reverend jonathan g. lange || Abstract - Clergy relocation is a common and unquestioned practice since the 18th century. By contrast, the Church of the Ecumenical councils repeatedly issued decrees against it. This extreme disjuncture between today's practice and that of the ancient Church calls for a re-examination the mobile ministerium in the light of her historic doctrine.
The doctrine and practice of the Divine Call into the Office of the Holy Ministry is under much discussion in the contemporary Church. In this discussion, it is not uncommon to hear examples of pastors who are treated as hirelings of the congregation and removed apart from God's command. Where this charge is true, it is indeed lamentable and correction is in order. For the Divine Call is not man's word but Christ's and violence done to His Call does violence to His Body, the Church. This must be said plainly lest the doctrine and practice of the Divine Call be understood merely as an issue of clerical job security. But for all the talk of how Christ's word might suffer violence by the involuntary removal of a pastor, the voluntary move of a pastor is rarely discussed. Is the question of willingness and choice the determinative factor of right and wrong?1 The existentialist strain of postmodern thought urges such an ethic, but Christian thought rests in something more firm than the whims of man.
If deposal or dismissal apart from divine grounding does damage to the Church, might not wrongful resignation or transfer be just as damaging? Is there a fundamental difference between a congregation's advised decision to end the tenure of its pastor and a pastor's decision to end his own? Pastoral theologies indicate that there is such a thing as a wrongful transfer,2 but who can say what that means? Murky and indiscernible laws bring only doubt and uncertainty. The lurking possibility that one has transferred wrongly gives occasion for guilt but the vagaries of what might or might not be wrong can neither teach the right nor bring sinners to repentance. Furthermore, without a clear teaching on how the Divine Call is binding on the minister, who can hope for congregations to understand how it is binding on them? Congregations are left with a seemingly unilateral obligation that takes on the appearance of tyranny.
What are the dominical criteria that govern transfers? Where has the Lord commanded such transfers? Where has the Lord promised to build His Church through them? These questions are foundational to the issue of clergy relocation. To clarify the issues at stake, this paper re-examines the mobile Ministerium in the light of the doctrine of the Divine Call as taught by Luther and witnessed by the orthodox Church through the ages
Part I: The Call is a Command
The Augsburg Confession teaches that the office of the keys is nothing other than a "command of God to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer the sacraments" (AC XXVIII 5).3 As Luther writes, "Whoever has received the command, him St. Paul regards as a pastor, bishop, and pope."4 Dominical commands are to be obeyed. It is sin to flee from God's command in order to avoid trouble as St. Paul says, "Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor. 9:16; see also Jonah 1). Luther says this of office holders in general and preachers in particular.
Those who have been legitimately called to some administrative office do not do the right thing when they abandon their station. It is certainly troublesome to be a preacher, a good head of a household, or to meet any other duty in a godly and faithful manner. But one should not flee work.5Preaching is never a matter of free choice to do or not to do. "For it is God's will that nothing be done as a result of one's own choice or decision, but everything as a consequence of a command or a call."6 Therefore, when a person receives a call from God to preach to a people, it is a burden7 that he must do or place himself under God's judgment. "What now? Shall I become impatient or refuse to follow my calling?" asks Luther, "No... it is our duty to obey God when He calls."8
Let there be no mistake about it, the mandate to preach is unambiguous law. While the old Adam in both preacher and hearer will always chafe at this command (as he chafes at all commands), the Christian as Christian will receive it as a gracious gift of the Lord because of the promises that are attached to it. The Formula of Concord states:
neither preacher nor hearer is to doubt this grace and efficacy of the Holy Ghost, but should be certain that when the Word of God is preached purely and truly, according to the command and will of God (nach dem Befehl und willen Gottes), and men listen attentively and earnestly and meditate upon it, God is certainly present with His grace, and grants, as has been said, what otherwise man can neither accept nor give from his own powers (SD II 55).When things are running in the way of the Gospel (according to the command and will of God) there is nothing but eternal good taking place.9 Thus Luther teaches, "There is very great power resident in the call. Where it is a legitimate call, there God is not completely absent."10 The command to preach is bound together with the promise of God's activity. When a man believes that God has commanded him to preach he also believes that God is at work and not himself.11 "In the papacy this was unknown to us," writes Luther, "We did not know anything about the certainty of vocation and the glory of an office."12 It is about this "glory of an office" that Chemnitz writes in his Enchiridion,
The assurance of a divine call stirs up ministers of the Word, so that each one, in his station, in the fear of God, performs his functions with greater diligence, faith, and eagerness, without weariness. And he does not let himself be drawn or frightened away from his office by fear of any peril or of persecution, since he is sure that he is called by God and that office has been divinely entrusted to him."13So the unmitigated law of the divine mandate is not opposed to the promises attached to the ministry of the Word but, in fact, it is their foundation. Where the command is sure, the preacher has God's unfailing promise of blessing upon all that he does. On the other hand, where the command is in doubt and the preacher is no longer certain whether his task is self-imposed or mandated by God, he is easily frightened away by every appearance of trouble and conflict in the congregation because he has no more certainty of God's promised blessing.14
Part II: The Call is Located
The Divine Call is a command from God--specifically, a command to preach. But in order to preach, there must be hearers--those to whom a man must preach. Therefore, Augustana XXVIII teaches that this command is "exercised only by teaching or preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments to many person or to individuals depending upon one's calling" (AC XXVIII, 8). The command to preach hangs upon the call and cannot float free. For this reason, Luther teaches that in order to preach without usurping another's office, "I must be persuaded that God has placed me here to preach (dass Gott mich daher gestellt habe)."15 No preacher--New Testament or Old--is ever obligated to preach at a place of his own choosing.16 As for Luther himself, he was persuaded that God commanded him to preach in Wittenberg. Because of this conviction, when the prince commanded him to leave during the 1538 plague, he announced from the pulpit, "If you occupy a public office, it is your duty to remain and not to flee. Take some medicine and fumigate your home, but stay with those whom God has entrusted you."17 Neither could the goading of his adversaries persuade him to take his preaching 'on the road.'
