SPECIAL attention has been devoted to the problem of the office of the ministry in its relation to the power structure of the congregation by Hans Liermann, professor of church law at Erlangen. He recently wrote that the doctrine of the ministry in Lutheranism "...has lived from the tension between the office of the ministry and the congregation."1 Almost invariably, discussions have moved between these two poles. At times the authority of the pastor has been claimed to have been established by Christ himself, the image of the pastor has been strong, and the congregation has tended to be submissive; at other times, the authority of the pastor has been seen as power delegated to the pastor by the priesthood of believers, and the ministry has tended to be subjected to the congregation. The latter view is called the transferal view of the ministry (Ubertragungslehre).
Many Lutherans in America have felt a peculiar attraction to the transferal view of the ministry, no doubt partly because it seems to harmonize with a democratic view of the church and its ministry. They feel that the authority of the ministry rests in the local congregation, which possesses the means of grace; by virtue of being a part of the general priesthood of believers, the individual members of the congregation have the right to administer the means of grace, but for the sake of order, they confer this privilege upon one of their number, who as the called pastor administers this function in their behalf.2 And the beautiful thing is that they can find many proof-texts from the writings of Luther to buttress their position! For if we study Luther's writings on the ministry and the priesthood of believers from 1520-25, isolated from his thought in other periods, we can find a strong case for the transferal view. Liermann points out that in the early years of the Reformation Luther apparently established the power of the congregation at the expense of the office of the ministry. The congregation appeared to have won, and the ministerial office seemed doomed to extinction in the reformation church. But a reversal set in during the second half of the 1520's, and the office of the ministry was preserved to the developing Lutheran Church.
It is unfortunate that some scholars have limited their findings to a certain period in Luther's career.3 They thereby subject themselves to the danger of rejecting in advance the possibility that Luther might have altered his position through the benefit of added experience. But this is, in fact, what took place. Prior to the Leipzig Debate of 1519, there is little indication that Luther's view of the ministry or priesthood differed radically from that of the medieval church. In the reform treatises of 1520, however, Luther made tremendous changes. The doctrine of the general priesthood of believers emerged in protest to the outward, clerical priesthood of the papal system. The layman needed no priestly intermediary, Luther pointed out on the basis of I Peter 2:9, but through the atonement of Christ had become his own priest before the mercy seat of God. But from here on, the relation of the priesthood of believers and the office of the ministry became a problem. During the next five years Luther tended to subordinate the ministry to the priesthood. Then a change set in. Various causes for the transition might be cited. The lingering consequences of the Wittenberg anarchy of 1521-22, the peasants' revolt, the emergence of the enthusiasts and fanatics, and the breakdown of the church that was revealed in the Saxon Visitation, must all have left their mark on Luther's doctrine of the ministry. This becomes most noticeable after the so-called Large Catechism began to take shape, as early as 1528. The ministry was given greater authority.4 Luther struggled with the problem of the relationship between the ministry and the priesthood of believers for the rest of his life. Indeed, Luther himself never became satisfied that he had arrived at a final answer. Perhaps in the years following his death evangelical Lutheranism came much closer to solving the riddle of the relation between the New Testament priesthood and the New Testament ministry. Hence in studying Luther's position we must be exact and clear in our thinking, and avoid constructing theories based solely on his formative writings from 1520-25.
Two writings of Luther from 1523 bring the source material for the transferal theory. Each must be examined against its historical background.
The first of these writings was a much-quoted treatise with the title: Das eine christliche Versammlung oder Gemeine Recht oder Macht habe, alle Lehre zu urteilen etc. (That a Christian assembly or congregation has the right or power to judge doctrine, etc.). The treatise was written to give counsel for the congregation at Leisnig. These people had at an early date accepted the evangelical doctrine, but they were unable to get a Lutheran pastor. The right to call a minister rested in the hands of their patron--in this instance, a neighboring Cistercian monastery!
