meanwhile, I'd like to grep through a UTF-8 file of Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions and get the results in my text editor, for possible use in my next Bible study. Something wrong with that?

Libronix probably works great as a money-maker for Logos, though I'm sure that's not their (only) purpose in producing it. Libronix probably does a good job of protecting the interests of copyright holders. It probably seems great to the great herds of computer users who don't care to look for "a better way to do it." But Libronix doesn't work for me.

So if you are a copyright holder wishing to publish your work digitally, consider those of us who don't appreciate being locked in to one vendor, even a vendor with good intentions. Frankly, I value freedom. I'll respect your copyright, but if you won't publish your work in a way that I can use it, then your hands are tied. Wouldn't you prefer that your work gets used?

And if you work for Logos, please consider a release for Linux that includes quick access to the digital library from the shell. I'd be happy to work with you on it.

I was wrong -- at least partly -- in my understanding of what was happening where the PMW says "This public use of the keys is the Public Ministry of the Word," at the beginning of the second section.

(You might wonder why I waited so long to write this. Well, I've been busy with other things. Yes, even pastors who write on blogs have other priorities. I apologize if my timing has made you impatient.)

I had suggested to replace it with the wording "The Lord Jesus established the Public Ministry of the Word for the public administration of the Office of the Keys." That was because I thought the PMW was stating scriptural truth here, and that's where I was wrong.

It's not stating scriptural truth here. It's not even making the attempt. That's not to say that it's being unscriptural. Instead, it's being ascriptural. In other words, this sentence is orthogonal to the Word of God. Neither has any bearing upon the other.

You may think that's a risky and bold statement to make. Not really. You see, the sentence "This public use of the keys is the Public Ministry of the Word" is really not a statement of doctrine at all. It's a definition for a term that does not occur in scripture.

Do you remember algebra and geometry, where you had to show something step by step? It was also useful in some science classes, too. At the beginning, you might have had something like this:

Given that X is the product of A² and B, ...

Of course, that doesn't mean that X is always whatever it says. It only applies in the context of the proof or problem. It's a provisional definition of X.

In this sentence of the PMW, we also have a provisional definition. One might suppose that it's a provisional definition of the subject, "this public use of the keys," but it's not. You see, that was already defined in section I. This sentence is a provisional definition of the predicate nominative, "the Public Ministry of the Word." It's not really trying to say anything. It was my mistake to think it was.

So we see that this part of the PMW needs more work than I originally thought. Not because there's anything wrong with defining our terms. In fact, a repeated criticism of this very PMW document has been that it fails to define many of its terms, so we should be (and I am) happy to have discovered a definition. No, the problem is that this definition doesn't look like a definition. It looks like it's trying to state some kind of biblical doctrine.

So, assuming we want such a definition, I have a new suggested replacement for this sentence:

In this document, the term "The Public Ministry of the Word" refers to the public administration of the keys.

On the other hand, this sounds pretty abstract, and it might not be such a good idea to use an abstraction as the basic foundation of the public office that we find concretely instituted by Christ. It may introduce unnecessary confusion on the question of what, exactly, Christ instituted. I'll have to ponder this some more, but I think Adolph Hoenecke's dogmatics may be helpful, because he writes some about the ministry considered abstractly versus the ministry considered concretely. It's worth another read.

There's a reasonably good summary on the Council of Nicea at LiveScience. The writer shows small appreciation for the implications of Arianism's divergence from orthodoxy, but in such a short piece, there's hardly room for all that anyway. The bit about the Son being of the same substance doesn't really do justice to the earlier part of the Nicene Creed's second article: "...God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; begotten, not made..."

It is worth noting that from a secular-historical point of view, Arians were Christians, and thus the Christian Church at the time was possibly more Arian than orthodox, if counted democratically. From a theological point of view, however, Christians are defined by doctrine, not by labels alone. This might be hard for some of our contemporaries to grasp, but it has been the Christian approach from the Beginning. Therefore, the Arians were not Christians, just as their present-day counterparts (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the like) are not Christians.

The second section is entitled "The Public Ministry of the Word." It's a good title, especially understood in coordination with Article V of the Augsburg Confession:

That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, 2] the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear 3] the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake. [Triglotta translation]

We're not dealing with church-related offices that do not administer the Gospel or the Sacraments. When we call it "the Public Ministry of the Word," we're also including the Sacraments as a necessary manifestation of the Word; as Augustine called them, "a visible Word" (Apology XIII, paragraph 5).

