douglas d. fusselman || Abstract - The current practice of church discipline is clouded by a very real theological inconsistency--an inconsistency which stems in large part from a popular yet faulty understanding of the "power of jurisdiction." This essay seeks to both identify the source of this problem and then offer a workable solution by examining Dr. Luther's pertinent writings and the Lutheran Confessions.
THE CURRENT, LUTHERAN TEACHING concerning church discipline is not, as one might assume, a single, smooth, seamless garment--far from it. A very real theological and practical inconsistency is readily apparent, the origins of which can be traced back at least to C.F.W. Walther.1 In Kirche und Amt (1852) Walther offered the following counsel for the employment of excommunication.
[A]lthough the public enforcement of excommunication belongs to and must remain with the incumbents of the ministry of the Word, according to the Lords command and sacred institution, nevertheless, it must be carried out according to the Lords express command and order only after the whole congregation (that is, the minister and the hearer[s]) has considered and made final judicial decision on the matter. ...[In Matthew 18] Christ clearly gives the supreme jurisdiction to the church or congregation, as our Confessions say, and He desires that a sinner in a congregation be regarded as a heathen and a tax collector and that the dreadful judgement of excommunication be pronounced on him only after manifold private admonitions and the public admonition before and by the congregation have proved themselves fruitless, so that the congregation has unanimously decided to excommunicate him through its pastor.2According to Walther, the Minister of the Word is indeed charged with the public enforcement of excommunication, but only after the congregation, the sole possessor of supreme jurisdiction in such matters, has made the final, unanimous,3 decision to exclude the manifestly impenitent individual from the church's Communion. The pastor merely announces and enforces the will and decision of God as determined by the laity.4
Yet--and herein lies the inconsistency in Lutheran practice--although
...a pastor may not himself excommunicate without the congregation, he may, in the interest of a persons spiritual welfare, refuse to commune one whose presence at the altar would be a source of offence to others in the congregation, or one living in unrepentant sin who is still being dealt with on a personal basis...5The Lutheran pastor is not allowed to excommunicate without a congregational directive yet he can personally refuse to commune someone without even notifying the congregation of his action. How can one justify such a distinction?6 What exactly is excommunication if not the exclusion of an individual from the communion of the Church, exclusion from the Lords Supper?7 And where is the dominical command and promise for this ministerial, private excommunication? Furthermore, if an excommunicable offence must always be open and manifest, should any suspension from the Communion ever be hidden and secret? If the only real reason for Sacramental exclusion is unbelief,8 how can the pastor (or anyone else, for that matter) identify unbelief apart from the process prescribed in Matthew 18? Is there any substantive difference between the formal excommunication of the whole congregation and the informal excommunication secretly imposed by the pastor himself? Clearly, this is more than a matter of conflicting theological abstractions. The church's practical application of Law and Gospel is directly effected.
The underlying question here centers on the power of jurisdiction (potestas iurisdictionis).9 To whom is judicial power given and who is dominically charged with its evangelical use? An uneasy tension between the pastoral and congregational exercise of this power makes simple answers all but impossible. Do not imagine that this tension between pastor and people is of recent origin. The difficulty predates even Walther and is clearly evident already in the Book of Concord.10
In the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, responsibility for the implementation of the keys--the power of jurisdiction--is ascribed to the entire church.
...it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys, Matt. 18, 19, adds: if two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to everyone who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom he has given the keys, namely, the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My Name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church]11"[S]upreme and final jurisdiction" is here said to belong principally and immediately to the entire church.
Yet Melanchthon seems to contradict himself later in the Treatise. The power of jurisdiction is now ascribed to the parish pastor.