The Catholic Cistercians insisted that they retained their right to call the ministers for Leisnig because Paul, Barnabas, Titus, and Timothy had appointed pastors for various congregations in New Testament times. But Luther pointed out that they could not delegate to themselves such apostolic authority because they had failed to teach the Gospel. Thereby they had forfeited all rights to select ministers for the people at Leisnig. In typical language he wrote thus concerning the old priests and monks:
If our bishops, abbots, and other leaders really sat in the place of the apostles, as they boast, all would agree that they should be allowed like Titus, Timothy, Paul, and Barnabas, to install priests. But now they sit in the devil's place and are become wolves, who neither wish to teach the Gospel, nor to suffer it to exist. So it is no more appropriate to turn over the office of preaching and Seelsorge to them than it would be to have Mohammedans or Jews. These men should only drive asses and lead dogs.5Luther reminded the Christians at Leisnig that through baptism they had become God's people, and Christ their brother; together with Christ, they were consecrated as priests.6 As an additional scriptural passage, he referred to John 10, where Christ calls himself the Good Shepherd. "My sheep know my voice," v.27. "My sheep do not follow a stranger, but rather flee from him. For they do not know the voice of the stranger," v. 5. From these and similar verses Luther concluded that lay members had the right to judge doctrine. He said, "The sheep must judge whether they hear the voice of Christ or instead a strange voice."7
This was not only a privilege, but a solemn duty. The congregation was responsible for the salvation of the souls entrusted to its care. Each member had this responsibility, and, as a priest, was eligible to teach. But for the sake of order, the congregation should select a qualified leader as pastor, and commit to him the work of administering the means of grace "ethically and with self discipline."8
Luther went a step further. In cases where the bishops were righteous and evangelical, and ready to send proper preachers into the congregations, they should do nothing against the wishes of the congregation. The bishop should call, in place of the congregation, only in unusual situations.9
In his pamphlet of 1523, De Instituendis Ministris Ecclesiae (On establishing ministries in the churches), Luther gave the most extreme expression of the transferal idea. Here he held not only that all Christians were priests before God, but that all were ministers of the Word, which would appear virtually to abolish a separate office of the ministry. This is Luther's statement: ...ministerium verbi summum in Ecclesia officium esse prorsus unicum et omnibus commune, qui Christiani sunt, non modo iure, sod et praecepto (... the ministry of the Word is the chief office of the Church, given to all who are Christians, individually and collectively, not by mere human law, but by divine command).10
To help us to understand this radical statement, We must look into the historical occasion. In 1523 a priest from Bohemia named Gallus Cahera had fraudulently attached himself to Luther. He gave Luther the impression that he was a convinced follower of the evangelical Reformation, and that he was unselfishly seeking to bring Bohemia into the cause of the Reformation. Luther wrote this tract to tell the Bohemians that they didn't need the Roman priesthood; all Christian believers were spiritual priests. They had authority in themselves to perform such priestly offices as teaching, preaching, baptizing, administering the Eucharist, retaining and absolving sins, praying for others, sacrificing, and judging doctrine. 11 Since they possessed such prerogatives, the Bohemians could therefore delegate these powers to their called ministers. Luther advised however that they proceed slowly, beginning in Prague, and gradually and peacefully help congregations throughout Bohemia to get evangelical pastors.
In his Commentary on I Peter that appeared the same year, Luther gave similar expressions of his views. The passage was I Peter 2:5: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood. . . ." Luther on this occasion was anxious to avoid Roman distinctions between the ministers and the lay people. He wrote:
Thus there is only one difference, outward and because of the office, in that one is called from the congregation. But before God there is no distinction, for only certain ones have been drawn out of the crowd to fill the office in the stead of the congregation, and to utilize that which is common to them all, not as though one had more power (gewallt) than the others. Accordingly no one shall of himself step out and start to preach in the congregation, but rather one must select an individual from the crowd and set him up, so that one can again depose him upon wish."12A word of criticism must be spoken against Luther at this point. Sometimes a pastor must take an unpopular position; he must remain firm, though many oppose him. Luther's position here would rob the pastor of needful authority. These statements--which apparently are his most extreme in emphasizing the priesthood at the expense of the ministry--leave little room for the concept of spiritual leaders that we find in Hebrews 13 :7: "Remember those who have the rule over you...." Several years later Luther realized this and gave the spiritual leadership due recognition, for in the Large Catechism in 1528 [sic] he showed that the Fourth Commandment assigns the duty of obeying one's spiritual superiors. But even in 1523, in his comment on 1 Peter 2:9, Luther dropped one statement which showed that he was in the process of solving his dilemma. He said: "For being a priest does not belong to any one office that is outward, but it is an office that works before God."13 Just as in 1523 this sentence was intended to curb the power of a Romish clergy, so a few years later, when more authority was needed for the evangelical pastors, Luther was to show that priesthood and ministry were two distinct callings.