For I must not go where I have not been ordered to go. Thus several stupid fools among my adversaries say to me: "Why don't you go to Rome? to the Bishop of Mainz? to Dresden? or to Leipzig? We know that you are afraid!" No, I am not motivated by fear. If I had God's command to preach there, I would indeed go with a good conscience and preach there boldly. But I have no command of God to preach there.18According to Luther, they are usurpers not only who perform the function of preaching without a call at all, but also those who treat their call to preach in one place as license to preach in other places as well.19 For this reason Luther, in his commentary on Psalm 82, advises that the laity
be on their guard against these vagabonds and knaves and to avoid them as sure as emissaries of the devil, unless they bring good evidence that they are called and commanded by God to do this work in that special place (Berufs und Befehls von Gott, zu solchem Werke, in solch Kirchspiel).20Luther understood the ministry in terms of a particular office and assignment. Even though he regularly boasted of his call to Wittenberg, he confessed that this gave him no special standing elsewhere.21 Luther and the orthodox fathers after him rejected the claims of both pope and schwaermerei that they had a "general call" to preach to the una sancta.22 "For," as Luther says (1530), "to be a pastor one must not only be a Christian and priest but also have an office and a field of work (amt und ein befohlen kirchspiel) committed to him."23 God's call and command does not place a man into a fluid ministerial class but into a located office. When he either withdraws from that assignment or it is taken from him, he is no longer in the Office.24 The command to preach can never be abstracted from the designated audience.
At this point, the confessors highlight an important distinction between pastors and apostles. In respect to the locatedness of the call, the office of apostle was a unique and temporary office in the life of the Church. Martin Luther clarifies this distinction:
To be sure, the apostles did, at first, go into other men's houses and preach there. But they had a command and were ordained and called and sent to preach the Gospel in all places; as Christ said (Mark 16:15): "Go into all the world and preach to all creatures." Since then, however, no one has had this general apostolic command; but every bishop or pastor has had this definite diocese or parish (sein bestimmt Kirchspiel oder Pfarre). For this reason St. Peter (I Peter 5:3) calls them klerous, that is, "parts," indicating that to each of them a part of the people has been committed, as Paul writes to Titus also (Titus 1:5).25It is the proprium of bishops and pastors to be called to specific parishes26 and not to the church at large as were the apostles, evangelists and patriarchs. This is no human arrangement but, as Luther says, the "parish system [is] ordained of God."27
Luther and the orthodox fathers were no innovators in teaching the locatedness of the call into the Office of the Holy Ministry. In fact, they were self-consciously following the sixth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) which they often cited verbatim in this connection:
Neither presbyter, deacon, nor any of the ecclesiastical order shall be ordained at large, not unless the person ordained is particularly appointed to a church in a city or village, or to a martyry, or to a monastery. And if any have been ordained without a charge, the holy Synod decrees, to the reproach of the ordainer, that such an ordination shall be inoperative, and that such shall nowhere be suffered to officiate.28Here, the rejection of the so-called "absolute ordination" is founded upon the notion of the locatedness of God's Call. Ordination is so integrally bound to the specific assignment as to be void without it. The sixteenth canon of the Council of Nicea (325), indicates in yet another way the locatedness of the Divine Call. It states: "if anyone shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another [parish], without the consent of his own proper bishop . . . let the ordination be void."29 Notice that even though the man was previously ordained to one parish, movement to another parish involves another ordination--not an installation!30 In fact, in the western Church it is difficult to find the notion of an installation as distinct from an ordination until after the death of Luther.31 In spite of these late beginnings, a distinction between the non-repeatable ordination32 and a repeatable installation was asserted without historical support as early as John Gerhardt.33 Such a distinction, however, is not the driving force behind the pronouncement of the Nicean Council. Rather, the long-standing tradition of the non-repeatable ordination rests upon the integrity of the original parish assignment and not upon the indelible nature of ordination in any absolute sense. Should a man forsake his original God-given office he thus forsakes ordination and returns to the ranks of the laity.34 This is taught as early as the Apostolic Canons.35 From the earliest times, the command to preach and the location of that preaching were viewed as an integral whole. If a preacher seeks to change locations, he is not merely redirecting his efforts under the aegis of an over-arching command to preach. Rather, he must act upon a new and distinct command from God.36
If a man believes he has a command to preach, he must also believe that he has a command to preach in a particular place. Conversely, if he is no longer certain of where He is to preach, neither is he certain that God commands him to preach at all. This integrity of God's Call prevents a parish from summarily dismissing its pastor. Those who defend such actions with the claim that they are not deposing apart from God's Word but only dismissing from a particular assignment are inventing distinctions which the Scriptures do not know.37 Since the command to preach does not come abstracted from the specification of where, those who seek to extract the Divine mandate to preach from the Divinely designated place are treading underfoot the Word of God. It is a violation of the integrity of God's call to suggest that the location of the call can be left up in the air without impinging on its certainty.
The implications of this are manifold but for purposes of this study, one stands out. When a man ordained and commanded by God to preach in one place receives documents from a calling congregation, it cannot be considered a matter of free choice. "For," Luther says, "it is God's will that nothing be done as a result of one's own choice or decision, but everything as a consequence of a command or a call."38 If movement is indicated, it can only be because God is thereby issuing a new and different command and that the old command is no longer in force. The notion that call documents present a divine option to be chosen freely by the recipient is an innovation of relatively recent vintage. More importantly, it violates the divine integrity of the ordination to preach every bit as much as the notion that a congregation has the same divine option to seek out a new preacher whenever circumstances seem to indicate.
This reality places the recipient of call documents on the horns of a dilemma. As long as God's original command remains valid (i.e. take heed to this flock etc...), documents urging him to do otherwise are simply irrelevant. On the other hand, if call documents are to be taken at all seriously, the preacher must lay aside the certainty of his calling and weigh all over again what precisely God is commanding him to do.39 When a man determines to move from the parish where he was originally ordained and commanded to preach he thereby asserts that the specific Word which God spoke to him through the mouth of the ordinator40 indicating the precise location of his call is no longer binding on him.
Why wonder, then, that confusion over the integrity of God's call is so wide-spread? If pastors regularly ignore the locatedness of their ordination as new circumstances arise, who can expect the parish that heard the very same words to consider their lasting force in the face of their own changing circumstances? The waters are further muddied when a sister congregation questions the validity of the very same words by issuing their own solemn call.41 As if this weren't enough to foment doubt and confusion, congregations are often asked to add their own assessment of the continuing relevance of God's original command to preach.42 It is no wonder, then, that the arrival of call documents is often a period of great anxiety for the entire parish. They accomplish nothing more than to stir up doubt in the minds of both preacher and hearers. In fact, the only sure word offered by the "Diploma of Vocation" is that the preacher's mandate to preach must be doubted. One must look elsewhere either to re-affirm God's original call or to confirm that it has been supplanted by another.