...the Gospel assigns to those who preside over the Churches the command to teach the Gospel, remit sins, to administer the Sacraments, and besides jurisdiction, namely, the command to excommunicate those whose crimes are known, and again to absolve those who repent. And by the confession of all, even of the adversaries, it is clear that this power by divine right is common to all who preside over churches, whether they are called pastors, or elders, or bishops.12
It is certain that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those guilty of manifest crimes belongs to all pastors. This they have tyrannically transferred to themselves alone, and have applied it to the acquisition of gain. For it is certain that the officials, as they are called, employed a license not to be tolerated, and either on account of avarice or because of other wanton desires tormented men and excommunicated them without any due process of law. But what tyranny is it for the officials in the states to have arbitrary power to condemn and excommunicate men without due process of law! And in what kind of affairs did they abuse this power? Indeed, not in punishing true offenses, but in regard to the violation of fasts or festivals, or like trifles! Only, they sometimes punished adulteries; and in this matter they often vexed [abused and defamed] innocent and honorable men. Besides, since this is a most grievous offense, nobody is to be condemned without due process of law. Since, therefore, bishops have tyrannically transferred this jurisdiction to themselves alone, and have basely abused it, there is no need, because of this jurisdiction, to obey bishops. But since there are just reasons why we do not obey, it is right also to restore this jurisdiction to godly pastors [to whom, by Christ's command, it belongs], and to see to it that it is legitimately exercised for the reformation of morals and the glory of God.13Here, those who preside over the church, no matter what they are called, are said to hold the power of jurisdiction by divine right.
A similar statement acknowledging the power of jurisdiction in the Ministry of the Word is recorded in the Augsburg Confession.
When, therefore, the question is concerning the jurisdiction of bishops, civil authority must be distinguished from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Again, according to the Gospel, or, as they say, by divine right, there belongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to whom has been committed the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, no jurisdiction except to forgive sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines contrary to the Gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the Church wicked men, whose wickedness is known, and this without human force, simply by the Word. Herein the congregation of necessity and by divine right must obey them, according to Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me.14Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it is said, belongs by divine right to those to whom the ministry of Word and Sacrament has been committed.
In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the power of jurisdiction is again laid on the public ministry.
But we are speaking of a bishop according to the Gospel. And we are pleased with the ancient division of power into power of order and power of jurisdiction [that is the administration of the Sacraments and the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction]. Therefore the bishop has the power of the order, i.e.,the ministry of the Word and Sacraments; he has also the power of jurisdiction, i.e., the authority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes, and again to absolve them if they are converted and seek absolution. But their power is not to be tyrannical, i.e., without a fixed law; nor regal, i.e., above law; but they have a fixed command and a fixed Word of God, according to which they ought to teach, and according to which they ought to exercise their jurisdiction.15The power of order (potestas ordinis--the Word and Sacrament ministry) and the power of jurisdiction (potestas iurisdictionis--the authority to excommunicate and absolve) are here granted to bishops. Both forms of power, however, are to be exercised only according to the divine command.
Clearly, a very real tension exists in the Lutheran Confessions. On the one hand it is maintained that, the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church,16 yet on the other hand there is a repeated call, to restore this jurisdiction to godly pastors.17 One cannot ease this tension by simply granting the power of jurisdiction absolutely and finally to the congregation while reducing the minister to a mere ecclesiastical enforcer, a called and ordained spiritual executioner. Although this approach theoretically chooses people over pastor in the public exercise of Church discipline, in practice it empowers the clergy to proceed with secret, informal excommunication apart from any due process, while proper, dominically mandated excommunication is woefully neglected. This hardly reflects the confessional witness. A more satisfactory resolution of this tension must be sought, a resolution which does not tear things into parts, a resolution which does not pit one part against another, a resolution which does not ultimately run in the way of the Law. An examination of Luther's writings reveals just such a resolution.18
Luther outlined the holistic, evangelical, and christological foundation for his understanding of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in The Keys, a 1530 polemic against the papal exercise of the ban.
[W]e possess these two keys through Christ's command. The key which binds is the power or office to punish the sinner who refuses to repent by means of a public condemnation to eternal death and separation from the rest of Christendom. And when such a judgement is pronounced, it is as a judgement of Christ himself. And if the sinner perseveres in his sin, he is certainly eternally damned. The loosing key is the power or office to absolve the sinner who makes confession and is converted from sins, promising again eternal life. And it has the same significance as if Christ himself passed judgement. And if he believes and continues in this faith he is certainly saved forever. For the key which binds carries forward the work of the law. It is profitable to the sinner in as much as it reveals to him his sins, admonishes him to fear God, causes him to tremble, and moves him to repentance, and not to destruction. The loosing key carries forward the work of the gospel. It invites grace and mercy. It comforts and promises life and salvation through the forgiveness of sins. In short the two keys advance and forward the gospel by simply proclaiming these two things: repentance and forgiveness of sins [Luke 24:47].