This sixth suggested improvement to the PMW is a small one. Part II begins:

This public use of the keys is the Public Ministry of the Word. "That we may obtain this faith, the office of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted" (AC V).

While starting Part II with the word "This" makes Part I a prerequisite for Part II, this is not necessary, and may not be desirable. The effect is that Part II can't really be cited on its own, without Part I. What's more, it doesn't really explain what AC V means by the word "instituted," instead just stating the effect of that institution. It would make more sense, I think, to say exactly what we mean by that institution, something like this:

The Lord Jesus established the Public Ministry of the Word for the public administration of the Office of the Keys. "That we may obtain this faith, the office of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted" (Augsburg Confession, V).

Note that the translation of the Augsburg Confession here differs a little from that of the Concordia Triglotta. I had thought that the PMW was following the translation in the Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary, but it's not. I don't think it makes a serious difference, but does anyone know where this translation came from?

Note also that the words "office" and "ministry" are interchangeable. Though they both can have more than one sense, even that variety tends to overlap. The difference is that "ministry" connotes service, while "office" connotes representative responsibility. In this case the office-holder primarily represents God, whose Word and Sacraments are administered, and he primarily serves others, in keeping with Jesus' example on the night He was betrayed.

So it's been two years since the Plucked Chicken hatched. Here are a few things I've learned, especially from readers of the PC with their reactions and responses.

• Covering a wider spectrum of topics attracts more visitors. So if I could only make the time for posting on more of the things and thoughts that happen each day, the PC might be read more than it is.

• Persistence helps, but logic does not always prevail. You might think it should, but remember, we're dealing with human beings here.

• People will respect others for sticking to their principles, but it can take a long time before they recognize it. In the meantime, things can be unpleasant.

• You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Other things can draw flies too.

• The quick and practical way is politics. That is the dark side. Matters of truth and virtue are sometimes impractical, but that does not mean they are bad.

• There is a difference (though it is hard to express) between merely sticking to one's principles and also publicly advocating them. The latter is risky for everyone, because Christians are sinners, too. However, God would have us take such risks, so that His Word may prevail.

• People who leave comments don't necessarily want a response to their comments. They may especially not want a response when I take issue with something they've written. I would encourage them to respond at length on their own blog. Really.

• When someone happens to write what others are thinking, the others are thankful and supportive. That does not mean they are ready to write publicly too.

• A lone voice in the wilderness is much better than no voice at all.

• An effective way to prevail over a lone voice in the wilderness is to ignore it. However, those with truth and virtue on their side do not need such a strategy.

Can you think of other lessons learned these last years? Do you think I'm full of something here? Do you want to suggest other possible topics? Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Can an orthodox congregation remain part of that synod? Can an orthodox pastor?

Speaking to that matter is Thesis II of the document "Communion Fellowship" in volume 1 of Essays for the Church by C.F.W. Walther.

A fellowship in which the Word of God is fundamentally falsified, or in which a fundamental falsification of it is tolerated, is not a true orthodox church, but a false, heterodox church or sect.

I've read this before, and intend to read the section again when time permits. It serves as an excellent basis for discussion of several different circumstances in present-day Lutheranism.

Just last night, I was reading a book recommended by dear members of one of the churches where I serve. It comes from the Evangelical tradition, written by a highly influential minister that I've been mostly unfamiliar with. I haven't avoided his work purposely; I just don't enjoy listening to Evangelical sermons on the radio, watching them on television, or (usually) reading their materials. Part of my problem is that I have a considerable library of excellent theological writing that I still need to read through for the first time --- including Luther's Works.

Because of the recommendation, I began reading this book last night and found it rather easy to read. Most of what is written there so far is edifying. My only criticism is that the author seems to have little appreciation that our Christian growth and identity are rooted in Law and Gospel, the basic messages of holy scripture through which God acts upon us. Instead, he (so far) has expressed that our experience as Christians in cognitive contact with the events of Jesus' life is what provides our growth in the faith.

One thing gave me pause, since I had never noticed its use before. The author described the worship of his congregation as "authentic." On the surface, it meant little to me. Then I wondered what the alternative would be. Inauthentic, false worship? Still, it made little sense, because I could only think of false worship as that which focuses upon false gods. On the other hand, the Bible is replete with examples of people who want to worship and express their spirituality in a way of their own choosing instead of God's way. Could the author simply mean that his church worships as God has directed in Holy Scripture, instead of incorporating the spontaneity that characterized the Israelites' decision to bow down before a golden calf, or the independence that characterized the sin of Jeroboam? I was skeptical.