Part III: The Call is Divine
It has been rightly pointed out elsewhere that the isolated action of the calling congregation cannot yet be divine. Rather, what is divine is the entire process by which the decision is made.43 Thus, in order for the solemn call to be deemed a divine mandate to preach, something else must be added. Armin Schuetze and Irwin Habeck write: "Whether a particular call is divine also in the sense that it demands acceptance can be established only by a consideration of facts which the calling congregation cannot know or at least not fully evaluate." Thus, "the decision will ultimately be made by [the pastor]."44 According to this, the decision of the individual pastor is the only difference between a divine mandate and a human suggestion. This amounts to a kind of receptionism45 with regard to the external call into the Holy Ministry. While the Word may indeed come to the pastor externally and without his prompting, he cannot be sure whether it is God's Word until he has added his own opinion to it.
While those who reject the divinity of the call altogether move and remove pastors without concern for God's opinion, the Lutheran belief that the parish arrangement itself is a divine ordering prevents such a cavalier attitude. Private opinions in this regard are no replacement for the surety and comfort of God's external Word. If one seeks after the blessings given through those sent by God and wishes to avoid the trouble brought by those who come of themselves, it is essential that everyone be certain of God's command and call. For, in order to believe the promises that God gives to both parish and preacher, one must be certain that God--and not man--has established this particular arrangement.
But where is that certainty to be found? How can one know whether a particular parish arrangement has come from God or from man? What makes a particular command "divine"? Christ's call and command to preach comes mediately, through human instrumentality. Nevertheless, the call remains God's and not man's. As Johann Gerhard writes, "[God] did not abdicate this right of His when [He] commanded His church and gave it the power to call suitable men as ministers but reserved the right complete and inviolate for Himself."46 Thus, the command to preach arises from God alone and not from the instrument through whom it comes. This remains true whether that instrument is a bishop, a magistrate, a pastor, a congregation or an entire Synodical process. Congregations that claim their pastor to be an at-will employee destroy this distinction. So also do preachers who feel free to leave at will, bishops who move priests by fiat, conventions that issue temporary calls, and even well-meaning magistrates who are trying to protect the health of their pastors.47 Instrumentality in the call process does not translate to sovereignty over it.
It is not enough to know that God's instrument has spoken. What is also required is for that instrument to speak in accordance with Christ's mandate. Chemnitz writes, "However, in order that this mediated call may enjoy these privileges,48 it is necessary that it be legitimate, i.e., that it be made in the manner and by the persons prescribed by Scripture."49 By the dominical mandate, Scripture prescribes both manner and mouthpiece in the calling of ministers. When God's instrument acts according to the Divine command things are running in the way of the Gospel. Now everyone is certain that God has given (didomi) his agent the authority (exousia) to say and do this very thing in placing that man into office. It is Christ's institution and mandate that makes the call divine.
This finds its parallel in the activity of the pastor as taught in the Small Catechism, "I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His Divine command (seinem goettlichen Befehl) ... this is as valid and certain as if Christ, our Dear Lord dealt with us Himself" (SC V).50 Just as the absolution is certain because the minister is speaking by Christ's command, so the preacher has dominical certainty of his call because two things have converged: the Church has publicly said where to preach, and the Lord has clearly commanded His Church to do just that.51 A call that comes outside of God's mandate must be doubted.52 So also a removal apart from Christ's mandate is doubtful--whether it is instigated by the congregation, bishop or pastor. "Just as God properly claims for Himself the right to call, also mediately, and it is accordingly necessary for it to be done according to divine instruction, so also has God properly reserved to himself alone this power of removing someone from the ministry."53 When things are running in the way of the Gospel, according to God's command, all can confess together, that God has moved this man here. God is at work and will certainly give the increase. On the other hand, when things are running in the way of man-made rules, nothing remains sure.54
But what word of God binds the Church to move her preachers from parish to parish? What mandates are being followed and what are the criteria by which it is done? One way of identifying the mandates of the Lord is to inquire into the dominical criteria according to which things are to be carried out. Nested within the Lord's command to appoint and depose ministers are the dominical criteria (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1, etc.). It is clear, however, that the criteria accompanying the Lord's ordinary mandates for the appointment and removal of ministers do not apply to transfers.55 In the case of clergy relocation, the mandates governing deposal must necessarily be ignored. A man who is deposed from his parish for false doctrine, malfeasance of office or unholy living is disqualified from re-entry into the ministry--just as, a congregation who has removed a minister apart from these mandates cannot rightly call another.56 If the dominically given criteria for removing clergy have no place in moving them, what are the Lord's reasons for moving ministers? The lack of consensus here is another indication that the practice is not based on Christ's mandate but upon human assumptions that find the effectiveness of God's Word and Sacrament in something other than the command and promise of Christ.
As long as the decision to transfer a pastor is based purely on pious opinions and is not necessitated by any divine mandate or subject to dominically given criteria, it is nothing but enthusiasm. Neither will it help to claim that the Church has made the decision or sanctioned it because ecclesiastical enthusiasm is still enthusiasm. Luther is clear on this point in the Smalcald Articles: "The papacy, too, is nothing but enthusiasm,57 for the pope boasts that 'all laws exist in the shrine of his heart' and he claims that whatever he decides and commands within his church is spirit and law, even when it is above and contrary to Scriptures or the spoken Word" (SA III, viii, 4).58 Perhaps this is why there is such a reluctance to assume the burden for a decision to transfer. Calling congregations leave it up to the one called. District presidents advise but claim no binding authority. Neighboring pastors may offer advice, but the pastor with the call is left holding the bag. Even at that, few men are willing to admit that they decided to forsake their original call of their own volition. They are more apt to claim that God convinced them through the advice of others. In the final analysis, everyone wishes to claim that God has spoken, but no one can identify any mouthpiece outside of the shrine of the pastor's heart. Efforts to spread out the burden of authority may be nuanced and wholly sincere, but if the authority has not been given to the Church in the first place even multiple layers of polity cannot support the contradiction of God's mandate to preach.