Both of these keys are extremely necessary in Christendom, so that we can never thank God enough for them.19Note that Luther here extolled both the keys together--no separate parts. To be correctly understood, the power of jurisdiction must be considered as a whole. Retaining and remitting, binding and loosing, excommunicating and absolving, repentance and forgiveness must always be kept together. As Luther also later asserted, "...we should be very careful not to foster or teach the one key without the other, according to the example of Christ, who always connected the two."20 For instance, to give the binding key to the congregation alone and the loosing key to the clergy alone would be altogether inconsistent with Christ's divine institution.21 You simply cannot split the keys in any way and still get it right.
By suggesting that these two keys, together, "advance and forward the gospel," Luther pointed to the overarching, evangelical purpose of jurisdiction.22 Even the binding key--itself harshest Law--is said to belong to the way of the Gospel.
...the purpose of Christ's binding is to redeem the sinner from his sins. With his binding Christ attempts nothing else but to free and rid the sinners conscience of sins. It is for this reason that he binds and punishes the sinner so that he might let go of his sin, repent of it, and avoid it.23When the binding key is thus used in service of the Gospel, frail, tempted Christians are helped and supported. They receive Christ's divine remedy.
[T]he faithful Bishop of our souls, Jesus Christ, ...has given us this remedy, the key which binds, so that we might not remain too confident in our sins, arrogant, barbarous, and without God, and the key which looses, that we should not despair in our sins. Thus aided we should stay on a middle road, between arrogance and faintheartedness, in genuine humility and confidence, being provided for richly in every way.24Together, the keys are truly evangelical. They are the very instruments of Christ, the one working repentance and the other bestowing forgiveness and faith on his people.
Highlighted here too is the christological nature of Luther's understanding of the keys. Not only are the keys bestowed "through Christ's command," but, more than that, Luther maintained that the judgement of condemnation or absolution is, in fact, "the judgement of Christ himself."25 Christ is said to be doing the judging. He himself declares the verdict. "He binds and joins himself to our work."26 Because jurisdiction is Christ's own activity, "You must never doubt what the keys say and give you, at the risk of losing both body and soul. It is as certain as if God himself were saying so, which indeed he does."27 Luther elaborated further on this in a 1537 sermon.
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 (wort und amt) 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...28According to Luther, to see and hear an absolution is to see and hear Christ himself present and forgiving sins. Herein lies the source of true Christian certainty, for only if the Lord is doing it can one be sure that it has been done completely and correctly.
This christological exercise of the keys is actually hidden from human eyes and invisible--an article of faith--yet it is not, therefore, altogether unidentifiable. For Luther, Christ's judicial activity in the church can be spatially and temporally located because it is always inseparably linked with the Office of the Ministry.
The key which binds is the power or office (macht odder amt) to punish the sinner who refuses to repent... it is as a judgement of Christ himself.... The loosing key is the power or office (macht odder amt) to absolve the sinner who makes confession... it has the same significance as if Christ himself passed judgement.29Luther similarly connected Christ's own exercise of the keys with the Ministerial Office in his interpretation of Matthew 16:19.
[Here Christ] gives to Peter the keys he himself has and no others. It is as if he were saying: ...Peters mouth is my mouth, and his tongue is my key case. His office is my office (Sein amt ist mein amt), his binding and loosing is my binding and loosing. His keys are my keys, and I have no others, nor do I know of any others...
