PMW

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.

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.

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.

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?

While the first two changes were relatively easy to understand, this one you might have to ponder for a while, and I would fully expect some brotherly debate about it.

The Bible uses some words in a way that makes their definition rather important. "Justification" and its cognates are an example, as well as "sanctification" and its cognates. We're careful about how we use these words, so that we don't cause unnecessary confusion.

Other words can be just as important, though their special meaning comes from the way we use them, rather than the way they are used in the Bible. "Trinity" is a good example of that. In the PMW, the words "public," "private," "official," and "unofficial" are other examples.

Those four words are really two pairs of opposites, and they are not defined in the Bible. AC XIV uses the word "public" to describe the sort of preaching, teaching, and administration of the sacraments that requires a regular call. My own observation has noted that the Confessions usually mean "with many people" when they use the word "public," and they usually mean "with few people" when they use the word "private." While we are not bound to this usage, it is still noteworthy.

Meanwhile, the word "official" usually means "with authority pertaining to an office," while "unofficial" usually means "without the authority of any office."

Here's what the PMW says under the heading "The Office of the Keys", with a block of citations omitted to make it easier to see the problem:

God has given to His church on earth the Office of the Keys [citations here]. "The Office of the Keys is the special authority which Christ has given to His Church on earth ..."

This is not quite as important a point as the grammar problem I noted last time. It's a matter of tightening up the PMW so that it says what's needed as directly and clearly as possible. This particular problem comes from the department of redundancy department. Unless someone can explain to me the benefit of saying the same thing twice twice, I strongly suggest not doing so. I would recommend that the first sentence be omitted altogether. If any of its citations are too precious to omit, they can be placed after the quotation ends, as references to what's said in the quotation from the Catechism.

I hope that's clear enough. Hopefully, what I wrote is understandable.

Both of the Plucked Chicken's readers know that it tends to focus on matters of importance only within the ELS. In fact, a good bit of what I write about would be called "unimportant" by at least a few within the ELS. That's why I write about such things. It's why the Plucked Chicken exists. This is not a general-purpose blog, at least so far. I don't have time for recounting much from my own life, nor do I really think anyone would want to read it. Most of my personal interests are rather esoteric, and would therefore not be of interest to the general populace (any more than ELS matters are). But every group of people has a tendency to bury some topics that should be discussed, possibly in the vain hope that ignoring something will heal it. That doesn't work so well with infectious diseases or grave wounds in the body, and it doesn't work so well either in a body like the ELS. Healing requires attention, just as adopting a doctrinal statement requires complete, careful, and mutual deliberation. Such attention and deliberation have been wanting in the ELS. Hence, the Plucked Chicken.

As I have the opportunity, I will note some improvements that could be made to the PMW. Here's the first. It says (verbatim):

We reject the teaching that the Holy Spirit comes without the external Word but through their own preparations and works (AC V, Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary, 9).

That's not really a quote from AC V. It's a paraphrase. Do you see the problem? It says "but through their own preparations and works." To whom does that pronoun refer? Hmmm. I'll give you a minute to think about it.

Remember, this is the actual quasi-sacred text of the PMW adopted by the ELS in 2005, the same text that, if challenged, can excite such written exclamations as, "What further need do we have of witnesses?"
If you give up, and would like me to reveal the antecedent of the pronoun, read on.

In an article printed in the latest Lutheran Synod Quarterly, one of the ELS Doctrine Committee members provides a perspective on sacerdotalism. Classically defined, sacerdotalism occurs when we teach that an individual cannot freely and directly approach God (as in prayer), but requires the intervention of a third party -- a priest of some kind. It also occurs when we teach that God's spiritual gifts must always be received through an intermediary -- again, through some kind of priest.

Thus defined, sacerdotalism contradicts scripture's teaching that every Christian is a priest in his own right (1 Peter 2:9). Scripture teaches that every Christian has full access to God in prayer (1 Thessalonians 5:17), and may receive His spiritual gifts through Word and Sacrament with no intercessor but Christ himself.

There is, however, a useful distinction that the author may have overlooked.

The PMW's seventh antithesis reads:

We reject the teaching that the Public Ministry of the Word is limited to the ministry of a parish pastor.

