reverend doctor david gustafson || Abstract - In this essay, Rev. Gustafson discusses what the Augsburg Confession says about polity (church structure), especially in AC XXVII. Putting forth seven thesis, he first deals with the issues involving the pastoral office as they relate to polity, then comments on the present day situation in the ELCA and LCMS, and finally offers some suggestions for reform.
THE TITLE of this paper may appear to some to be too strong, but it is a deliberate attempt to get the reader's attention.1 I believe that polity (church order) is not a dull or meaningless topic. On the contrary, it is a lively issue that is crucial and vital to the life of the church. My point is this: Our polity does not coincide with the church order envisioned by the Augsburg Confession, and I will argue that, because we have not followed the Augsburg Confession on this issue, the result is a theological confusion and a state of chaos that infects all Lutheran synodical bodies in America.
My reasons for limiting the discussion to the Augsburg Confession are three. First, the Augsburg Confession narrows the focus. Second, the Augsburg Confession is the foremost of the Lutheran Confessions; every Lutheran body claims to accept it as authoritative. Finally, the Augsburg Confession was and is a confession for the Church Catholic. It confesses that we Lutherans are a part of the Church Catholic, and it defines the church and the ordained office in the church in such a way that the reality of the Church Catholic is taken seriously.
I propose to present my case by offering seven theses. In each of the theses, I will state a position, and then I will attempt to point out how each of the theses affects our life as Lutherans in America. Underlying all the theses is the principle that we've gone wrong on many crucial issues relating to church polity; that we are paying a price for having gone wrong; and that we will ultimately pay a high price if we are not willing to make some necessary reforms for the sake of the very Gospel we claim to confess.
THESIS ONE: Church polity is not adiaphora.
Traditionally, we Lutherans have tended to dismiss the matter of church order as being among those things that are not really necessary or matters of indifference--which is what adiaphora means. We have rationalized that any old order will do, so long as "the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel."2 The result of this has been a plethora of organizational schemes-ranging from the state and territorial churches of Europe to the more democratic and congregational type churches in America.
We have assumed that whatever we did was all right and never stopped to think that the polity we created could either serve the Gospel or hinder it. I would contend (and I believe that I am in agreement with the Augsburg Confession on this point) that, insofar as the church's structure serves to enhance, promote, and proclaim the Gospel, then that structure can never be reduced to the status of indifference. It matters, and, during the course of this paper, I will demonstrate the ways in which the structure makes the difference in terms of whether we are indeed really the church or are nothing more than another human organization, competing for people's loyalty and allegiance.
THESIS TWO: The Augsburg Confession assumes a certain structure, namely the episcopal structure that had been in place in the church for centuries.
The Augsburg Confession takes for granted that the church would continue to be governed by bishops. If we take a good, close look, we will find that little is said about church polity, with the exception of AC XXVIII ("The Power of Bishops"). This is no accident, and it can only lead us to conclude that the Reformers had no intention of making sweeping changes in the church's organizational life. They thought the polity that had served the church almost from its beginnings could and should continue to do so. Apology XIV ("Ecclesiastical Order") confirms this. It states:
On this matter we have given frequent testimony in the assembly to our deep desire to maintain the church polity and the various ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, although they were created by human authority. We know that the Fathers had good and useful reasons for instituting ecclesiastical discipline in the manner described by the ancient canons.3The confessors at Augsburg believed that reforms were needed in the episcopacy--abuses had occurred. The monarchical bishop, so predominant in the Middle Ages, was rejected; the temporal and the spiritual should not be confused. But bishops should continue to be the church's spiritual leaders and be evangelical in their dealings and life. Bishops are not to be rulers but teachers and pastors. AC XXVIII states, "Our teachers assert that according to the Gospel the power of the keys or the power of bishops is a power and command of God to preach the Gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to administer and distribute the sacraments."4 The power of the bishops is precisely that which Christ has given to the church and it is identical to the power given to the office of the ordained ministry.