Here we have the true significance of the keys. They are an office, a power or command (Amt, macht odder befelh) given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.30The christological office given to the church through which the keys are exercised is once again identified as the Office of the Ministry in Luther's 1533 treatise, The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests. When asked how one should regard a pastor in the papacy, Luther responded:
[The pastor] possesses the office of the ministry (Pfarramt) which is not his but Christ's office (Christi amt). Also do not let yourself be lead astray as to whether he has been properly called or whether he has bought or forced himself into his office, how he obtained it, whether standing on his head or on his feet, whether he is Judas or St. Peter; do not concern yourself with all that. Distinguish between the office and the person (Scheide du das amt von der personen), and between the holy place and the sacrilege.
Very well then, he is a pastor, and Christ has thus preserved his holy, beloved office of the ministry (Pfarramt)... [When such a pastor] absolves you in private or public confession and forgives your sins... if he adheres to the word and form and absolves you in the name of Christ, then say: This holy, comforting absolution is granted to me by my Lord Christ himself through his keys which are given to the church.31The Office of the Keys and the Office of the Ministry are not two completely different items.32 They belong together--for, as Norman Nagel has suggested, to confess the Office of the Keys is to confess the Holy ministry, and "[t]o be put into the Holy Ministry is to be given the Office of the Keys."33 It might be said, in fact, that the "Office" in the "Office of the Keys" IS the "Office of the Ministry." Through this Office, Christ himself exercises the keys in his Church. He remits sins. He retains sins. Christ alone holds the power of jurisdiction.
This should come as no surprise, for, as Luther noted, virtually everything in the church is Christ's possession.
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 (Predig amt) 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 (amt) and sacraments do not belong to us but to Christ, for he has ordained all this and left it behind as a legacy in the church to be exercised and used to the end of the world.... However, if we alter it or improve on it, then it is invalid and Christ is no longer present, nor his ordinance.
Offices (amt) 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 continue to be exercised.34The keys, like the Word and the Sacraments, belong to Christ. His passion and death give them their power. He has determined and promised that he will personally exercise these gifts given to the church through the Office of the Ministry. The Ministry, then, is the very means of Christ's own action in his church. The church need only provide the instruments for the divinely ordained, christological activities--the church need only fill the Office with individuals through whom Christ himself will work.35
For Luther, therefore, the key to understanding the Office of the Keys is the Office of the Ministry. Luther's christological view of the Ministerial Office can finally resolve the tension between the pastoral and congregational exercise of jurisdiction exhibited in the Lutheran Symbols. A closer examination of the Treatise reveals just such a resolution:
...it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys, Matt. 18, 19, adds: if two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling (ius vocationis). [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office (Amt) whereby this promise is communicated to everyone who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church (Kirchendiener zu ordinieren). And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom he has given the keys, namely, the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My Name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church].36While the Office of the Keys, the "supreme and final jurisdiction," has indeed been given "principally and immediately to the church" and not to particular individuals, the church is NOT therefore granted the absolute authority to exercise those keys. Rather, the church is here given an Office which must be filled along with the divine right and power to call and ordain ministers into that office.37 In the church, the Office of the Keys can only be properly applied by the rightly called Officer of the Keys. The apparent confessional tension is, in fact, relieved by the call to the Office of the Ministry.
While it can be correctly stated that the keys belong to the Office and the Office belongs to the church, strictly speaking the power of jurisdiction is not really given to either pastors or congregations. Neither OWNS the keys. Only Christ himself truly possesses and applies the power of jurisdiction through the Office of the Ministry, in the church, for the church. Of course, the Lord's exercise of the keys will always be in complete agreement with his own dominical command (Matt. 18). Due process must always be observed. In cases involving private offenses or secret sins, individual confrontation must occur, eye witnesses must be called, public testimony must be given. In cases involving open or manifest disobedience, the reproof must also be open and manifest.38 If all else fails, the ban must be announced--publicly, in the presence of the church. Private, secret, informal excommunications are never allowable. Then there will be no doubt that it is the Lord's judgement, through the Lord's Office, in the Lord's church, according to the Lord's command. In this way the whole process is dominically grounded. In this way the faithful can be certain that everything is of the Lord.39
Luther clearly understood the great importance of such dominical grounding and certainty. This is evident in his harsh diatribe against the papal misuse of excommunication.
