douglas d. fusselman || Abstract - In the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, hundreds of God's people receive what they believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ from the hand of a lay minister. Concern for these believers makes it imperative to determine if the efficacy of the Holy Communion is in any way dependent upon the Office of the Ministry. Can the functions of the Office be genuinely performed apart from the Office itself? Does the lay minister distribute the true Sacrament or only empty sacramental elements? Early Lutheran discussions of the Ministry yield unexpected--even disquieting--answers to these and other related questions.
A SIXTEENTH CENTURY PRIEST once related this estimation of the laity performing churchly acts:
If a layman should perform all the outward functions of a priest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administering the sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in all respects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact, they might be performed more reverently and properly than the real ones. But because he has not been consecrated and ordained and sanctified, he performs nothing at all, but is only playing church and deceiving himself and his followers.1The proposition that any such layman is "deceiving himself and his followers" becomes noteworthy and evokes serious consideration only when it is disclosed that the priest who uttered these words in 1515 was the young Martin Luther. Was this notion nothing more than a remnant of Luther's Roman roots? Did the mature Luther ultimately reject this understanding of the Office of the Ministry? If not, to what extent did he and other sixteenth-century theologians retain this position? Many such questions beg for answers.
Luther's statement is significant also in light of the ever expanding utilization of lay ministers in North American Lutheranism--most Lutheran bodies are currently either exploring or employing lay ministry. The Missouri Synod, for example, opened the door for lay ministry in 1981 with the provision that "in exceptional circumstances or in emergencies... qualified individuals may temporarily be called upon to perform, under proper supervision, functions that are otherwise performed by the pastor."2 In 1989 Missouri officially sanctioned the lay exercise of Public Ministry functions when the 57th Synodical Convention adopted a resolution which allowed for the celebration of the Lord's Supper by "licensed" layworkers in congregations which would otherwise be deprived of the Sacrament for a long period of time.3 At present, approximately 135 lay ministers are serving in "an ongoing Word and Sacrament ministry" within the Missouri Synod.4 Luther's suggestion that any layman who performs the outward functions of a priest is "only playing church" is of more than passing historical interest when one realizes that hundreds of God's people receive what they believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ from the hand of a lay minister. Concern for these believers makes it imperative to determined if, as Luther suggested, the efficacy of the Holy Communion is in any way dependent upon the Office of the Ministry. Does a lay minister distribute the true Sacrament or only empty sacramental elements? Can the functions of the Ministry be genuinely performed apart from the Office? Answers to these and other related questions shall be sought in early Lutheran discussions of the Pastoral Ministry.
The Christological View of the Office
From the beginning, Lutherans have confessed a decidedly christological understanding of the Public Ministry. Luther, in his 1533 treatise on the private mass, highlighted Christ's intimate connection with the Office.
For we must believe and be sure of this, that baptism does not belong to us but to Christ, that the gospel does not belong to us but to Christ, that the office of preaching does not belong to us but to Christ, that the sacrament [of the Lord's Supper] does not belong to us but to Christ, that the keys, or forgiveness and retention of sins, do not belong to us but to Christ. In summary, the offices and sacraments do not belong to us but to Christ... 5The Office of the Public Ministry is Christ's Office in Christ's Church. Individuals are allowed, even commanded, to exercise the Office, yet it is not their possession. The Ministry, like the Church, belongs to Christ alone. A Pastor, therefore, cannot perform the functions of the Office personally. The Minister can act only as a representative of Christ. Thus Melanchthon, in Apology VII & VIII, was able to assert:
[Ministers] do not represent their own persons but the person of Christ, because of the church's call, as Christ testifies (Luke 10:16), "He who hears you hears me." When they offer the Word of Christ or the sacraments, they do so in Christ's place and stead.6The Minister functions "in the stead and by the command" of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the modern Lutheran liturgy so clearly states.7
This common description of the Christ/Clergy relationship, however, can easily convey a Reformed rather than Lutheran christology if understood in isolation. To say only that the Pastor represents Christ or stands in His place can suggest that Jesus is locally confined in heaven and thus incapable of personal presence among His people. Under this scheme a Minister must serve as the earthly surrogate necessitated by Jesus' heavenly exile. Since the Minister is required to perform churchly acts for Jesus, as His substitute, the functions of the Office ultimately eclipse the Office itself. Christ is relegated to a place far removed from His Church on earth and to the very fringe of any discussion of the Office of the Ministry. In as much as this understanding of the Public Ministry portrays Christ in absentia, it must be identified as neither Lutheran nor truly christological. This was never the intent of the early Lutheran fathers.