We may speak of three ways in which the change in emphasis manifested itself in Luther's teaching after 1526. (1.) Luther begins to realize that the spiritual priesthood and the ministerial office are two completely different things. The believers have no need for a pastor-priest, for they themselves have access to God; but they do need a pastor to proclaim the Gospel so that they can be brought into this relationship of faith through the means of grace.14 At times the older Luther calls not only the Word but even the ministerium verbi a means of grace! (2.) After 1527 the idea of geistliches Regiment, spiritual rule by the ministers, connects the minister with the Fourth Commandment, indicating divine origin of the office, and the duty of obedience on the part of the laity. This provides a reciprocity. (3.) The third change in emphasis vitally affects the content: Kirche, church, replaces Geimeinde, congregation. The means of grace are not necessarily committed restrictively to a local congregation, but to the Church in its universal character that transcends congregations.
The view that Luther had espoused 1520-23, in which the ministry was derived from the universal priesthood, did not wear well in the ensuing events.
Already the vagaries of the Wittenberg unrest of 1521-22 had shown what could happen when unlettered people imagined themselves to be equal to an educated clergy. From that time on the Enthusiasts arose to plague Luther for the rest of his life. Yet they could bolster their extravagant claims by saying that they, as priests of God, had a right to preach. Luther's only recourse was to say that they lacked an orderly call. Yet, if he did not completely change his doctrines of the ministry, at least a major difference of emphasis began to appear, in which the divine nature of the ministry emerged with increasing clarity at the expense of the idea of a transferal from the priesthood of believers.
The failure of the priesthood of believers became the cause of the Saxon Visitation, beginning in 1528. The congregations, when freed of restraints, had refused to assume the expenses of the ministry of the Word. Due to the widespread neglect, Luther was compelled to ask the secular authorities to step in. Curiously enough, although this layman belonged to the priesthood of believers, Luther, in his letter to the Elector of Saxony, excused his appeal to the Elector, "...although teaching and spiritual ruling have not been committed to Your Electoral Grace."15 Here lay a number of admissions. (1.) The universal priesthood had failed in maintaining the preachers. (2.) There was a spiritual rule as well as a secular rule (Regiment!), putting the ministry on a ruling plane. (3.) The Elector, although a priest, was not called to teach or rule spiritually, even in this situation, but only to preserve the peace in such an instance where anarchy threatened. At any rate, here was no transferal view!
When one is attempting to trace Luther's development and transitions in thinking, it is often helpful to turn to a sequence of sermons delivered on the same text over a period of years. Such a sequence is available, preached on the Easter text, John 20:21 f.: "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained." Fifteen different sermons or deliveries are found in the Weimar Edition, beginning with the year 1521 and ending with 1543. Thereby an important bird's-eye view of Luther's development is afforded.
Thus in 1522, Luther found that the word on the keys in John 20 applied to all believers. He wrote:
Christ says here nothing about parsons or monks but speaks: "Receive the Holy Ghost. Whoever has the Holy Ghost, to him this power is given," that is, to whomsoever is a Christian. But who is a Christian? Whoever believes, has the Holy Ghost. Therefore every Christian has power (like the pope, bishops, parsons, and monks), in this case to retain or remit sin.16By 1528 a significant change had taken place when Luther said nothing about the priesthood of believers, but let out a blast against Satan, the Enthusiast, while he found in the keys the foundation of the office of the ministry.17 He said: "God wanted this treasure to be shown to the world, so he instituted the office of preaching, and gave his Holy Spirit."18 Two years later in another sermon on the same text he distinguished even more clearly between the spiritual priesthood and the Gospel ministry. We know of course that he had taught that the well-known passage, I Peter 2:9, referred to all believers, and hence individuals; but now he maintained that John 20:21 f. did not apply to the person but to the office. Therefore the members of the congregation were not to be offended at the person of their preacher, but should only be concerned whether the Holy Ghost was present in his office.