I call it a devil's and not God's ban, contrary to Christ's command, when people are cursed with the ban sacrilegiously, before they have been convicted in the presence of the assembled congregation (fur der Gemeine). Such are all the bans with which the episcopal representatives and spiritual courts practice their illusions when, with a slip of paper, they excommunicate people before a congregation ten, twenty, or thirty miles distant, although these people have never been condemned, accused, or convicted in their own congregation and before their own pastor (inn der selbigen Gemeine und fur dem Pfarher). Instead, a bat comes flying out of the corner of episcopal officialdom, without witnesses and without divine command! But you must not be afraid of such an execrable ban. If a bishop or his representative desires to excommunicate someone, let him or his representative go to the pastor of the congregation (inn die Gemeine und fur den Pfarher)where the person is to be excommunicated. Justice must be done to him according to the words of Christ.
I am saying all this for the sake of the sake of the congregation (die Gemeine). In dealing with one of its members who is under the ban it should be sure of the reason it thinks him to be deserving of excommunication as the words of Christ in our text direct.40 Otherwise it might be deceived, accept (an memen) the excommunication, and do the neighbor an injustice.41The papal authorities at the time of the Reformation had forced the exercise of Church discipline into the current hierarchical framework. The pope alone, as the supposed successor to Peter, possessed the keys and controlled their employment. The bishops were granted access to the keys by the pope and frequently utilized them apart from Scriptural guidelines.42 Against these sacrilegious abuses Luther called for dominical grounding--obedience to the Lords institution. Justice must be done according to the words of Christ.43 Due process is not an unnecessary bother. Individuals must be dealt with in their own congregation and before their own pastor.44 The Lords excommunication only comes IN the congregation THROUGH the congregation's Minister. Apart from this divinely prescribed process, the ban cannot possibly be of the Lord and is therefore only a pernicious, papistic illusion.
The church must stand vigilant against such abuses also today, for the power of jurisdiction can only serve its intended evangelical purpose if it is correctly employed. No private, informal, excommunication should ever be allowed. Only one ban is recognized among the people of God--the Lord's. Only the Lord's judgement, through the Lord's Office, in the Lord's church, according to the Lord's command is sure and certain. If the keys are always thus dominically grounded, the power of jurisdiction will always be applied in the way of the Gospel. It all, finally, depends upon the Lord.
1 If not back even farther to Chemnitz. See Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part IV, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia, 1986), 160-65. also cited in C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry, trans. J.T. Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia, 1987), 325-28.
2 Church and Ministry, 322.
3 Walther cited Chemnitz to support this requirement. Church and Ministry, 327. Perhaps Kramer's rendering of Chemnitz' Latin original, communibus suffragiis, as common vote, is to be preferred. Examination...IV, 163. See Martinum Chemnicium, Examen Concilii Tridentini (Berolini: Sumtibus Gust. Schlawitz, 1861), 804.
4 Many modern Lutheran teachers would concur: "A pastor has no unique or indispensable function in the process of excommunication... The pastor by virtue of his call speaks for the congregation, not independently, in announcing an excommunication." Armin W. Schuetze and Irwin J. Habeck, The Shepherd under Christ (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1974), 175. The CTCR echoes (and even cites) Walther's division of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The CTCR asserts "...that the call of the Christian pastor confers the authority Jesus gave in John 20:23: '...if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'" (10) "This does not mean, however, that those who have been given authority over the churches thereby have the right to excommunicate unilaterally."(10) Ordinarily, a unanimous verdict of the voters assembly, "the group usually charged with administering the spiritual and temporal affairs of the congregation" (19), is necessary for excommunication. Interestingly, the CTCR does raise a question about the absolute necessity of a unanimous vote (22). Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Church Discipline in the Christian Congregation (1985). See also Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, Vol. I, trans. Walter A. Hansen (St. Louis: Concordia, 1962), 354-63. There is hardly complete agreement here, however. Among those who ascribe jurisdiction to the laity, there is some confusion as to exactly how this is to be done and by whom: Is the ban to be enacted by "the whole congregation," (Chemnitz) or "the ecclesiastical senate [church council] or the consistory," or "the elders who represent the whole congregation," (Gerhard) or "the elders and the whole congregation," (Brochmand) or "the ministers and the assembly of the congregation together" (Calov)? Church and Ministry, 322-31. In response to the question, "Is it proper for a congregation to delegate to the elders, to the church council, and/or to the pastor the authority to excommunicate?" the CTCR noted that "a kind of delegation has already taken place when the voters assembly, as is generally the case, is authorized to act in the name of the church. It is no doubt within the power of the congregation to ask the Board of Elders and/or pastor [to] act in its behalf... but in general this is a questionable practice." (CTCR, 25). Some have even questioned the assertion that only the congregation can excommunicate: "I can find no evidence in our Confessions that congregations or synods as such carried out excommunication..." Robert D. Preus, Getting into the Theology of Concord (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), 61.