By a happy coincidence (if there is such a thing), Gene Edward Veith calls attention today to an article in Touchstone by Michael Horton, which sheds light on the term "authentic worship." "Authentic" is paired with "spontaneous" and contrasted with "predictable and disciplined." In other words, it's pretty much the opposite of worship in the churches I serve, where the attendees always know what sort of things will happen before they arrive. Yet I still wonder if the author of this book and I are still understanding his expression in the same way. Is his "authentic" worship also predictable and disciplined? Is it spontaneous? I wonder.

The Horton article contains a lot of other food for thought. Since he is a bit closer to the Evangelical world from which this book comes, I'm inclined to believe that he understands its language better than I do.

The historic fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead makes all the difference.

It sets Christianity apart from every alternative as the one, true faith.

It confirms what Jesus said about Himself, about His death, and our connection to Him.

It shows us where we who follow Christ are headed: eternal life.

In the perspective of Easter, the intramural contests and controversies in our Lord's Church can be seen in their proper light. To lose the Gospel is to lose everything. Yet during this temporal life, this time of grace, we can afford to be as patient with one another as God has been with us.

May we be faithful to our risen Lord with the greatest confidence of His favor, and also faithful to one another, in the deepest humility.

Christ is risen indeed!

If you read this blog, you probably already know that today, the radio show Issues, Etc. was canceled by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Christians all around the globe are wondering why. I'm not, because it seems rather obvious. I could be wrong. What do I know? On the other hand, I can see a church by daylight.

It's not that Issues, Etc. had fallen into some grave doctrinal error, and was unwilling to be corrected by holy scripture.

It's not that Issues, Etc. was bad-mouthing or embarassing the historic identity of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, or any of its historic values.

The problem is one of fellowship. The doctrinal and practical principles guiding Issues, Etc. are deemed by someone to be no longer compatible with the doctrinal and practical principles guiding the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

How can that be? The LCMS has changed, over time. It's not so surprising, because most things change over time. In the case of the LCMS, change has been happening for a long time already. Some of the confessional frogs have already left the simmering pot behind. (syncretism, anyone?) Others have not. I write this not to denigrate them. I respect them deeply, though I may have chosen differently. Issues, Etc. was having a profound cooling influence on the pot, and someone didn't like it. Well, now the LCMS can really turn up the heat. Watch out, CPH, or you'll be ablaze before you know it.

I'm admittedly ignorant of LCMS politics on the whole. Doctrine concerns me more than politics. Yet we've had our share of politics in the ELS, too. What a waste.

However, the great thing about being a Christian, and being a Lutheran, is that the biblical doctrine we treasure really is all that. It is the only genuine basis for unity, and if we give it more than lip-service, we will find that we are not alone -- even when we are.

The dirty little secret is that all synods change over time. Practically speaking, an orthodox synod is a myth of modern Lutheranism. When someone claims his synod is orthodox, it would often be more accurate to say that his synod has become the measure of orthodoxy. These days, "orthodoxy" is seldom meant the way Walther meant it. It's relativized in the ELS, in the WELS, in the LCMS, and anywhere else that the word orthodox has more than historic relevance (that does not include the ELCA, unfortunately; watch for its disappearance in the LCMS too). That's why we should constantly learn the meaning of fellowship, as it is defined in the Lutheran Confessions. It's a good antidote for the myth of the orthodox synod (HT: RDP), and it's encouraging for those who are martyred by "orthodox synods."

Kudos to Issues, Etc. for your faithful work. Perhaps we will soon be able to recognize church fellowship with each other. You are a witness for confessional Lutheranism.

VDMA

I've been entertained by Ben Stein, and was impressed with what he achieved with his game show. I had no idea about his past. This guy knows stuff! He's done stuff!

From the advertising, it seems he's involved in a forthcoming movie, which aims to educate its viewers about an important contemporary cultural issue. In particular, the long trailer available at the movie's web site smartly presents a problem with the free exchange of ideas on their own merit, within some segments of academia and science. If its premise is true, the movie is virtually guaranteed not to win any academy awards, but I'd like to see it anyway. Will it improve conversation on this topic? I doubt it. The adherents of Darwinism follow its doctrine more zealously than most Christians follow the Bible.

There is a perception that this point has been hashed through thoroughly by this time, but that perception is mistaken. While statements have been made on the subject from time to time, they have not been directly answered. The closest to an answer that we have seen was in a paper delivered to the official General Pastoral Conference in 2006, entitled "An Exercise in Parsing."