Thus we have arrived at something different in Luther. While he never espoused clericalism after 1519, nevertheless from 1528 on there clearly emerges what he calls a geistliches Regiment, i.e., a spiritual rule, over against the weltliches Regiment, or civil rule. One might call this the introduction of a much-needed reciprocity in Luther's thought. Or one could say that Luther's thinking had advanced from that of a monologic to a dialogic view of the relationship between the congregation and the office of the ministry. Now the individual finds a spiritual authority as well as a civil authority. Even though by baptism and faith he is a priest before God, he still owes submission to a minister.19 This teaching found classic expression in the Large Catechism (I, 4) in 1528, where Luther taught submission to spiritual rulers as well as civil rulers. In our twentieth century with its demotion of spiritual authority (together with parental rule!), Luther's words point out a great need:
Besides this, spiritual fathers are also to be mentioned, not like under the papacy, who called themselves fathers, but failed to fulfill a fatherly office. For real spiritual fathers are those who rule and preside over us with God's Word, as St. Paul calls himself a father in I Cor. 4 :4, where he says: "I have begotten you in Christ Jesus through the Gospel." Now since they are fathers, honor is also due them....20In 1530 Luther expounded the 82nd Psalm. A condition had been brought to his attention where evangelical pastors were preaching in Catholic parishes. Luther considered this very unethical, pointing out that a pastor is never to offer his services in a neighboring parish unless he has a regular call there, regardless of how the local pastor or priest is carrying out his duties. He continued:
We have enough to do, if we just carry out that which has been committed to our own charge. Nor can one use the argument that all Christians are priests. It is true that Christians are priests, but they are not all pastors. Then over and above that he is a Christian and priest, he must needs also have an office and a parish that has been committed to his charge. The call and the charge makes the pastor and preacher.21Here then we find a careful separation of the priesthood of believers and the office of the minister. The call and charge constitute something additional to the universal priesthood, which alone give the authorization to rule as spiritual leaders, that is, to administer Word and sacrament. The priesthood has not been abolished, but the ministerial office has been found to be something different from the priestly office.22 This did not mean that the layman no longer could minister law and gospel to his neighbor; to the contrary, this task was diligently to be followed by every believer. But the layman was never to replace the pastor. It was only in "notdurft," cases where the pastor could not be present, or where there was no pastor available, that the layman, by virtue of his priesthood, was to take over. Luther expressed this thought as follows in 1540 in a sermon preached at Dessau:
By means of a public office, God has charged the called ministers, but also [in unusual conditions] private individuals, that they may comfort one another, and cheer him up with the thought that the Kingdom is marching against sin and death. Thereupon, having been persuaded, they will be encouraged, and accept this comfort over against sin and death, because they take hold of the word of Christ: "As my father hath sent me..." The command which I have carried out, ye shall also carry out. However you can say, as you listen to a man, that you are not believing the pastor, but Christ, who has instituted this rule for the remission of sins.23Previously we read Luther's statement of 1523 that all Christians were not only priests but also ministers. In 1535 in his sermons on the 110th Psalm Luther shifted his emphasis remarkably. While he still felt that the layman could administer the means of grace in private situations, or in emergencies, he found it necessary to point out that pastor and layman were of two different estates. "For although we are all priests," Luther preached, "we can still not all preach or teach or rule (in the Church)...."24
In his writing Von den Schleichern und Winkelpredigern of 1532, Luther expressed this idea even more vigorously. His take-off point was I Corinthians 14:4, 12: "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the Church.... Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church." Luther commented:
This is certainly clear enough, that he here commits to the congregation the tasks of listening and self-improvement, and not the teaching or preaching office. After this he makes a still clearer distinction and calls the congregation laymen.... But here a distinction is given between preacher and layman....25In his exposition of the 82nd Psalm, Luther had said: "It is true that all Christians are priests, but they are not all pastors."26 All depended upon having a valid call; it was the call which made the difference between pastor and layman. Luther no longer wanted to stress that the call came from the congregation, as in 1523, but stressed the divinity of the call. This was a necessary corrective to his earlier utterances. Luther stated in his "Exposition of the 3rd and 4th Chapters of John" of 1538/40:
The office of the Word of God, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper was given without mediation by Christ, but now Christ is no longer on earth. So now there is another commission, which is given through men, but not by men.The original German is significant: "Do ist den eine andere Sendung, die ist den durch menschen und nicht von menschen." Luther further indicated that the call is given through men but not by men when he showed that a call is valid without participation of the congregation itself:
Therefore every minister must know that he has been sent, that is, he must know that he has been called, and hasn't merely taken it upon himself to sneak in, but rather all has taken place openly. That is a true commission from God, and it takes place although it is given through men, such as a city, a prince, or otherwise a congregation that chooses and anoints one out of [its midst).27It should not surprise us that Luther recognized a call that came from the city fathers, a prince, or from the church, Kirche, in place of congregation, Gemeinde. For, after all, when did Luther receive the office of the ministry committed by any one congregation? He had been ordained by the Roman hierarchy, and commissioned as a doctor or teacher by the university; yet he felt that he had full authority to preach and teach! He wrote in 1532:
I have said this before and will say it again: I wouldn't take the whole world in exchange for my doctorate; for otherwise I would lose courage and despair in the difficult matters that lie upon me, if I had begun like these itinerant preachers (Schleicher), without call or commission. But now God and the whole world must bear me witness that I entered my doctoral office and preaching office publicly, and have led it until now, through God's grace and help.28If we have had doubts whether Luther valued the ministerial office highly, or whether he willed to make it subservient to the laity, then we shall do well in closing to bear his remarks about the pastoral office in his "Treatise that Children Are to be Kept in School" of 1530:
...I hope that the believers and all who want to be regarded as Christians know that the ministerial office was instituted by God, not with gold or silver, but with the precious blood and bitter death of his only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.... I mean the estate which has the office of preaching and the service of the Word and the sacraments, which gives the Spirit and salvation.... Now it is certain and true that God himself established and instituted the ministerial office with his own blood and death. It is well to bear in mind that God wants this office to be highly honored, and he will not suffer it to go under or to cease, but will maintain it to the Judgment Day. For as Christ says in the last chapter of Matthew, the Gospel and Christendom must remain until the Last Day: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."29
1 Hans Liermann, "Amt und Kirchenverfassung," in Friedrich Hubner, ed., Gedenkschrift fur D. Werner Elert (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1955), 357.
2 See the penetrating criticism of the "political" misuse of the general priesthood given by Ernst Kinder, Der evangelische Glaube und die Kirche (Berlin: Lutherisehes Verlagshaus, 1958), 162 f. Discussing the general priesthood, Kinder writes: "Unfortunately, grave misuse has been perpetrated upon this beautiful and important concept, to the extent that many associate it primarily with 'church politics.' Thereby this concept has been deprived of that which made it actually 'priestly.' It is both regrettable and disastrous that the concept of the priesthood of the Christian congregation, which in the New Testament has a deeply positive and an entirely existential meaning, has in Protestantism become an expression of resentment against the special office of the ministry, and is alive chiefly to bolster claims for power in leading the affairs of the church. Many are willing to carry out a 'priestly' function only in this context. But this is no longer a priestly function, but a mingling of natural rights and democratism. It was completely understandable, justifiable, and necessary when in the Reformation the concept of the 'general priesthood of all believers' appeared, in connection with the argument against the specifically priestly offering of the clergy in the Roman church. But when subsequently in Protestantism in the broader sense, the concept of the general priesthood was leveled against the special ministerial office as a whole, and democratic tendencies led to the reduction of the ministry, then a disastrous shifting of the emphasis had taken place. This was not a part of the Reformation."
3 See Theodore G. Tappert, Willem J. Kooiman, and Lowell C. Green, The Mature Luther (Decorah, Iowa: Luther College Press, 1959), 131 f. Here I discuss the need for discerning the various periods in Luther's development, and the importance of keeping a mind open to the transitions in his thinking. I referred to Kramm's experience in England. He found that many British historians had a false impression of Luther because they had read only his writings from between 1520 and 1525, and imagined that he had abolished the ministry and other manifestations of the institutional church. See also my forthcoming volume, Luther and Melanchthon on Justification, pending publication.