5 CTCR, 21. For the history, rationale, and use of informal excommunication see: John H. C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology (St. Louis: Concordia, 1932), 232. This practice of private suspension from the Sacrament is sometimes erroneously called the "lesser excommunication." Luther, however, recognized only one type of excommunication: "The greater excommunication, as the Pope calls it, we regard only as a civil penalty, and it does not concern us ministers of the Church. But the lesser, that is, the true Christian excommunication, consists in this, that manifest and obstinate sinners are not admitted to the Sacrament and other communion of the Church until they amend their lives and avoid sin." Smalcald Articles III/IX, Triglot Concordia (St. Louis: Concordia, 1921), 497.
6 Such a distinction is impossible if the Sacrament of the Altar is viewed eschatologically. Holy Communion is an earthly participation in the heavenly banquet. Already now communicants are privileged to enjoy the wedding feast together with "angels and archangels and all the company of heaven." Consequently, to be banned from the Lord's Table is to be banned from the Kingdom of God and to be banned from the Kingdom of God is to be banned from the Lord's Table. The two simply cannot be separated.
7 "It were well, too, if we did not entirely do away with the penalty of the ban in the true Christian sense described in Matt. 18[:17f.]. It consists in not admitting to the Lords Table those who, unwilling to mend their ways, live in open sin, such as adultery, habitual drunkenness, and the like." Philip Melanchthon, Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors(1528), AE 40:311.
8 "...he is truly worthy an well prepared who has faith in these words: Given and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit..." Small Catechism, Triglot Concordia, 557.
9 Triglot Concordia, 447. Melanchthon's use of this terminology borrowed from the ancient division of "power" causes a certain uneasiness. In English, power talk is too easily understood in the way of the Law.
10 This Confessional tension actually only reflects the tension already evident in the Holy Scriptures. "...the Office of the Keys is given three times in the New Testament: in Matthew 16 to Peter, in John 20 to all the apostles, in Matthew 18 to the whole church." Hermann Sasse, We Confess the Church, trans. Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia, 1986), 78.
11 Triglot Concordia, 511. This seemingly clear statement is the source of some significant textual difficulties. The text in brackets is a gloss found only in Dietrich's German translation of the Latin original. See F. Bente, Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books..., (St. Louis: Concordia, 1921), 60. This German gloss serves as the only real confessional support for Walther's position in Church and Ministry, 323.
12 Triglot Concordia, 521.
13 Triglot Concordia, 525.
14 Triglot Concordia, 87.
15 Triglot Concordia, 447.
16 Triglot Concordia, 511.
17 Triglot Concordia, 527.
18 Of course the writings of Dr. Luther are always an aid in understanding the Lutheran Confessions (Triglot Concordia, 985), but in matters relating to the doctrine of repentance, his works are particularly helpful (Triglot Concordia, 253). Interestingly, Walther only quotes three short paragraphs from one Luther document to support his position (Church and Ministry, 324).