The Minister does not stand in the place of an absent Christ, but rather in the stead of an eminently present Christ. According to both the Divine and human natures, Jesus is existent in His Church. This concept was clearly stated in Solid Declaration VIII:
...no other human being in heaven and on earth can say truthfully, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them," [Matt. 18:20] likewise. "I am with you always even to the close of the age." [Matt. 28:20]... We believe that the cited passages illustrate the majesty of the man Christ, which Christ received according to his humanity at the right hand of the majesty and power of God, so that, also according to and with this same assumed human nature of his, Christ can be and is present wherever he wills, and in particular that he is present with his church and community on earth as mediator, head, king, and high priest.8Christ is not distant from His people but He is truly present and active in His Church on earth.
This Divine/human ecclesiastical presence is identifiable--for Christ has chosen to approach His people in a transrational way, under earthly elements. One such place in which Christ is present is in the Sacrament of the Altar.9 In Apology XIII Melanchthon identified the Office of the Ministry as another place in which Christ's presence is encountered: "The Church has the command to appoint ministers; to this we must subscribe wholeheartedly, for we know that God approves this ministry and is present in it."10 Christ's presence in the Church is not ethereal but real. Congregations are obliged to give concrete embodiment to this presence by appointing ministers. The minister then functions as the means and instrument through which Christ Himself personally does His work in His Church. The Pastor does not function in the place of a Christ who is far removed from His people; on the contrary, Christ is personally present in the local congregation in, with, and under the person of the appointed minister.
Other sixteenth-century Lutheran theologians would concur. In the Enchiridion, Martin Chemnitz explained:
God Himself deals with us in the church through the ministry as through ordinary means and instrument. For it is He Himself that speaks, exhorts, absolves, baptizes, etc. in the ministry and through the ministry.11Luther directly applied this understanding of the Ministry to this own Office and ecclesiastical function in a 1539 sermon: "Whenever you hear me, you hear not me, but Christ. I do not give you my baptism, my body and blood; I do not absolve you."12 On another occasion he amplified this same concept:
Thus the apostles and pastors are nothing but channels through which Christ leads and transmits His Gospel from the Father to us. Therefore wherever you hear the Gospel properly taught or see a person baptized, wherever you see someone administer or receive the Sacrament, or wherever you witness someone absolving another, there you may say without hesitation: "Today I beheld God's Word and work. Yes, I saw and heard God Himself preaching and baptizing." To be sure, the tongue, the voice, the hands, etc., are those of a human being; but the Word and the ministry are really those of the Divine Majesty Himself. Hence it must be viewed and believed as though God's own voice were resounding from heaven and as though we were seeing Him administer Baptism or the Sacrament with His own hands.13In his 1540 sermon on John 4, Luther used even stronger language to express this important truth.