AC XXVIII is lengthy, but one point is clear: the office of bishop and the episcopal structure that goes with it should be retained. The office of bishop should be reformed but retained, for the sake of good order and for having a definitive governing office in the church's life. This is not by human, but by divine right. Therefore, AC XXVIII asserts, "According to divine right, therefore, it is the office of the bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine, and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest."5 By divine right, the bishop not only is to teach; the bishop is also called to judge doctrine and conduct.
THESIS THREE: The office of the ordained ministry is inseparably linked to that of bishop and is constitutive of the church.
AC V ("The Office of the Ministry") and AC XIV ("Order in the Church") make this point abundantly clear. The office of the ministry is instituted by God and is charged with the responsibility of preaching the Word and administration of the Sacraments--also given by God. These are the Means of Grace through which God gives the Holy Spirit and works faith--all on account of the merits of Christ. Human preparations do not bring about faith or grace. They are given by God and exercised through the office of the ministry, which God has established. AC XIV clearly states that "nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call."6 The office of the ministry is not merely functional. It is an office that is a mark of the church. It is interesting to note that there is no comparable article to AC V in the Apology, which indicates that the Roman party, in their Confutation, raised no objections to the content of this particular article. This also indicates that the Reformers retained what was the essential doctrine of the ordained priesthood as found in the Medieval church, namely, that the ordained priest is Christ's representative in the midst of the people and that the priest acts in the stead of Christ.
THESIS FOUR: The office of the ministry is not to be confused with the priesthood of all believers.
The priesthood of all believers is nowhere mentioned in the Augsburg Confession. In fact, it is not mentioned in any of the confessional documents. It is not a confessional teaching. There is an explanation for this. Martin Brecht, in the middle volume of his trilogy on Luther, demonstrates that, for Luther, the concept of the priesthood of all believers receded into the background during the course of the 1520s.7 After being confronted with various radical individuals and movements that wanted to carry reforms much further than he did, Luther gave up on the concept as essentially unworkable. People were not being responsible; instead, they were using their newly found freedom to incite revolution. Since all the confessional writings, with the exception of the Catechisms, are from the post-1520 period, such an omission is easily understandable. Luther no longer emphasized the priesthood of all believers; the Augsburg Confession and the other confessional writings followed suit.
As far as the Augsburg Confession is concerned, the office of the ministry stands on its own. It is in no way related to or dependent on any concept of a priesthood of all believers. Any attempt to derive the ordained ministry from the priesthood of all believers or to deal with both on the same level can and will only result in confusion and a de-emphasis on the ordained office. The Gospel is never thereby served and the very identity of the church is always thereby jeopardized.
We in the ELCA know what that means. A six-year ministry study, costing who-knows-how-many-dollars, yielded nothing helpful. There are many reasons for this, but perhaps the most glaring is the study's elevation of the priesthood of all believers, a non-confessional concept, to a status it simply does not deserve. As an aside, I think the situation in the LCMS concerning the origin and source of the ordained ministry, resulting in the so-called "transference theory", puts the LCMS in the same boat as the ELCA--one of confusion and chaos. In this regard, I think Lowell Green's essay in a recent issue of LOGIA is very instructive.8 Dr. Green thoroughly documents the differences between Grabau and Walther on church and ministry, showing that Grabau was more confessionally consistent than Walther on those issues. But, in fairness to Walther, Green also thinks that Walther's followers were much more liberal in their interpretation of congregation and ministry than Walther himself. Those followers, like Schleiermacher, viewed the church as the coming together of like-minded individuals who form a congregation (in the narrowest sense of the word) and then transfer the right to preach and administer the Sacraments to a particular individual. These views reflected democratic ideas, not the confessional witness.