At first glance, the inconsistencies noted here may appear to be merely the result of the "Amercan experiment," -- that is, the nineteenth century transition from an episcopal polity to synodical polity in the American Lutheran Church. Prior to this polity shift, the bishops and consistories were clearly the mouthpiece of the Church in the matter of clergy transfer. Consequently, those moving from one parish to another did indeed have a definite word outside of themselves and thus avoided the apparent privatization of such decisions. However, upon closer examination, this clear advantage of an episcopal polity still does not address the deeper Scriptural questions raised above. It is still unclear what word of God commands the Church to move her preachers from parish to parish. Moreover, there is still no sure word indicating dominical reasons or criteria for the transfer of clergy who are not guilty either of false doctrine, unholy living or malfeasance of office.
Even in the fathers of Lutheran orthodoxy, one is hard-pressed to discover any Scriptural foundations for this practice. Chemnitz defends the practice on the basis of medieval cannon law.59 Gerhardt follows the same argumentation, yet adds the argument from silence that there is no explicit prohibition of clergy movement in the New Testament.60 When one presses for an answer from the fathers of the early church, the case becomes even more troublesome. Rather than any Scriptural rationale for the transfer of clergy from one parish to another, the early fathers offered just the opposite. The unanimous witness of the fathers of the first eight centuries leaves a trail of canons and decrees from ecumenical -- as well as local -- councils that repeatedly forbade the movement of clergy altogether.61 The transfer of clergy from parish to parish was extremely rare in the first three centuries -- two in all.62 It was not officially sanctioned in either east or west until the second millennium of the Christian era -- and then only reluctantly.63 Even in the last two centuries, this practice has increased at such a rate as to stagger the mind.64 With both pastors and parishes expecting and experiencing ever decreasing tenures, is it not time to address the basic Scriptural questions behind such a practice?
Conclusion: Good for Goose and Gander
The mandate to preach, while given for the sake of the Gospel, is still a divine command. It is not to be taken lightly or ignored any more than any other divine command. It is a command that not only causes a man to preach the Gospel in general, but even compels him to preach in a divinely assigned place. The parish assignment is integral to the Divine Call--and not an incidental appendage. For this reason, no one should either take up or lay down that specific and located assignment of his own volition apart from God's Word and command. Anyone that claims to be God's spokesman and give that command--be it calling congregation, Circuit Counselor or District President--must "bring a mandate, a command, an order that this issued; there must be . . . an authority"65 otherwise he should not be heeded. He should be able to demonstrate publicly that his word is spoken at God's command, according to Divinely prescribed criteria and is accompanied with sure promises of blessing. If he cannot do this, one should ignore him and, in Luther's words, "avoid [him] as sure as [an] emissary of the devil."66
Where has the Lord commanded the moving of clergy from parish to parish? Where has the Lord promised to build His Church through such shuffling of talent? What are the dominical criteria that govern transfers? Unless the relocation of clergy can be shown to be divinely instituted, neither the preacher nor the parish can be sure that God has commanded the original bond to be supplanted by a new one. Lacking that command, neither can anyone be certain of God's blessing upon the transfer. All that remains is to believe that God, according to unknown institutions and by unspecified means, sundered a relationship which He once declared to be binding. The pastor has the unenviable task of convincing himself and others that this was clearly God's decision and not his own while he has nothing outside himself to rely upon and no clear reason to assert that he should have doubted God's original command in the first place. Some unconvinced parishioners ask themselves what they did wrong to prompt their pastor to take a call elsewhere. Others interpret a pastor's decision to return a call and continue his tenure as an arbitrary decision to embitter their lives. In any case, the pastor no longer portrays for them the God who binds Himself to His Word but a God who comes and goes arbitrarily.
Actions speak louder than words. It should be no surprise that the god portrayed in the call process has so strongly influenced the perceptions and actions of the Church today. Souls that repeatedly see portrayed in their pastor a god who flees to avoid the cross or abandons his flock for the promise of greener pastures will have difficulty connecting Christ's proclamation to reality. Christ's instructions to his disciples in Matthew 23:3, "Whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works," may be a necessary caveat to help people past the inconsistencies, but it cannot be the governing principle in Christ's Church. If God's sheep are to see in their pastors the Good Shepherd Himself, a steadfast willingness to bind themselves to the Word and will of the Father is essential. Even as it will benefit the Church to have portrayed before them the God who is steadfast and faithful to His Word, so also it will be a great benefit to pastors once again to learn to place bold confidence in the certainty of God's call and the promises attached to it. In this way a preacher will learn to glory in the calling that God has given him, "so that each one, in his station, in the fear of God, performs his functions with greater diligence, faith, and eagerness, without weariness."67 Careful attention to the divinity of God's call will bring untold benefits not only to the Church but also to the minister--both to goose and gander alike.
1 "For postmodernists, morality, like religion, is a matter of desire. What I want and what I choose is not only true (for me) but right (for me). That different people want and choose different things means that truth and morality are relative..." Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1994) 195.
2 Thus Walther writes, "The pastor ... should not accept any and every call away from his present congregation." C. F. W. Walther, American Lutheran Pastoral Theology, tr. John M. Drickamer (New Haven: Lutheran News, Inc., 1995) p. 274. And Fritz adds, "A pastor should not leave his congregation because of any evil-minded persons in his church who are embittering his life. Rom. 12,21." John H. C. Fritz, D. D., Pastoral Theology, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1945) 52. Gerberding also writes, "The salary dare not be the decisive factor... The comparative congeniality or uncongeniality of the present and proffered field of labor dare not decide." G. H. Gerberding, The Lutheran Pastor, (Columbus, OH: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1902) 129. For a pastor who lets such considerations be determinative, Gerberding warns, "He may get the place; but he certainly cannot have the fullness of peace and blessing from the Lord. In some way, at some time, he will certainly suffer for his sin." Ibid., 128.
3 Citations from the Lutheran Symbols are taken from The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, tr. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959).
4 The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests, (1533) Luther's Works, American Edition, editors Jaroslav Pelikan and Martin E. Lehmann (St. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia Publishing House and Fortress Press) [AE] 38:212.
5 Lectures on Genesis, (1545) AE 8:106-7.
6 Commentary on Psalm 82, (1530) AE 13:65.
7 MaSSa', Isaiah 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 21:1, 11, 13, 22:1; 23:1; Nahum 1:1; Habakuk 1:1; Zechariah 9:1; 21:1; Malachi 1:1 etc.