Even today Baptism and the proclamation of the Divine Word are not mine but God's. When we hear this Word, we must bear in mind that it is God Himself who is addressing us. When kings hear the Word and see the administration of the Sacraments, they should place their crowns and scepters at His feet and say: It is God who has His being here, who speaks here, and who is active here. You will perhaps be tempted to interpose: Why, it is just a plain priest standing there and administering the Lord's supper! If that is your viewpoint, you are no Christian. It I were to hear none but you preach, I would not care a straw about it; but it is God who is speaking there. It is He who is baptizing; it is He who is active. He himself is present here. Thus the preacher does not speak for himself; he is the spokesman of God, the heavenly Father. Therefore you ought to say: I saw God Himself baptizing and administering the Sacrament of the Altar, and I heard God preaching the Word.... Why do you refuse to listen to God, who comes in the guise of a humble human being, who conceals Himself and resembles His beloved apostles? The word that you hear is not that of a pastor; it is God's Word. And since it is God's word, you should be excited and happy over it. But people will not do this. They think that they know better.14Luther and other Lutheran fathers espoused an understanding of the Ministry which was exceedingly christological. They held that Christ Himself in, with, and under the Office of the Public Ministry is both present and active among His people.
It is precisely this mystical union of Christ's Office and Christ's Divine/human presence that is described in Apology VII & VIII:
[Ministers] do not represent their own persons but the person of Christ, because of the church's call, as Christ testifies (Luke 10:16), "He who hears you hears me." When they offer the Word of Christ or the sacraments, they do so in Christ's place and stead.15No empty representation is intended here. The Minister does not act as a private individual but, "because of the church's call," functions as the earthly element through which Christ Himself is speaking to and working among His own people. The congregation does not simply hear Jesus' words coming out of the Pastor's mouth like one person reading a speech written by another. The congregation hears Jesus! He is present as speaker and actor. The Minister is only the means or instrument through which Jesus personally does His work in His Church.
This is not to say that everything a Pastor does is instrumental. In Solid Declaration VII it is asserted that, "Nothing has the character of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ, or apart from the divinely instituted action."16 This oft cited "Nihil rule" can be profitably applied also to the Public Ministry. Only those Ministry actions which are commanded by Jesus can be performed instrumentally. Apart from these dominically instituted actions the Pastor does not--indeed cannot--represent the person of Christ. The specific actions of the Ministry, therefore, are essential. They must be conducted in accordance with the Divine command. But "correct function" is not the only consideration. As has been demonstrated above, "Office" is also of vital importance. The proper relationship between both factors must be maintained: Jesus is present and active under the earthly element of the human Pastor, when (and only when) the Minister performs Christ's functions in Christ's Office in accordance with Christ's commands.
The Office and Sacramental Efficacy
This understanding of the Office can help to clarify the distinction between laity and Clergy. The difference here is most certainly NOT a matter of spiritual or personal inferiority/superiority. The Ministerial vocation in no way entails human achievement of a more spiritually advanced quality than that possible among the laity. Rejected, too, is any notion of the Pastor as an elitist, high-level, ecclesiastical manager. Such an administrative view of the Office is only marginally christological if not altogether unchristian; Christ came--and continues to come in the Office--not as tyrant, but as servant: "I am among you as one who serves" (Luke 22:27). Far from second class members of the Kingdom, laymen and laywomen are the very objects of Christ's continuing service through the Public Ministry. He has, in fact, promised His presence only to them (the "two or three" gathered in His name) and not to isolated clerics separated from the Christian community. The Office does not and cannot exist apart from the Church! The laity need only supply the elements for Christ's presence among them; congregations must provide the concrete embodiment for His presence by calling and appointing Ministers. Through these Ministers, as through means, Christ Himself personally serves His people with His own Word and Sacraments.
The lay/Clergy distinction, then, is simply a matter of instrumentality: A member of the laity functions according to his/her own person; a member of the Clergy functions in the Office, that is, as the instrument of Christ's presence. The layperson might correctly perform churchly acts, but in such actions he/she alone is the actor. When the Cleric performs these same acts in the Office, Christ Himself is the actor. This important distinction can influence the efficacy of the divinely instituted actions.