I understand the knee-jerk reflex that some will have when this topic is touched upon: "Quick! Quote the relevant part of the adopted statement, and wash our hands of the matter!" However, that reaction doesn't qualify as doctrinal discussion. Whether we like it or not, genuine discussion includes the possibility that either side might be won over, however strongly-worded their arguments may be. Quoting "the adopted doctrinal statement" is an attempt to end discussion, equivalent in effect to pulling rank. The only way to "win" in a theological discussion is to agree with clear scripture. Hopefully, both sides "win" in the end.

So read this thoughtful explanation of the term "representative ministry" from a certain controversial figure in recent ELS history:

[There is an opinion] that the public or official ministry of the church exists by means of a delegation of the private authority of every individual Christian to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, and forgive and retain sins. We may call this the "representative ministry" definition, because it claims that whenever one Christian uses God's word or sacraments "on behalf of" other Christians this is the divinely instituted public ministry of the word. According to this opinion, every time one person exercises the keys (or uses the means of grace, or teaches the word -- the language varies) on behalf of believers, this is the divinely instituted public ministry of the word, whether it is a "full use" of the keys or a "limited use" of the keys. In either case it is representative ministry and that is what is divinely instituted, according to this opinion.

That quote came from a certain controversial writing, but has been mostly ignored because of the inordinate amount of attention lavished upon another paragraph (to the detriment and sorrow of all).

Another writing from a month prior says this, explaining the problem the author had with the concept of a divinely-instituted "limited public use of the keys."

These texts allegedly address the matter of the church calling someone to exercise a limited part of the public ministry of the Word but none of them does. Nowhere does the New Testament speak of the church assigning the responsibility of teaching God's word to someone who is forbidden to preside over the congregation, preach publicly, and administer the sacraments. What the specific duties of the deacons were is uncertain, but the Scriptures nowhere say that anyone taught God's word but was not permitted to teach the entire congregation. Simply put, the very concept of a limited public use of the keys as this is set forth in the PCM document is foreign to the Scriptures. Nevertheless, these texts are cited as biblical proof that "the extent to which one is authorized by the call of the church to exercise the keys publicly is the extent to which one is in the Public Ministry of the Word." Being "in" the Public Ministry of the Word to this or that "extent" is quite impossible if this office is the concrete office of preaching of the gospel and administering the sacraments.

Whereas the texts cited to prove a limited public use of the keys in the Bible don't teach this, these texts do show that the Holy Spirit moves freely in giving His gifts to men. The Wauwatosa Gospel teaches that it is the evangelical activity of the Holy Spirit here and now in the hearts of Christians that constitutes the divine institution of the office in whatever form it may take. Here we see the Wauwatosa influence on the PCM document. John Schaller put it this way: "For whatever the Christian congregation decides upon to further the preaching of the gospel it does at the instigation and under the guidance of the Spirit of Jesus Christ."[29] The PCM document puts it this way: "But it is by divine right that one exercises that work on behalf of the Christians through whom the call has come."

What is divinely instituted is representative ministry in whatever form it may take. When I argued at the microphone during the convention against applying Romans 10:15 ("how shall they preach unless they are sent?") to the calling of a parochial school teacher I said that nowhere in the New Testament is a woman told to preach. The President of the Synod took issue with me and cited Mark 16:15, words that were spoken to the "eleven." But the exegetical tradition to which we have become bound insists that this text teaches the giving of the means of grace to all Christians. The fact that nowhere in the New Testament is a woman told to preach must yield before this tradition. The fact that AC XIV refers to the call of men who are ordained and hold the concrete office of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments must be reinterpreted to accommodate the new definition of the office. [emphasis added]

It should be noted that the author has focused in these quotations on part II.B of the PMW and any statements elsewhere that support it.

This is how the concerns were addressed in the 2006 GPC paper:

God permits, approves, blesses, and works through those external vocational arrangements that are made in an orderly way for the purpose of carrying out public activities that he wants to be carried out. But this does not mean that God has directly instituted all such external vocational arrangements. In fact, he has not. The PMW document acknowledges this when it says that those offices which have only "a limited public use of the keys" exist as distinct positions of responsibility -- if and when they do exist -- because of the church's sanctified judgment, and not because of a divine command. If God has directly instituted something for the church, this would mean that the church cannot ordinarily do without it, and that the church would in fact be sinning against God's will if it declined to have that divinely instituted thing. According to God's will and institution, the church cannot do without the public use of the keys. More specifically, the church cannot do without the full public use of the keys. But the church often can do without specific external offices of one kind or another that are set up for the purpose of carrying out only a limited public use of the keys, or only a limited part of the Public Ministry of the Word. Such positions of responsibility are not commanded for the church of all times and places, and they are therefore not indispensable for the church of all times and places. [emphasis original]