8 Lectures on Genesis, (1539) AE 3:129-30. Luther writes: "they must stand firmly and remain where God speaks, and that they may accustom themselves to those obligations which are commanded by God, unless they are called elsewhere or driven out, as when tyrants banish and force godly men out of their offices. To be sure, a free and voluntary choice of a religious life pleases the flesh and seems wholly acceptable to reason. But if you follow its lead, you are doing exactly what those did who forsook the tabernacle and rushed to trees and groves. This is devilish and not a mark of godliness; and Paul also condemns self-chosen acts of religious devotion where there is no Word that calls but only a will that chooses and establishes." Lectures on Genesis, (1540) AE 4:182. Johann Gerhard writes, "The fifth question is whether a man who has dedicated himself once to the ministry can freely and licitly resign therefrom... We prove the negative, first from the testimonies of Scripture... 1 Cor. 7:17 and 20: 'Every one should remain in the state in which he was called;' ... Second, we have offered examples of the prophets and apostles and others who did not abandon their responsibilities... Third, we can draw our logic from opposites. To call and to dedicate oneself to the ministry is not a free and licit thing. Therefore, to not resign and abandon a ministry once taken up is a free and licit thing." Johann Gerhard, Commonplace XXIII On the Ministry of the Church, tr. Richard Dinda (unpublished manuscript), 886-7. John H. C. Fritz concurs, "Even as it is sinful to accept a call that is not valid and not legitimate, so it is likewise sinful for a pastor not to accept a call if he is convinced that God is calling him." Fritz, 41.
9 Luther says: "Nothing but good fruit can come from the station that God has created and ordained, and from the man who works and lives in this station on the basis of the Word of God. . . if he remains in his station or office and does what this demands, he cannot be a bad tree. Therefore He says, 'You just be sure to remain a sound tree, and I promise you that what you do cannot be wrong. The works that God has commanded must be laudable, and they cannot be wrong." Commentary on The Sermon on the Mount, (1532) AE 21:265, 7. Again, "For this much is sure: So long as a Christian preacher holds on and sticks to his business, despising the world's abuse and persecution, the ministry will abide and the Gospel cannot fail." Ibid., 64-5.
10 Lectures on 1 Timothy, (1528) AE 28:218.
11 Here Luther, in a letter to Lazarus Spengler (1528), finds the connection between belief in God's call and belief in the Gospel itself. "For whoever believes he is called to the office of the church definitely also believes that his office and his work, and he himself in such an office, are acceptable and just before God; if he does not believe this, then it is also certain that he does not believe that his vocation and office are entrusted to him by God. . . For faith in the calling is necessarily connected with faith in justification because it is a faith which is trusting and courageous on the basis of the Word of God who does the calling." Letters, AE 49:207.
12 Sermon on John 8, (1531) AE 23:323-4
13 Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word and Sacraments An Enchiridion, tr. Luther Poellot (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981) 30.
14 Again, Luther writes, "It is dreadful when the conscience says: 'You have done this without a call!' Here a man without a call is shaken by such terror that he wishes he had never heard the Word he preaches." Lectures on Galatians, (1531) AE 26:20. Again he writes, "Let this conviction remain unshaken: that everything must be done in accordance with God's command, in order that we may determine with assurance in our conscience that we are doing it because we have been commanded by God. Hence those who run in a calling that pleases God do not run in vain or beat the air, as those do who have no course on which they have been commanded to run." Lectures on Genesis, (1536) AE 2:114-5.
15 Sermon on John 7, (1531) AE 23:228; St. L. VIII:31.71.
16 Jesus' own earthly ministry was in Palestine as circumscribed by the command of the Father, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24; cf. 10:6).
17 Sermon on John 3, (1538) AE 22:417-8. He continues, "To be sure, the prince did at one time order me to leave because of the threat of death, but I did not want to. Even if everything about me reeked with pestilence, it would not drive me from my pulpit. For this is my calling, and I am determined to discharge it and attend to it. If I should die in the process, it would be dying in a vocation of love, which would be far better than living another century. But if you flee, forsaking parents, wife, and children, you are an accursed fellow. You should prefer a hundred deaths to that." Ibid., 418. So Luther writes, "God says: 'You must do this regardless of the consequences to you, you must remain in your office.'" Ibid., 372.
18 Sermon on John 7, (1531) AE 23:201. "This rule should be so rigidly enforced that no preacher, however pious or upright, shall take it upon himself either to preach to the people of a papistic or heretical pastor, or to teach them privately, without the knowledge and consent of that pastor. For he has no command to do this, and what is not commanded should be left undone." Commentary on Psalm 82, (1530) AE 13:65.
19 "If Muenzer and Carlstadt and their comrades had not been allowed to sneak and creep into other men's houses and parishes, whither they had neither call nor command to go, this whole great calamity would not have happened." Ibid., 64. "Peter orders them to be on their guard when he says: 'But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, he os allotrioepiskopos' (1 Peter 4:15); strictly speaking, this word refers to a seditious man who invades another's calling, men who want to rule where nothing has been assigned to them." Lectures on Genesis (1544) AE 7:73.
20 Commentary on Psalm 82, (1530) AE 13:65; St. L. V:722.60. So Luther preaches to the congregation at Wittenberg on August 11, 1537: "Therefore if I say that all citizens and pupils hear the pastor and the teacher, I wish to intimate that the city has no other pastor than Pastor John [Bugenhagen], or no other teacher than Teacher Peter [Kuechenschreiber]. Consequently, if anyone in that town wants to hear, learn, and accept God's Word, he must listen to John. And if a pupil wants to learn and be instructed, he must listen to Teacher Peter. The pastor remains the teacher of them all." Sermon on John 1, (1537) AE 22:68-9. cf. AC XXVIII, 22.