The lay/Clergy distinction is nowhere more commonly understood than in the concept of absolution. The Minister, by virtue of the Office, is able to deliver "indicative-operative absolution" in the first person singular: "I forgive you all your sins..."17 Christ is here personally addressing the penitent through the instrument of the Pastor--the penitent truly encounters Christ. If a member of the laity should speak in this manner, the offered forgiveness would be considered as coming from the absolving individual rather than from the only begotten Son of the Father. The laity can deliver Divine pardon only in the third person singular: "God forgives you all your sins." While it cannot be demonstrated that one form of absolution is always or necessarily preferable to the other, it can be demonstrated that the two absolutions are not identical. The Office is the difference.
The lay/Clergy distinction is discernible also in the application of the Word. In Kirche und Amt, C.F.W. Walther quoted Luther on this issue.
Indeed, many blurt out and say: 'Why do we need more pastors and ministers, since we can read [the Bible] ourselves at home?' So they go their way in carnal security, and do not read it at home. Or even if they do read it at home, it is neither as fruitful nor as effective as the Word is efficacious when it is publicly proclaimed by the mouth of the pastor whom God has called and appointed to preach and teach it to you.18It is not suggested here that the written Word is without effect. The point is that the Word proclaimed by the Pastor is MORE effective than that read by the laity. How could Luther (with Walther's blessing) make such a contention? This statement is difficult--if not impossible--to explain unless reading words about Jesus is somehow different from hearing words from Jesus.19 In that case, the Office is once again the difference.20
The lay/Clergy distinction plays most prominently in the discussion of the efficacy of the Holy Communion. In his Examen, Chemnitz elucidated the importance of the Office in the administration of the Sacrament after first rejecting any sort of magical potency in the words of institution.
...the recitation of these words is not to be used in the way magicians recite their incantations in set formulas, for instance to bring down Jupiter Elicius or the moon from heaven, namely by the strength and power of the letters and syllables, if they are recited and pronounced a certain way; but as Paul asserts, that in the preaching of the Gospel Christ Himself speaks through the mouth of ministers (Rom. 15:18-19; 2 Cor. 13:3) and that God is making His appeal through us (2 Cor. 5:20). So in the action of the Eucharist the minister acts as an ambassador in the place of Christ, who is Himself there present, and through the minister pronounces these words: This is My body; this do, etc., and for this reason His Word is efficacious. Therefore it is not a man, the minister, who by his consecration and blessing makes bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, by means of His Word, is present in this action, and by means of the Word of His institution, which is spoken through the mouth of the minister, He brings it about that the bread is His body and the cup His blood...21Chemnitz would allow no incantational understanding of the consecration; he rejected any suggestion that the sounds of the words alone could effect a magical transformation of the elements. The words of institution are said to be efficacious because they are the words of the present and powerful Christ, spoken by Christ Himself through the mouth of the Minister.
Chemnitz continued his discussion of the essential relationship between the Office and the Sacrament, after spurning the notion that the consecration has nothing more than historical significance.
Therefore the words of institution are spoken in our Lord's Supper, not merely for the sake of history but to show to the church that Christ Himself, through His Word, according to His command and promise, is present in the action of the Supper and by the power of this Word offers His body and blood to those who eat. For it is He who distributes, though it be through the minister; it is He who says: This is my body. It is He who is efficacious through His Word, so that the bread is His body and the wine His blood.22Christ is said to be present not only in the words and elements of the Supper but in the action of the Supper as well.23 The Sacrament, therefore, is efficacious because Jesus personally speaks the words of institution. The Minister is only the instrument through which Christ Himself is among His people to consecrate and distribute His own body and blood.
This understanding of the consecration and distribution was also presented in De coena Domini where Chemnitz cited Chrysostom to once more suggest that through the Minister it is Christ Himself who actually consecrates and distributes the Sacrament: "When you see the hand of the priest holding out to us the body of the Lord, we must remember that it is not the hand of the priest stretching out to us but the hand of Christ who says, 'Take and eat; this is My body.'"24 Chemnitz would have the Christian "see" Christ under both the sacramental bread and the sacramental celebrant. The "real presence" of the Lord's Supper is here fused with the "real presence" of the Lord's Office.