4 B. A. Gerrish, "Priesthood and Ministry in the Theology of Luther," Church History, XXXIV (1965), 404-422, contains a good study of the problem. Unfortunately Gerrish's work came to my attention too late for me to include an analysis of it in the article. Gerrish in my opinion is correct when he says that the priesthood of believers is distinguished from the ministry by not being an official but a private dealing with the means of grace. However, I am not so sure that Gerrish is right if he denies that the priesthood, first and foremost, is directed to the believer's relationship to God, and only in second place, with his neighbor. In footnote 45 Gerrish observes a certain ambiguity in both early and late writings of Luther and says that this "...seems to rule out a developmental resolution..." of the problem. But it seems to me that it is precisely in overlooking the historical development in Luther that Gerrish's otherwise excellent treatment is at its weakest. In this article I shall attempt to show why one must remain open to the possibility of a development or transition in Luther's thinking.
5 WA 11:413. That a Christian Assembly Has the Right Or Power To Judge Doctrine, etc. (1523) AE 39:311.
6 WA 11:412. AE 39:309.
7 WA 11:410. AE 39:307.
8 WA 11:413. AE 39:310.
9 WA 11:414. AE 39:312.
10 WA 12:181. Concerning the Ministry (1523) AE 40:23.
11 WA 12:180. AE 40:21.
12 WA 12:309. Commentary on 1 Peter (1523) AE 30:55.
13 WA 12:317. AE 30:63.
14 Kinder, 164.
15 WA 26:200. Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony (1528) AE 40:273.
16 WA 10I-ii: 239. Sermon on Quasimodogeniti (1522). Lenker II:375-6.
17 An interesting parallel is found in the Table Talk of 1533 as recorded by Veit Dietrich: "'Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whosoever ye remit, etc.' Some interpreters have said: All who have the Holy Spirit privately are thereby enabled to remit sins. But this is not the right meaning. Christ bestows the Spirit unto the public office, not unto the private person." WA, TR 512. AE 54:90.
18 WA 27:121. Sermon on Quasimodogeniti (1528).
19 A comparison between Luther and Melanchthon is significant. Luther, who emerged as a reformer from the monastery and the priesthood, seemed at times almost demagogic during the early 1520's. No doubt the emergency of the Enthusiasts and also the peasants' revolt cooled his ardor. Melanchthon, who came from a humanist background, never became an ordained clergyman, and taught theology only because of Luther's connivance with the Elector of Saxony, yet stressed the dignity of the ministerial office. He saw more clearly than Luther the dangers of placing too much responsibility in the hands of the uneducated masses. Moreover it was through Melanchthon and his disciples that the traditional formulations entered the thought of Lutheran Orthodoxy, whereby obedience to the ministers was enjoined in rather sweeping phrases.
20 Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelish-lutherischen Kirche (3rd ed., Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 601.
21 WA 31I:211. Exposition of Psalm 82 (1530) AE 13:65.
22 Other references to the ministry, including especially citations from sermons on John 20, include the sermon of 1528, "praedicationis officium," WA 27:121; WA 34I:319; WA 34I:318. Sermon on Quasimodogeniti (1531)
23 WA 49:139. Sermon on Matthew 3:13-17 at the Baptism of Berhard von Anhalt (1540) AE 51:313-29(?).
24 WA 41:210. Exposition of Psalm 110 (1535) AE 13:332.
25 WA 30III:525. Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers (1532) AE 40:391-2.
26 WA 31I:211. Exposition of Psalm 82 (1530) AE 13:65.
27 WA 47:192. Exposition on John 4 (1540) AE 22:482.
28 WA 30III:522. Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers (1532) AE 40:387-8.
29 WA 30II:526-27. A Sermon on Keeping Children in School (1530) AE 46:219-222.
21 September 1996
This essay was first published in the May 1966 issue of THE LUTHERAN QUARTERLY and is now reprinted by permission of the editors. (For information on LQ subscriptions, write to Virgil F. Thomson, Managing Editor, at: VFThom@aol.com.) doctor lowell c. green received his B.D. from Wartburg Seminary, Dubuque IA and his D.Theol. from the University of Erlangen (1955), where his doctoral advisors were Werner Elert, Wilhelm Maurer, and Paul Althaus. About half of his career was spent as a parish pastor and the other half as a professor in various places. He is currently retired and holds the title of Adjunct Professor of History at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Green has published six books and dozens of journal articles.