21 After finally being persuaded to write to the Christians in Frankfurt he began by saying, "I have not tackled it [your problem] since I have not been given responsibility for it. I know well enough that it is not I who must answer for it but rather your preachers..." Jon D. Vieker tr., "An Open Letter to Those in Frankfurt on the Main, 1533, by Martin Luther," Concordia Journal, 16 (1990) 335. In 1535 Luther writes, "It is not lawful for me to forsake my assigned station as a preacher, to go to another city where I have no call, and to preach there. (As a doctor of divinity, of course, I could preach throughout the papacy, provided that they let me.) I have no right to do this even if I hear that false doctrine is being taught and that souls are being seduced and condemned which I could rescue from error and condemnation by my sound doctrine. But I should commit the matter to God, who in His own time will find the opportunity to call ministers lawfully and to give the Word. For He is the Lord of the harvest who will send laborers into His harvest; our task is to pray (Matt. 9:38)" Commentary on Galatians, AE 26:18. Particularly in his sermons on John during the year 1531 Luther returned to this theme repeatedly: "I dare not preach without a call. I must not go to Leipzig or to Magdeberg for the purpose of preaching there, for I have neither call nor office to take me to those places (denn ich habe dahin keinen Beruf noch Amt). Yes, even if I heard that nothing but heresy was rampant in the pulpit at Leipzig, I would have to let it go on. It is none of my business, and I must let them preach. I have not sowed there. Consequently, I am not entitled to harvest there. But if our Lord God bade me to go, then I would and should go, just as I was called here as preacher and am duty-bound to preach." Sermon on John 7, (1531) AE 23:227; St. L. VIII:30.68.
22 e.g. Johann Gerhard writes, "one cannot prove to us that extraordinary ordination by which, according to Dr. Chemnitz, some men are ordained without a call to a certain church in Geneva and later are sent to France to preach the gospel. You see, the office of the other teachers of the church who are called to certain churches and do not have absolute power to teach everywhere in all churches is distinct from the apostolic call which includes the power to teach among all nations." Gerhard, 200. Lutheran theology historically avoids talk of a "clerical" class. See Robert D. Preus, The Doctrine of the Call in the Confessions and Lutheran Orthodoxy (n.p.: Luther Academy, 1991) 18. cf. Gerhard, 92ff.
23 Commentary on Psalm 82, (1530) AE, 13:65; St. L. V:722.59.
24 Vilmos Vajta writes, "Again, if a pastor leaves his charge, is suspended from it, or enters some other work, he reverts to the common rank and file of the church. And in order to resume the ministry at a later date, he needs a new call and a new ordination." Vilmos Vajta, Luther on Worship, tr. U. S. Leupold, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958) 120. Likewise, Robert Preus, "If he leaves his office by early retirement, or some permanent disability, or for some no good reason, or by being justly or unjustly deposed, he is no longer a minister, he has no call, no ministry, no function, even though he might bear the honorific title of Reverend and be included in The Lutheran Annual." Preus, 27. Armin Schuetze and Irwin Habeck concur, "In reality, resignation from the ministry always consists in resignation from a particular call. The pastoral ministry does not exist as an abstract entity apart from a concrete position. Since the call to a particular position places the pastor into the ministry, resignation from that call takes him out of the ministry. Whoever resigns from the ministry. . . should not be asked to preach or perform other pastoral acts lest the impression be given that he retains his pastoral status." Armin Schuetze and Irwin Habeck, The Shepherd Under Christ, (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1974) 41.
25 Commentary on Psalm 82, (1532) AE 13:64; St. L. V:722.58. According to Martin Chemnitz: "the ministry of those who have been called without means (patriarchs, prophets, and apostles) is not bound and anchored to a certain church at only one place (nicht an eine gewisse Kirche gebunden), but they have the command to teach all people everywhere." Chemnitz, Enchiridion, 31. In his Loci he writes, "But what we have said above about the apostolic calling, that it should stretch into the whole world, we cannot say also now about those who are called mediately. For teachers, pastors, bishops, [and] presbyters are called to certain churches and do not have the authority to teach everywhere or in all churches. . . Therefore by virtue of this call they do not have authority to teach in other churches to which they do not have a special call." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, tr. J. A. O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989) 703. Chemnitz also lays out this distinction between the various offices listed in Ephesians 4: "(1) apostles, ... were not called to some certain church, ... and had the command to teach everywhere, ... to which all the other teachers should be bound... (2) prophets, ... had revelations of future events or interpreted tongues and the Scriptures... (3) evangelists, ... were not apostles and yet were not bound to some one certain church but were sent to different churches to teach the Gospel there, but chiefly to lay the first foundations; ... (4) pastors, ... were placed over a certain flock, as Peter shows (1 Peter 5:2-3), and who not only taught but administered the sacraments and had the oversight over their hearers, as Ezekiel describes the pastoral office." Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II, tr. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978) 684. And Johann Gerhard writes: "In Eph. 4.11, to evangelists are added in fourth position pastors, who were not extraordinary and temporary teachers of the church, like the apostles, prophets and evangelists; but ordinary and permanent ministers, who were called mediately to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments in a definite place." Gerhard, 656.
26 This proprium is not observed carefully by Walther when he cites the example of the Antiochene congregation sending out Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:2-3) as his only biblical support for the installation of ministers who have moved from the parish to which they were ordained. C. F. W. Walther, The Form of a Christian Congregation, tr. John Theodore Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963) 65.
27 Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers, (1532) AE 40:385. Johann Gerhard cites the decretals of Gregory, "that before the elders celebrate the mass on Sundays or feast days, they should ask the people if a parishioner of another pastor is in the church who wants to hear the mass there because of a contempt for his own elder. They should immediately remove him from the church. . . In this way, divinely-established order will not be upset." Gerhard, 334.
28 The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, editors Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.) [NPNF] 14:271. Gerhard writes, "Acts 14:23: 'When the apostles had appointed elders . . . in every church . . . . ' In Titus 1.5, Titus is commanded to appoint elders kata polin -- in every town.' because of these passages, the Council of Chalcedon established, canon 6, that 'absolutely no one should be ordained except to a certain definite church.' Because of this, Dr. Chemnitz concludes quite seriously, ibid.: 'Their success is of the same quality as their call.'" Gerhard, 200 [lacuna original].
29 The Seven Ecumenical Councils, NPNF, 14:35.
30 "By the early Middle Ages the nature of the ordained ministry had changed dramatically from the situation in the first few centuries of the Church's history... both the rites of ordination themselves and theological reflection upon them became increasingly concerned with the conferral of powers, and almost entirely unrelated to ministry within a specific local community. Indeed, although it continued to be necessary to have a 'title' to a particular church before one could be ordained, at the Third Lateran Council (1179) that was understood merely as supplying a source of financial support and not as a requirement to perform ministerial duties there... an ordination was considered valid even if other conditions (e.g. attachment to a specific church, election by the community, or a genuine mandate for ministry) were not met. It also put an end to the earlier practices both of regarding deposed clergy as laymen and of reordaining clergy returning from heretical groups, which some -- though not all -- bishops had done. This theological position was adopted by the Council of Florence (1439) and reaffirmed by Trent (1562)." Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold S.J. and Paul Bradshaw, eds., The Study of Liturgy, (New York: Oxford university Press, 1992) 377-8.