Luther similarly emphasized the importance of Christ's presence in the administration of this Sacrament.
We hear these words, "This is my body," not as spoken concerning the person of the pastor or the minister but as coming from Christ's own mouth who is present and says to us: "Take, eat, this is my body." We do not hear or understand them otherwise and know indeed that the pastor's or the minister's body is not in the bread nor is it being administered. Consequently, we also do not hear the command and ordinance according to which he says, "Do this in remembrance of me," as words spoken according to the pastor's person; but we hear Christ himself through the pastor's mouth speaking to us and commanding that we should take bread and wine at his Word, "This is my body," etc., and in them according to his command eat his body and drink his blood.25For Luther, the elements do not encompass the Pastor's body because the consecration is not spoken concerning the Pastor's person. Through the Office Christ speaks and thus offers His own body and blood under the elements.
This understanding of the consecration is similarly forwarded in Solid Declaration VII:
No man's word or work, be it the merit or the speaking of the minister, be it the eating and drinking or the faith of the communicants, can effect the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. This is to be ascribed only to the almighty power of God and the Word, institution, and ordinance of our Lord Jesus Christ.... Chrysostom says in his Sermon on the Passion: "Christ himself prepares this table and blesses it. No human being, but only Christ himself who was crucified for us can make of the bread and wine set before us the body and blood of Christ. The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but by God's power and grace through the words that he speaks, 'This is my body,' the elements set before us in the supper are blessed..."26No mere mortal is capable of presenting the Supper. It is Christ Himself, through the minister, who prepares the Sacrament and blesses it.
Luther's insights into the consecration of the Supper are cited in support of this position as the argument in Solid Declaration VII is continued:
"...if I were to say over all the bread there is, 'This is the body of Christ,' nothing would happen, but when we follow his institution and command in the Lord's supper and say, 'This is my body,' then it is his body, not because of our speaking or of our efficacious word, but because of his command in which he has told us so to speak and to do and has attached his own command and deed to our speaking."27To attempt consecration in the third person singular--"This is the body of Christ"--is here said to be contrary to the Divine institution and therefore fruitless. Apart from an incantational recitation of the words of institution (which Chemnitz disallowed above), the laity can not employ the first person singular consecration--"This is my body"--and have it apply to the body of Christ because the antecedent of "MY body" is the individual's own body. For a layperson to attempt consecration with the formula: "Christ said, This is my body," is to resort to mere historical narrative which has also been rejected above. In the final assessment, only a Minister, by virtue of the Office, can speak the words of institution according to Christ's command, for only a Cleric can genuinely consecrate the Supper in the first person singular. When, through the instrument of the Pastor, Christ Himself is present and declares: "This is my body," then and only then is the Holy Communion efficacious.28 The Office makes the difference.
It must be ever maintained that the Lord's Supper is not robbed of its efficacy when administered by unworthy or evil ministers.29 Neither is the intention of the Officiant of any consequence, as Chemnitz declared: "faith may hold the sacrament to be true and have true efficacy when it is administered according to the institution, no matter what the minister either thinks or believes or intends, if only he preserves the institution of Christ in the administration."30 In 1533 Luther went so far as to suggest that
even if the devil himself came, ...let himself be called to the office of the ministry, and publicly preached the gospel in the Church, baptized, celebrated mass, absolved and exercised and administered such offices and sacraments, as a pastor would, according to the command of Christ--then we would for all that have to admit that the sacraments were valid, that we had received a valid baptism, had heard the true gospel, obtained true absolution, and had participated in the true sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. For our faith and the sacrament must not be based on the person, whether he is godly or evil, consecrated or unconsecrated, called or an impostor, whether he is the devil or his mother, but upon Christ, upon his Word, upon his office, upon his command and ordinance; where these are in force, there everything will be carried out properly, no matter who or what that person might happen to be.31Christ's body and blood would be present under the elements even though administered by the devil himself if two basic requirements were satisfied: if the Sacrament was celebrated in accordance with the Divine command; and if the devil held the Office of the Ministry through which Christ personally functions. The Office--and not the person who fills it--is a most important consideration in determining sacramental efficacy. Luther illustrated this truth with his usual eloquence.