I have no problem with this antithesis, as I understand it. This may surprise some who suppose that I (or others) might object to including school teachers, musicians and the like under the heading "Public Ministry of the Word." But there are two good reasons I have no problem with this.

First, consider this earlier sentence in the statement, which elucidates the antithesis:

Therefore a presiding office, whether it is called that of pastor, shepherd, bishop, presbyter, elder or by any other name, is indispensable for the church.

In my long explanation of the PMW, I wrote:

This antithesis restates part of II.A.3, where we saw that there are several varieties of pastors, not just the parish variety. Each of the labels given in Scripture highlights a different aspect of the pastor's duties, leading us to believe that the mix of duties could differ from individual to individual. Some, called bishops, might have oversight over all the churches in a region. Others might be associate pastors forming a kind of pastoral committee. There are many possibilities. Today, those we call missionaries and chaplains are certainly pastors of a sort, and theological professors among us are pastors too.

That's the first reason I have no problem with it. As you can see, school teachers, musicians, and such are unrelated to the matter at hand, and are not included for consideration. (Such matters are considered under the next chief heading, "The Public Ministry of the Word in a Wider Sense, etc.")

Second, I have no problem with it because this antithesis is refining the definition of an English expression that is not defined in holy scripture.
The expression is "the Public Ministry of the Word." Even if (for the sake of argument) this antithesis meant to include school teachers under that term, it would only be describing our customary usage of an English expression. It would not be referring to the office that Jesus established, whose incumbents are charged as stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1). The English term and the divinely-instituted office are two different things. The term is described in both a narrow and a wider sense, but the office exists perpetually, exactly as Jesus defined it.

There is a way of speaking that expresses things that are not necessarily true at the time, but are nevertheless, at least plausible. It's called the subjunctive mood. This post is in the subjunctive mood. It helps us to discuss the substance of emotionally or politically-charged issues without descending into flame, both literally and figuratively.

A while back, I received an email from a reader about this update from the 2007 synod convention, written after the very first full day of the convention. The reader raises an important question. For the answer, I would refer all readers to an excellent ELS treatment of this subject called Unity, Union, and Unionism. After that, I invite your comments, either here or via email.

It may seem strange to think of unionism at a time when schism may also be taking place. One might wonder if they are opposites, and if so, how could they be happening simultaneously? The short answer is that they are not opposites. They are two different branches from the same trunk. The trunk is any doctrine that is not found in holy scripture, whether it be positive (We teach...) or negative (We do not teach...). Unionism is the outward joining of an orthodox church with an unorthodox church on an unscriptural basis. Schism is the separation of two orthodox churches on an unscriptural basis. They both proceed from the same sort of trunk. Therefore, it wouldn't be so surprising to find both in the same place at the same time. That was a subjunctive statement.

Here is the reader's question.

You said

we will be basing our unity upon the mutual acceptance of a human document that apparently allows for a variety of interpretations.

I would like to know how that is different from what the ELCA and Roman Catholics did with that Joint Declaration thing they passed several years ago. Isn't it fairly well understood that they agreed to not bind each other to any specific meaning of certain terms, like justification, for instance; but they used terminology that would, in the name of unity, allow for multiple interpretations of the document.

Now I don't think that the PMW was intentionally done that way. At least I trust it was not. But by continuing to demand subscription to it even after it is well established that the differences exist, are we not guilty of the same thing we accuse the ELCA of with regard to the JDDJ?

Thanks for letting me vent-it is so incredibly obvious to me!

One difference is that none of the adherents to the JDDJ have objected to it. I suppose that's a tautology, but from our point of view, it makes a difference. The differences of understanding of the PMW may have allowed divergent points of view to overlook substantive disagreements between them, and that would (subjunctive) be bad. Yet the same set of differences has also produced a small but conscientious resistance to the PMW. This is what has absorbed many ELS resources this last couple of years. I don't see the same thing happening in the ELCA about the JDDJ.