31 By Luther's rejection of the "chrism" (i.e. the "absolute ordination" of the papists) he thereby signalled a return to a theology of ordination that was decidedly Pre-Lateran III (1179) (see the previous endnote). Still, Luther had no qualms with the ordinations taking place at a centralized location (Wittenberg) so long as the man had been called to a particular parish -- not just as "a source of financial support" but as "a requirement to perform ministerial duties there." It was only later, presumably as a result of this renewed 'located' emphasis on the ordination that the distinct Rite of Installation emerged. Actual practice changes more slowly than doctrine. Lutherans who held a Pre-Lateran III theology of ordination and yet still wished to continue the Post-Lateran III practice of moving priests from place to place (which was by now about four hundred years old) found it desireable to develop a liturgical rite that recognized a new dominical bond between the preacher and a new parish. These early rites of installation were essentially identical to the rites of ordination. By way of example: the Wuerttemberg and Wolfenbuettel Church Orders after 1547 prescribe Luther's ordination rite for use at ordinations while assigning their own former ordination rites for use at installations. Conversely, the 1574 Agenda of Hesse used Luther's ordination rite for installations while retaining their own local ordination rite for ordinations. Only the historical context could determine which was which. See Ralph Smith, Ordering Ministry: The Liturgical Witness of Sixteenth-Century German Ordination Rites, (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1992). John Gerhardt struggled to assert earlier roots: "Among the papists, the mass seems to correspond to investiture. In regard to this, Becanus writes, disp. Vien. de vocat. ministr. th. 2: 'The commission differs from ordination. In ordination is granted the power of order, to which belong the powers to baptize, to consecrate the eucharist, to forgive sins. In the commission he is given the jurisdiction to administer those powers in his holy order. That is, subjects assigned whom those who are said to be commissioned should teach, administer the sacraments to and rule. Thus, parish priests are said to be commissioned a parish when parishioners are assigned to them, etc.' That act which we are describing, however, we more accuratedly call an initiation or investiture than commission, because commission is the calling itself or surely does not really differ therefrom, as we have shown above." Gerhardt, 491-2. This discussion does little to support the initial assertion. The very concept to which Gerhardt points as an historical precedent for an installation (investiture) that is distinct from ordination, he then asserts is really not different after all!
32 Canon IX of Trent declares: "If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation, and ordination, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated, let him be anathema." In his response to this, Chemnitz writes, "that which is peculiar to Baptism, namely, that it must not be repeated, they [the papists] later transferred to confirmation and to their orders..." Chemnitz, Examination, 90, 94-5.
33 "Investiture differs from ordination because ordination occurs only once. Investiture is repeated as often as anyone who has already been ordained to ministry is called to another church or to another position of his duty in the same church." Gerhardt, 490. This dogmatic distinction still enjoys uncritical acceptance today. For example: "The Lutheran understanding of ordination, however, cannot be reconciled with such a practice. Installation or induction are not the same as ordination. No pastor is ordained again when taking another call." "A Response to an 'Overture to Establish an Ordained Diaconate,'" Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 63, (July, 1999) 217. Likewise, note the recent liturgical changes in the Lutheran Worship Agenda that attempt to distinguish between an ordination and an installation by omitting the laying on of hands in the latter rite. cf. Lutheran Worship Agenda, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1984) 212-3, 226. But perhaps this distinction needs to be critically reviewed. Since Gerhardt does not support it by any evidence prior to 1179, it can be argued that this is nothing more than a return to the Post-Lateran III theology of ordination in order to rationalize our Post-Lateran III practice. It should be recognized that this is a turn away from Luther's concept of ordination and back toward a papistic conception of the indelible charactor given by the laying on of hands. It is not that he was shy about asserting that the ordination actually gave something. Rather, Luther asserted that the something given in ordination is precisely identified with the particular Office in the particular place along with the accompanying gifts of the Spirit necessary for the administration of that office. Luther says of this, "The imposition of hands is not a tradition of men, but God makes and ordains ministers. . . Thus when I absolve you or call you to the ministry and lay my hands on you, you should not doubt that, as Peter says, it is God's strength." Lectures on Genesis, (1542) AE 5:249-50. "The custom of the laying on of hands is very ancient and was also transferred by the fathers into the New Testament, as is clear from Paul when he says: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (1 Tim. 5:22). Moses laid his hands on Joshua (Deut. 34:9). And this has been employed as a ceremony of the fathers, the prophets, and the whole church at all times when they entrusted an office or some administration to a person." Lectures on Genesis, (1545) AE 8:159. Thus Luther was able to reject the indelible charactor without falling into the opposite error of asserting that ordination gives nothing at all.
34 Rome asserts in Chapter IV of Trent, "Since, in the sacrament of order, just as in baptism and confirmation, a character is imprinted which can be neither obliterated nor taken away, the holy Synod deservedly condemns the opinion of those who assert that priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power and that those who have once been rightly ordained can again become laymen if they do not exercise the ministry of the Word of God." In response to this Chemnitz merely refers back to the above-cited response to Canon IX [cf. endnote 32]. Chemnitz, Examination, 699-700.
35 "Canon XV: If any presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the list of clergy, shall leave his own parish, and go into another, and having entirely forsaken his own, shall make his abode in the other parish without the permission of his own bishop, we ordain that he shall no longer perform divine service; more especially if his own bishop having exhorted him to return he has refused to do so, and persists in his disorderly conduct. But let him communicate there as a layman." The Seven Ecumenical Councils, NPNF, 14:594. The date of these canons is unsure. Though they claim apostolic origins, historians generally date them, "at some period not far removed from the date of the Nicene Council (325), and probably earlier than the Council of Antioch (341), [these] were gathered together into a code which has since then been somewhat modified." Ibid., 591.
36 cf. Vilmos Vajta in endnote 24.