Offices and sacraments always remain in the church; persons are daily subject to change. As long as we call and induct into the offices persons who can administer them, then the offices will surely continue to be exercised. The horse has been bridled and saddled; if you place on it even a naked lad who can ride, the horse will proceed as well as if the emperor or the pope were riding it.32Even a boy may be set in the saddle and ride, but any attempt to jog alongside is an altogether different proposition.
Luther Was Correct
According to the early Lutheran fathers, the Public Ministry must be understood christologically--the Office is a concrete expression of Christ's Divine/human presence in the congregation. Christ is not a distant or absent lord but the ever present Lord of the Church! He is the foundation upon which the Public Ministry is built, the deep structure upon which the Pastoral Office depends. Consequently, there can be no ministry about Jesus Christ for there exists only the one Ministry of Jesus Christ. Through the Office, Christ is personally active among His people. He preaches, He absolves, and He celebrates the Sacraments according to His own command and institution. Apart from the Office of the Ministry, churchly acts are performed not by Christ but by the acting individual alone. Historically, the functions of the Ministerial Office have been almost exclusively performed by those placed into the Ministerial Office. The christological understanding of the Ministry presented here would suggest that this ancient practice is not only reasonable but absolutely essential.
It seems that the young Luther's view of Sacramental efficacy was correct: an ordinary layperson may perform all the actions of the Holy Communion quite reverently and correctly, yet he/she can only offer ordinary bread and wine; for without Christ's presence through the Office of the Ministry, His command and institution simply cannot be observed. Unless Christ Himself says, "This is MY body..." there can be no consecration and therefore no Sacrament of the Altar. More than a minor departure from "good order," any attempt to celebrate the Eucharist apart from the Public Ministry is not only illicit but also invalid and inefficacious.
Since "lay minister" is a confusing, oxymoronic term,33 the issue of the lay minister and the Lord's Supper is not so easily or quickly resolved. The endless discussions of "ordained versus called," "educated versus uneducated," "exclusive functions of ministry versus distinctive functions of ministry" may be promptly dismissed, however; for lay ministry can only be properly defined and understood according to its relationship to the Public Ministry. In matters of Eucharistic efficacy, the Office makes a difference. If, in fact, the lay minister holds the Office of the Ministry because of the congregation's appointment (as some congregations and lay ministers might suppose), then Christ is indeed present and active in the Office and the Sacrament consecrated by a lay minister is valid and efficacious. If, on the other hand, lay ministers do not hold the Office--if they only perform the functions of the Ministry apart from the Office itself (as suggested in the LC-MS Lay Worker resolution34)--then lay ministers are merely acting according to their own persons when they attempt to consecrate the Supper and can offer only empty bread and wine; for apart from Christ's speaking in and through the Office, Christ's own institution cannot be observed and no valid Eucharist is possible.
Who is to say which assessment of the lay minister describes the spiritual reality? Manmade theological hybrids like lay ministry often defy easy categorization, always raise difficult questions, and sometimes even obscure the truth. In matters related to the Lord's Supper, however, such uncertainty is intolerable and inexcusable. God's people should never have occasion to doubt the efficacy of the Lord's Supper celebrated in their midst. This is precisely the kind of confusion and suspicion that Augustana XIV was intended to eliminate. Something must be done!
To insure every communicant's sacramental certainty, no individual should be allowed to perform the functions of the Office of the Ministry apart from the Office itself. This does not necessarily mean that all lay ministers should be banned from their Altars and driven from their congregations, although the present difficulty could be corrected in this way. A less drastic approach might be more desirable: why not openly and publicly confer the Office of the Public Ministry on those lay ministers presently serving in "ongoing Word and Sacrament ministry"? Not just a "license" to impersonate a Minister, but the Holy Office itself could be granted to these individuals.35 Then there would be no doubt about the efficacy of church's sacramental celebration. Then God's people would no longer need to wonder if, perhaps, the individual at their altar was "only playing church."