And again:

Section II B of the PMW document is an elaboration on, and an explanation of, the "Public Ministry of the Word" in its wider sense. The focus and purpose of this section must be kept in mind when we consider the meaning of antitheses 8 and 9, which appear within it, and which can be a source of some confusion if they are not interpreted and applied according to their context. These antitheses state that "We reject the teaching that only those qualified to carry out a full use of the keys are in the Public Ministry," and that "We reject the teaching that the Public Ministry is limited to any one divinely fixed form, that is, limited to the pastoral office to the exclusion of other teachers of the Word." Understood contextually, these statements are simply reaffirming that there is indeed a legitimate "wider sense" of the phrase "Public Ministry," which refers to the public use of the keys as carried out to any degree or level, from within any and all ecclesiastical offices. These statements should certainly not be understood as repudiations of the teaching that appears in section II A of the document: that the "Public Ministry of the Word" in its narrower sense does in fact refer exclusively to "the exercise of spiritual oversight" that is carried out (by divine design) only from within "the pastoral office"; and that the "Public Ministry of the Word" in its narrower sense does in fact require competency for a full public use of the keys. [emphasis original]

And finally:

But let's not forget that the "divinely instituted Public Ministry of the Word" -- which is synonymous with the "divinely instituted preaching and teaching office" -- includes two senses or meanings. From the perspective of the narrower sense of the phrase, we can say that when Jesus trained and sent the apostles, and entrusted to them the full public ministry of Word and sacrament, he was thereby inaugurating in and for the Christian church the full public use of the keys. This continues to be a defining trait of the Public Ministry of the Word in the narrower sense. Whenever the full public use of the keys is being exercised in an orderly and proper way, this is an example of the Public Ministry of the Word in the narrower sense -- and of "the pastoral office," from which, according to God's command, the full public use of the keys is carried out. From the perspective of the wider sense of the phrase, we can say that when Jesus trained and sent the apostles, and entrusted to them the full public ministry of Word and sacrament, he was thereby inaugurating in and for the Christian church the public use of the keys. This continues to be a defining trait of the Public Ministry of the Word in the wider sense. Whenever the public use of the keys is being exercised in an orderly and proper way -- either to the full extent by pastors, or to a limited extent by other ecclesiastical office-holders -- this is an example of the Public Ministry of the Word in the wider sense.

The full public use of the keys includes within it, at least potentially, any and every limited public use of the keys. There is no divine institution of a limited public use of the keys per se. There is a divine institution of the public use of the keys, as a whole and in all of its parts, from which, in the church's freedom, limited public uses can be vocationally extracted and entrusted to qualified individuals, according to the church's needs and circumstances. Section II B of the PMW document explains that when the church in this way calls individuals to fill positions of responsibility involving only a limited public use of the keys, it is thereby separating, "by human right," a "limited portion of the office" to such individuals, and is authorizing them to exercise or carry out only a "specific" and "limited part of the Public Ministry of the Word."

The answer given in this paper does not provide the scriptural basis for a divinely-instituted limited public use of the keys. It says that such a thing does not exist. Instead, there is a divinely-instituted use of the keys (not "limited public"), and the Church has freedom and authority to entrust a limited part of that use to certain individuals.

Is that "representative ministry?" Yes, in a sense. (See how nuanced this discussion can be?) It is representative ministry, with the caveat that it is not divinely instituted. In other words, we may call it ministry simply because we need a word for it, and we want to call it that. By definition, it is ministry because it is a kind of service.

I have wondered why our doctrinal statement would take such care to describe what is more a matter of our choice than a matter of doctrine. That is, why not just let II.B say that the Church has freedom to entrust certain ministerial duties to individuals alongside the "office of oversight," and call it finished? Do we have to pollute a summary of biblical doctrine with descriptions of what the Church has elected to do in her freedom? In my mind, this is one of the most important criticisms of the PMW. In its current form, it leaves itself open to the charge of teaching human traditions as though they were the Word of God.