Green is right when he states that such ideas haunt Lutheranism in America to the present day and the LCMS is not the only Lutheran body to be so haunted. There are many graphic examples here. The idea that the pastoral office comes "from below," is not limited to the "transference theory." That same view is also variously expressed by some theologians and church officials in the other synodical bodies. This, I believe, has contributed to the notion that the pastor is a "hired hand," an attitude that is evident in many parishes, especially those of a congregationalist bent. A tragedy is that many pastors have capitulated to this attitude, for the sake of peace and harmony; equally tragic is that many a bishop or president is reluctant to challenge it. When this kind of surrender occurs, the Augsburg Confession's position on the ministry is abandoned, resulting in the loss of authority with regard to the pastoral office. That loss of authority, in turn, leads to chaos and confusion in doctrine and practice--an apt description of the state of much of Lutheranism in America today.
THESIS FIVE: If there is no coherence between the office of the ministry and a teaching and disciplining episcopacy, then there is the danger of the Word and Sacraments being compromised, the end result being that the nature of the church itself is compromised.
To use Harry Truman's phrase, "The buck stops here." The buck has got to stop somewhere. Someone has to be accountable, and the Word and Sacraments demand accountability because they are God's Means of Grace and they define the church. I contend that when an ecclesiastical office is clearly seen as coming from above, there is a greater sense of accountability on the part of those who hold the office. Pastors and bishops or presidents know that they are ultimately accountable to no less than God Himself for what they say and do. By contrast, when the office is seen as coming from below, with accountability to the people being the primary focus, all kinds of compromises and accommodations to "local conditions" result.
One can easily see this in terms of the theological confusion, in both doctrine and practice, that is present in virtually every Lutheran body in the United States today. A seminary professor recently told me that if, in his part of the country, one heard a sermon based on the appointed texts for the day, that would be the exception not the rule. Most parishes do not celebrate the Sacrament of the Altar weekly--clearly the confessional standard.(9) Confession and Absolution, considered by many to be nothing more than remnants of a bygone era, when sin was still a reality in people's lives, have virtually disappeared from the church. We have still not shaken off the clutches of the Enlightenment and Pietism, both of which undermined the doctrinal, liturgical, and sacramental structures of Lutheranism. Only today the reasons given for slighting the marks of the church are that they are not relevant to people's experiences or they "turn people off."
I bring up these specific instances because they are not on the periphery. Quite the contrary, they are the very things that define what the church is, and they are in grave danger of being ignored and/or lost. Who is going to see to it that the Word of God is preached and the Sacraments are rightly administered? It seems to me that the Augsburg Confession holds the pastors accountable for these things in relationship to the people under their charge; then bishops are to see to it that the pastors do what they are called and ordained to do. The bishop is not superior to the parish clergy. He is a first among equals who has the responsibility of doctrinal oversight, which is intended to result in doctrinal fidelity and good order in the church.
I believe that I am stating the obvious in saying that no such checks and balances exist in Lutheranism in America today. Bishops or presidents are elected by their synods or districts, which leads many of them to view themselves as accountable to "the people." Many parish clergy view their situation in the same way. Do whatever "the people" want. Don't impose any objective standards on them. Do whatever is practical and seems to work. That's the American way; that is the way of democracy. As an aside, I have to wonder if some pastors and bishops or presidents have lost all sense of accountability to God--that any notion of having to answer at the Final Judgment (if indeed they even still believe there will be such an event) is simply something that is not even contemplated, much less taken seriously. If that suspicion is true (I hope and pray that it is not), then we are experiencing a genuine crisis of faith, which will eventually have a profoundly negative affect on the life of the church as a whole.
Clearly, the Augsburg Confession sees the pastoral office as being from above, and has the conviction that pastors and bishops will ultimately have to give account of their stewardship of the Means of Grace that have been committed to their charge. They are given charge of the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and woe be to them if they are not faithful. The Augsburg Confession does not separate polity from doctrinal fidelity. The two are interrelated. Church order attempts to guarantee that the Word will be preached in its purity and the Sacraments administered according to the Gospel.