1 Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, vol. 25, Luther's Works, ed. by Hilton C. Oswald (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), 234.
2 Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, The Ministry (St. Louis: LCMS, 1981), 35.
3 "To Adopt Recommendations of Lay Worker Study Committee Report as Amended," Resolution 3-05B in Proceedings of the 57th Regular Convention of the LCMS in Wichita, Kansas 7-14 July 1989 (St. Louis: LC-MS, 1989), 113.
4 Ibid., 111.
5 Martin Luther, Luther's Works, vol. 38, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 200.
6 T.G.Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 173. Hereafter cited as Tappert.
7 The Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Lutheran Worship (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1982), 137.
8 Tappert, 606-07.
9 Ibid.
10 Tappert, 212.
11 Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, tr. by Luther Poellot (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981), 29. For a fuller treatment of Christ's presence and activity in the Church see Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, tr. by J.A.O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), 423-65.
12 Martin Luther, Luther's Works, vol. 51, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 299.
13 Martin Luther, Luther's Works, vol. 24, ed. by Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961), 67.
14 Martin Luther, Luther's Works, vol. 22, ed. by Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957), 505-9.
15 Tappert, 173. See also Tappert, 177.
16 Ibid., 584.
17 Commission on Worship of the Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod, "Notes on the Liturgy," in Lutheran Worship Altar Book (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1982), 34.
18 C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry, tr. by J.T. Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987), 193.
19 This distinction may be subtly suggested in the Gospels: John the Baptist announced that his proclamation about Jesus, although effective, was inferior to the greater personal ministry of Jesus (Matt. 3:11). Similarly, emergency lay baptism might be profitably compared to John's baptism, which was effective but distinguishable from Jesus' baptism (Acts 18:25).
20 It is perhaps significant that in the Roman Catholic tradition, a layperson may read the first two lessons, but only the priest (or deacon) is allowed to read the Gospel, the very words of Christ.
21 Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II, tr. by Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978), 228-29. Hereafter cited as Examination II.
22 Ibid., 229.
23 If Luke's Emmaus account (24:12 ff) is understood sacramentally (see Tappert, 237), it is significant that the two did not recognized Jesus in the elements of the supper but in the action of the supper: "the breaking of the bread" (24:35).
24 Martin Chemnitz, The Lord's Supper, tr. by J.A.O. Preus, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979), 159. For a fuller treatment of Chrysostom's understanding of the Office and Eucharistic efficacy see Carl A. Volz, Pastoral Life and Practice in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 40.
25 Luther's Works, vol. 38., 199.
26 Tappert, 583.
27 Ibid., 583-84.
28 Herein lies an important difference between Baptism and the Lord's Supper. While the the formula for the Eucharist is in the first person ("This is my body") thus necessitating Christ's own action in the Office for efficacy, the formula for Baptism is in the third person ("...in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") thus allowing valid emergency lay Baptisms apart from the Office.
29 Tappert, 173 and 177.
30 Examination II, 105.
31 Luther's Works, vol. 38., 200. Italics added.
32 Ibid., 201.
33 Substituting "lay worker" or "deacon" helps little. See Proceedings, 112.
34 Ibid.
35 Others have suggested this course of action. See, for example, John R. Stephenson, "Who is the Rightful Celebrant of Holy Communion?" Lutheran Theological Review 11:1, (Fall/Winter 1989-90): 31.
18 March 1996
This essay was presented as an Open/Academic Topic at the Second Annual Theological Symposium at Concordia Seminary (St. Louis) in May 1992. It was also published in the Epiphany/January 1994 issue of LOGIA and is now reprinted by permission of the editors.
douglas d. fusselman is a 1982 graduate of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne Indiana.