19 The Keys, AE 40:372-3, WA 30II:503.
20 The Keys, AE 40:376, WA 30II:506.
21 Matt. 18:18; Matt. 16:19; John 20:23.
22 The Keys, AE 40:373, WA 30II:503.
23 The Keys, AE 40:328, WA 30II:468.
24 The Keys, AE 40:373, WA 30II:504.
25 The Keys, AE 40:372, WA 30II:503.
26 The Keys, AE 40:365, WA 30II:497.
27 The Keys, AE 40:364, WA 30II:496.
28 Sermon on John 14, AE 24: 67, WA 45:521-22.
29 The Keys, AE 40:372, WA 30II:503.
30 The Keys, AE 40:365-6, WA 30II:497-8. Italics added.
31 The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests, AE 38:204, WA 38:243. Italics added.
32 Unfortunately, they are often so treated. See Edward W. A. Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Second Edition (St. Louis: Concordia, 1952), Chapter XL. "The Power of the Church or the Office of the Keys" (255-58) and Chapter XLIII. "The Office of the Ministry" (264-73).
33 Norman E. Nagel, "The Office of the Holy Ministry in the Confessions," Concordia Journal (July 1988), 288. See Augsburg Confession XXVIII, 5-7, Triglot Concordia, 85, where, according to Dr. Nagel (296), "the Office of the Holy Ministry and the Office of the Keys are used interchangeably." That is also the point of the supplementary Office of the Keys questions in the Small Catechism, where "called minsters of Christ" are clearly granted the ecclesiastical authority to forgive AND retain sins.
34 The Private Mass..., AE 38:200-1, WA 38:240-41.
35 Others have similarly employed the language of instrumentality to describe the ministry: "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." Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, tr. by Luther Poellot (St. Louis: Concordia, 1981), 29.
36 Triglot Concordia, 511. Italics added.
37 See also Luther, Smalcald Articles III/VII: "The Keys are an office (Amt, officium) and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin..." Triglot Concordia, 493. Italics added. Theodore Tappert translates a bit less accurately: "The Keys are a function and power given by Christ to the Church..." The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 311.
38 Luther made an important distinction here. Due process for open sin is different than that for hidden sin--shortened, abbreviated. In his Large Catechism discussion of the Eighth Commandment, Luther carefully outlined the steps of excommunication according to Matthew 18. "All this has been said regarding secret sins, he wrote, But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace... For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that everyone may learn to guard against it." Triglot Concordia, 661. Similar sentiments are found in Luther's 1523 Formula Missae: "[I]f the pastor should see a fornicator, adulterer, drunkard, gambler, usurer, slanderer, or anyone else disgraced by a manifest vice, he should absolutely exclude such a person from the Supper... I was speaking of those arrogant people who sin brazenly and without fear..." Italics added. AE 53: 33. Since only public sin can occasion public excommunication, the early steps of Matthew 18 are intended to carefully and properly reveal hidden or secret sins so that they might be openly addressed. One can forgo these initial steps, therefore, if the offence is already commonly known. The ban should be proclaimed on those individuals involved in such "open sin," but only after they are "warned several times to mend their ways." Instructions for the Visitors..., AE 40:311.
39 "But how shall we proceed to use the keys so that what is done is valid in Gods eyes? In Matt. 18 [:15-17], you have a definite text in which Christ himself describes the office of the keys. You cannot go wrong if you follow his instructions. But if you do not, and instead take a novel and peculiar path of your own, you can be sure that you will err and that you are not in possession of the true keys." The Keys, AE 40: 369, WA 30II:501.
40 The Keys, AE 40:371, WA 30II:502. This quotation is also employed by Walther (Church and Ministry, 324-5). The added italics identify the location of serious differences between the two English translations.
41 The Keys in Church and Ministry, 324-5. This is a more accurate translation than that offered in AE: "Otherwise the congregation might be deceived in imposing [accepting] a ban which is false... (einen lugen bann an nemen)" AE 40:371, WA 30II:502.
42 These were the deplorable conditions which prompted Melanchthon's assertion that "the keys do not belong to the person of one particular man," namely, the pope. Triglot Concordia, 511.
43 Triglot Concordia, 511.
44The Keys, AE 40:371, WA 30II:502.
18 March 1996
This essay was first presented as an Open/Academic Topic at the Fourth Annual Theological Symposium at Concordia Seminary (St. Louis) in May 1994. It was also published in the Spring/Summer 1994 issue of LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW (a Lutheran Church - Canada publication) and is now reprinted by permission of the editors.