THESIS SIX: All ecclesiastical structure in Lutheranism in America has abandoned the vision for church order contained in the Augsburg Confession, which has resulted in what can, at best, be described as a watered-down version of the church.
In America, the so-called "majority" decides. Such is certainly the case in the various Lutheran bodies. Conventions or Assemblies are held, votes are taken, and it is assumed that these decisions are the will of God. Rarely is the impression given that they are the result of nothing more than human opinions or of bureaucratic manipulation. Alongside this, there seems to exist the inclination that we are free to change anything we want. That certainly is true of some quarters of the ELCA--the sexuality issue being a prime example. In case other Lutheran bodies are tempted to think that such is not true of them, witness the massive tampering of the Church Growth Movement, which has claimed for itself the freedom to alter or completely eliminate liturgical texts and rituals that have faithfully communicated the Gospel and served the church well for centuries (to say nothing of its undermining the Word and the Sacraments).
I contend that our democratic structure has led to the notion that the church is mainly a human organization, which renders it nothing more than another option among many for people; it is not seen as the body of Christ, the instrument God uses to save sinners. That is certainly the attitude of the secular culture. But I believe that same attitude is held by many people in our pews. Cyprian's dictum ("Outside the church there is no salvation") simply has no meaning to many Americans, even a lot of church members. When one listens to Garrison Keillor talk about Lake Wobegon Lutheran Church, he is close to describing the reality of church life; and what Keillor describes is mainly cultural and sociological, not theological.
One can easily argue that such attitudes are ample evidence that the church has capitulated too much to the culture in which it finds itself, and certainly that capitulation is an important factor. I don't see H. Richard Niebuhr's category, "Christ Against Culture," operative in our parishes or in the larger church structure. Even Niebuhr's ideal of Christ and culture being in creative tension with each other seems to be nonexistent.10 But there is another reason that I think is often overlooked, namely we do not have an ecclesiastical structure that is capable of bringing order to the chaos or even capable of attempting to guarantee some doctrinal and liturgical fidelity (lex orandi, lex credendi). Both synodical bishops and district presidents are, in the present structures, largely managers, people who are to see to it that the ecclesiastical machinery runs smoothly and that the boat is not rocked. Instead of encouraging pastors to be faithful to their ordination vows, more emphasis is often placed on maintaining peace in the parish, mainly for the sake of financial stability. If a pastor gets in trouble for being faithful to his calling, he is more than often simply left to his fate and criticized for being too rigid or for not paying attention to the people's self-perceived needs. In spite of our traditional emphasis on doctrinal fidelity, we Lutherans in America find ourselves virtually helpless in the face of the challenges the present-day American culture poses to us. We have not paid attention to our own Confession; thus, we have no authoritative ecclesiastical office to provide proper guidance and doctrinal stability.
A disclaimer is in order here. I do not mean to imply that all bishops or presidents fit the dismal picture I have described. There are many who take seriously the task of being a pastor and teacher and who will vigorously defend pastors who are faithful to their ordination vows. But I would argue that they do these things out of force of personal conviction and a strong sense of fidelity to their ordination vows, not because the structure necessarily requires it. If anything, the structure may be an impediment, and if one is to be a good bishop or president, it means he must transcend the structure rather than conform to it.
THESIS SEVEN: Lutherans in America need a polity that conforms to that of the Augsburg Confession, for the sake of fidelity to the Word and the Sacraments and the integrity of the church.
I have no illusions regarding this thesis. It is easy to diagnose a problem; it is much more difficult to bring about a solution. I also make no claims that this is perfect or realistic or even possible. We all know that there are or will be no perfect church structure this side of the grave. I don't know that it is realistic to expect that the present synodical bodies will alter their present structure, even if the structure is not in conformity with the Confession we say determines our ecclesiastical life. The old rag that structure is adiaphora can still get a willing hearing among many. Besides, changes are very threatening to the Old Adam in us and to put our church structure in conformity with the Augsburg Confession would require major changes on our part. The only way I can see a proper evangelical episcopal structure put in place would be if a new confessional body were to be formed--and I see that as being only a faint possibility.