If we were (subjunctive) to seriously examine our disagreements on a sound hermeneutical basis (on the Bible), then I would say we'd still be on the right track. If we were (subjunctive) to sweep our disagreements under the rug, attempt to eliminate them by a misuse of authority, or try for a political/rhetorical resolution via any number of logical fallacies, then we would become the pot who called the kettle black.

The longer memorial sent in by my congregations has reportedly been discussed by the floor committee for doctrine. The discussion lasted a couple of hours, which was how long the same discussion took last year.

I was asked by a fellow traveler what I thought would happen with these memorials. My realistic/pessimistic prediction for this memorial was that the floor committee would basically say "We already have a doctrinal statement on the ministry, and are unwilling to change that. Let this be the answer to any memorials that challenge it." This prediction has reportedly come true. The good news in this was that the discussion was cordial, with deep concern for unity in the synod on this doctrine. The floor committee also spoke of a resolution promoting continued patience and study. So the memorial was not a complete failure.

The problem remains that there is basic disagreement on the meaning of our doctrinal statement. As I have pointed out, a fine paper was delivered at our last General Pastoral Conference on how the PMW might be "parsed," or how we should read it. This "parsing" is not far from my own understanding of the PMW, and I could possibly subscribe to the PMW on that basis. Yet quite a few of the pastors who heard that paper voiced deep concerns, and even basic disagreement. A majority of the PCM (the committee that drafted the PMW) has privately expressed agreement with the "parsing " paper, but there has been no public endorsement of any particular understanding of the PMW.

So if the floor committee's work is adopted by the synod convention, then a serious problem remains to challenge the unity of our synod. Instead of basing our unity upon the teaching of scripture, we will be basing our unity upon the mutual acceptance of a human document that apparently allows for a variety of interpretations. This is dangerously close to "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." It's the basis of unity in church bodies that have departed from the historic Christian faith -- the faith founded upon the unambiguous doctrine of holy scripture alone.

I need to clarify some things I wrote in the Cause and Effect article. It's a little densely written.

Stemming from the PMW document

The first problem that comes to mind is the disagreement and confusion we saw from the time it was introduced, through the time it was adopted, and even to the present. There is disagreement about what it says between those who are sure about it. There is confusion among the rest, because they're not sure what it says. This situation could have been avoided with the right kind of public study and discourse before the adoption of the statement, but that's now water over the dam. Instead of containing that water, our job is now to evacuate the villages downstream.

The ministry statement adopted by the ELS in 2005 had been scrutinized by a number of ELS pastors and laymen by that time. Questions and misunderstanding abounded, and there were few satisfying answers. Some wondered if there were really contrary doctrines in play among us, but a greater problem was that some elements of the ministry statement go beyond the purview of holy scripture, describing instead the tradition and sensibility of the ELS. Such things can't be scripturally defended as doctrines, though there may be nothing wrong with them as local traditions.

Compounding that problem, there has been disagreement about what "the office of the holy ministry" is all about. Is it essentially an activity, or is it essentially a position to be filled, which performs the activity? The adopted ministry statement attempts to say it's both, but the success of this attempt is a matter of debate. Some say it favors one point of view, and vice versa. Some say that there is really no scriptural support for one point of view, and vice versa. This is another one of those important, but unanswered questions. An answer will require some public exegetical work from both sides, and agreement upon terminology.

The ministry statement was brought to the convention for adoption prematurely. It had enough votes for adoption, but 3/8 of the synod opposed it. Since the implementation stage began, we have seen some effects of these undesirable circumstances. I'll point out a few that have been brought to light in the report of the Commission on Appeals, formed to deal with the suspension of Pastor P. from the ELS.

What is happening when we celebrate the Lord's Supper? Is Jesus inviting us to His table, to dine upon food that He's providing, or do we initiate the meal ourselves, retracing important events of that evening as a reminder to ourselves of what we intend to do? Are the powers involved in the Lord's Supper comprehensible by the human mind, or are they beyond us? Who is really bringing the word to the element, and when does this happen?

A number of fellow ELS pastors and I have been troubled by certain practices and the underlying doctrine that we have observed among conservative Lutherans. Instead of arguing about what has been said or done, I'd like to have a discussion about the doctrine, as we find it originally in holy scripture and also in our Lutheran confessions.