For a long time now, I've pointed out that testing the spirits (1 John 4:1) is not an exercise of the Keys. How do I know? Because sometimes the "spirits" that need testing don't belong to living people. For example, doesn't that passage apply when Christians are reading theological writing from the controversies of the 16th Century? Are they not to test those spirits? Yet, if a Christian, reading Calvin's Institutes or the Variata of Melanchthon, finds something doctrinally suspect, how is that an exercise of the Keys?

Short answer: it's not. The Keys are for opening and closing heaven, but Calvin and Melanchthon are now beyond their influence. If they were still living, then maybe our reading and hearing them would eventually lead to an application of God's Law, but a Christian's own judgment of their teachings in itself would still not be a use of the Keys.

It is evident where the confusion arose. Christians possess the Keys by virtue of being Christians, that is, having Christ as their God and Savior by faith in His Word. Christians also have a responsibility to judge the teachings they find on earth, a responsibility to test the spirits. Christians have many other things by virtue of their faith, but not all of them are the Keys.

Presently, the PMW says this:

Christians also use the keys to judge the teaching of their pastors and teachers; they are to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15-16, 1 John 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:16).

If it must be treated here, I suggest this wording instead:

All Christians have the right and the duty to judge the teaching of their pastors and teachers; they are to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15-16, 1 John 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:16).

Doesn't that make sense?

If something seems different at The Plucked Chicken, I'd be surprised. But if it does, it's because I've upgraded and rearranged some things on the old home network.

It began when I wanted to install something on the server that hosts the PC. (I don't even remember what it was at this point!) For those who don't use a Debian-based flavor of Linux, I have to explain how most software installs and upgrades work. It's pretty easy. Software is split into packages by task, functionality, mutual compatibility, and versions. So the first step is to find the package you want to upgrade or install, and there are package-management tools that make this fairly easy. (Understand that there are somewhere over 6,000 Debian packages.) After that, you use one of several package-management tools to do the upgrade or install. The computer handles the rest: figuring out dependencies, downloading packages and installing them. It even checks cryptographic signatures when possible to make sure nothing insidious has happened.

So I tried installing something remotely on the server machine, but it had been a long time since I'd performed a major upgrade, and years more since I'd upgraded the Linux kernel. I just didn't want to mess with it, because it sits there, happily running connected only to 115v AC and 10Mb ethernet. Then, I messed with it. The installed system was quite outdated compared to current Debian systems, and it needed a new kernel.

Time past, I'd compile a new kernel without blinking. It was standard operating procedure for a long time while using Linux 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, and pretty easy. (I fondly remember a presentation Joe Abrahamson made to the LUG in Mankato on configuring a kernel for compiling.) This machine was still running 2.4, and Debian is now shipping with something like 2.6.20. I didn't like the prospect of a full kernel compile on that 333 Mhz machine, not really remembering exactly what hardware it contained. So tried a few short cuts and rebooted it remotely, fingers figuratively crossed. It didn't come back up. That was Friday morning.

Fast forward past a late night/early morning, one-man emergency computer rebuilding party, involving a GRUB emergency boot disk, a spare hard drive, a CD-ROM drive borrowed from the kids' room, a newly-burned Debian net-install disk, and an uncooperative DSL modem. As you can see, the PC is up again. Now it has more hard drive space than ever before, sporting its own CD-ROM drive (invaluable for emergency boot/install situations), and a brand-new hostname in honor of a fictional young man whose brief experience as a dragon changed his life for the better. It still has only two wires: 115v AC and now 100Mb ethernet (swapped with kids' computer).

I remember spending many late hours trying to get Windows or its programs to work. That was many years ago. It's inevitable, because computers are just complex machines. Even appliances go berserk from time to time. The frustrating thing for me was that I paid good money for the privilege of that sleepless (and often fruitless) wrestling to get things working properly. It was about that time that I tried some alternatives in the hope of finding a Better Way. That included OS2/Warp, and would have included MacOS too, if I could have afforded it. (MacOS 7 was current at the time.) Then, I learned about Linux. I reasoned: "Why pay for my problems, when I can have them all for free?" The surprising thing was that my problems and frustration were also dramatically reduced, while my productivity and satisfaction were dramatically increased. See? You get what you pay for.

Linux is still free, and my problems are still few. Now, though, you can buy low-cost computers running Linux from Wal-Mart and many other places. Also, many (most?) of the embedded devices you use without even realizing it are running Linux.

Just think: my recent upgrade adventure, which wasn't even so bad overall, used to be so commonplace that it was hardly worth writing about. Now, it's rare enough -- for me, anyway -- that I mentioned it on the Plucked Chicken. So thank you, all who contribute to Free Software!