But I continue to hope that such might happen. I look at the ELCA and I see little or no possibility of meaningful reform--barring a miracle from God. If some of the ecumenical proposals pass, particularly "A Formula for Agreement," the result will be the protestantization of the ELCA, accompanied by the loss of Lutheran identity and catholic substance. I also question if the LCMS and WELS are capable of fighting off the enticements of the Church Growth Movement. Having said that, I must say that I am encouraged by what I perceive is some intense questioning and soul-searching happening within the LCMS, in response to the influx of that movement. The final results of that are, at this point in time, still unknown. One thing is certain: In the case of all the synodical bodies, there will always be a faithful remnant. God will never completely forsake His church. It will survive in some way, shape, or form until the End. We must hold on, at all costs, to our belief in the indefectability of the church.
Yet, I have to wonder if being only a remnant is ultimately what God wants of us. One thing I have been led to see over the years is that faith is a risk, which means the willingness to take risks. If that were not the case, I would not be talking like I am. I am becoming increasingly convinced that Lutheranism's future in this country may not necessarily lie with any of the present synodical bodies. Faithfulness to what we believe, teach, and confess could ultimately entail something entirely new to us.
As most if not all of you know, I am a church historian. As an historian, I have to take seriously the substance, rigors, and demands of the Catholic Tradition, which I believe the Reformers also took very seriously. We likewise need to take seriously the need for reform and renewal in our own day, using the Augsburg Confession as the measuring rod, so that what we believe and practice clearly indicates that we really are a part of the Church Catholic, as opposed to being just another Protestant religious group that dots the American landscape. The underlying thesis of this paper is that neither reform nor renewal will occur without having the proper structure--which cannot and dare not simply be dismissed as being only a matter of indifference.
Let us get this much straight: It is not a case of a perfect structure but rather of which structure is best. The confessors at Augsburg were of the conviction that an evangelical episcopacy best served the church. Such an episcopacy both taught and judged doctrine and conduct. The buck stopped with the bishop. Hopefully, God willing, we will reach the point in Lutheranism in this country where bishops will be bishops and pastors will be pastors--both knowing that the office they hold comes from above and that they are ultimately accountable to the God who created the office. Should this occur in one of the present Lutheran bodies or a new one, then the Gospel will be served, the Sacraments will be honored, and we will attempt to faithfully live the definition of the church we claim to be the truth--for the glory of God and for the sake of our very salvation.
1 I must confess that I was tempted to use a different word in place of one I did use (I'll leave it to your imagination which one it might be), but I thought it might be a needless cause of offense.
2 Theodore E. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 32.
3 Tappert, 214.
4 Tappert, 81.
5 Tappert, 84.
6 Tappert, 36.
7 Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1521-1532, Trans. by James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 447.
8 Lowell C. Green, "Grabau and Walther: Theocentric Versus Anthropocentric Understanding of Church and Ministry," LOGIA (Eastertide 1996), 25-40.
9 Tappert, 56.
10 H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1951).
15 August 1997
This essay was first presented at the Luther Academy Lecture Series No. 4 on 4 April 1997 in Chicago, Illinois.
the reverend doctor david gustafson received a M.Div. from Lutheran School of Theology (Maywood) in 1968, a Th.M. from Luther Seminary in 1973, and a Ph.D. from the Union Institute in 1990. He is the author of Lutherans in Crisis (Fortress Press, 1993), as well as many articles and reviews in The Lutheran Forum and LOGIA. Rev. Gustafson is dominically ordered to serve in the Preaching Office at Peace Lutheran Church in Poplar, Wisconsin.