37 The canon lawyers posited a difference between "dismissal" and "deposal." "Through 'deposition' the clergyman is removed only from his offices and position, but he safely keeps his clerical privilege and holy order. In 'degradation,' however, he loses everything" (summ. juris canon, C. 22, cited in Gerhard, p. 519; cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, 1917, Title IX, Cap. II, Can. 2303-2305). As has been shown above, however, there is no abstract holy order apart from the particular office which a preacher occupies. Nevertheless, this distinction entered into the working vocabulary of the Missouri Synod some time ago: "There is a difference between deposal (Amtsentsetzung) and dismissal (Amtsabnahme). This difference is explained in the Report of the Wisconsin District, 1907, page 81: 'The term deposing, when distinguished from dismissing, is used when a pastor is declared ineligible for office... Dismissal, however, merely signifies that the person should not continue to serve in his present field though he is eligible for service in some other field.'" The Abiding Word, Vol. I, ed. Theodore Laetsch (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1946), 384.
38 Commentary on Psalm 82, (1530) AE 13:65.
39 Once God's original call and command is set aside, everything else is shared identically between the calling parish and the current parish. A man has in his possession two copies of the identically signed and authorize "Diploma of Vocation" each designating a different parish. Moreover, two respective voter's assemblies have, in properly convened meetings, unanimously voted to call him as their pastor in exercise of the authority that God has given His Church. The verbal word uttered at His ordination is the only difference.
40 "Go, then, take heed unto thyself and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made thee an overseer..." The Lutheran Agenda, (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House) 109.
41 One wonders how the ninth commandment is served when instead of urging a man to stay and do his duty, a congregation invites him to leave his parish? Do calling congregations think that they are serving their sister congregation by vaulting them into a vacancy or by calling away a pastor who is known by them to be faithful? Schuetze and Habeck write in this regard, "In following good calling practices, a congregation will show due concern for the church-at-large, its sister congregations. Even the very appearance of disregard for the needs and problems of others should be avoided." Schuetze and Habeck, 28.
42 "He will consult with his present congregation before arriving at a final decision. Should a congregation pass a resolution relative to the pastor's call, it should be clear that this is in the nature of advice which the pastor will weigh in reaching a decision. However, to disregard a congregation's vote favoring his acceptance of a call to another field may make his future ministry in that congregation difficult." Ibid., 36.
43 Norman E. Nagel, "The Divine Call in Die Rechte Gestalt of C. F. W. Walther" Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 59, (1995) 180-1.
44 Schuetze and Habeck, p. 35. Fritz also writes, "the final decision whether or not a pastor should accept a new call must be made by him." Fritz, 53.
45 Receptionism here refers to the erroneous (synergystic) doctrine of the Lord's Supper whereby the host does not actually become the Body of Christ until it is received by the communicant.
46 Gerhard, 218.
47 As noted above, even though the prince commanded Luther to leave Wittenberg at the time of the plague, Luther ignored it. Even though it was that very prince that called him to Wittenberg in the first place, that fact did not give him authority to move Luther whenever it seemed best to him. Perhaps Luther had learned this lesson from the troubles stirred up by Carlstadt during his involuntary sabbatical in Wartburg Castle. cf. endnote 17.
48 "Namely, that the call also of those who have been called by the voice of the church is divine, that God is present with and works effectively through their ministry." Chemnitz, Examination, 707.
49 Ibid. (Acts 6:3; Titus 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 3:2-13) Johann Gerhard puts it in philisophical terms: "[T]he church and those to whom the church has committed that responsibility, [is] the instrumental cause of the call to the ministry." Gerhard, 192. "An instrumental cause, however, never acts nor operates without being moved and acted upon by the principle cause." Ibid., 143. Thus, "[w]hoever are called as ministers in that way which God has established and prescribed for the church, their call is legitimate." Ibid., 375.
50 Johann Gerhard writes the same, "Therefore, just as a steward to whom are given the keys by no means receives some absolute and autocratic power but a serving power restricted to his lord's commands; so also ministers of the church to whom are given the spiritual keys have by no means received an absolute power to use those keys as they will but a serving power restricted to their Lord's commands." Gerhard, 588.
51 "The Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry [that God will preach and work through men and those who have been chosen by men]." Ap XIII, 12. "Lest anyone think that this mediate call depends merely on examples but not on divine institution, he should note that it is by apostolic, that is, divine, authority, Rom. 15:18, that such commands are given to Timothy and Titus." Gerhard, 212. In Luther's rite of Ordination the following exhortation was included in the Freyberg codex: "Therefore, you must believe for certain that you were called by God, because the church sent you here and secular authority has called and desired you. For what the church and secular authorities do in these matters, God does through them, so that you may not be considered intruders." Ordination of Ministers of the Word, (1538) AE 53:125 footnote #5.
52 Walther, speaking on the irregularity of the temporary call says, "Such a call is not what God has ordained for the holy preaching office but something quite different that has nothing to do with it. It is not an indirect call from God through the Church but rather a human contract. It is not a life-long call but a temporary function outside of the divine ordinance, a human ordinance made against God's ordinance, or rather an atrocious disorder. So it is null and void, without any validity." Walther, Pastoral Theology, 27. Certainly the ordination of women into the ministry raises similar questions as does the unscriptural deposal of a faithful pastor.
53 Chemnitz, Enchiridion, 37. Chemnitz writes elsewhere, "So also, when someone must be removed from the ministry, it is necessary that the church can show with certainty that this is the judgment and this is the will of God." Chemnitz, Loci, 703. Gerhard adds, "Just as a legitimate call should be made according to divinely prescribed laws; so also, the legitimate removal of a minister should be made according to divinely prescribed constitutions." Gerhard, 504.
54 Luther writes, "For God did not give us His Law, temple, priesthood, ministry, Sacrament, and Office of the Keys to do with as we please but to use and administer in accordance with His command. If we are unwilling to do this, He dismisses us and takes everything away from us." Sermon on John 16, (1537) AE 24:312.
55 P. F. Koehneke writes, "If God has placed them, men dare not transfer them at their discretion. God has reserved for Himself both the placing and the transfer of the servants of the Church." The Abiding Word, 381.
56 Walther writes, "A preacher should also not accept the position of one who has been unjustly driven away; it still belongs to the latter in the sight of God [Matt. 5:40; Luke 6:29]." Walther, Pastoral Theology, p. 277. Fritz likewise says, "A pastor should not accept a call to a congregation which has without good reason (false doctrine, offense, willful neglect of official duties) and therefore unjustly deposed its pastor from office or compelled him to resign or to look for another call. Before God such a pastor is still the pastor of that congregation, and therefore no other pastor has the right to take his place." Fritz, 55. Luther writes: "I will see who is so wicked as to place himself into the parish that has been taken from me by robbery, and how he can claim it with a clear conscience." C. F. W. Walther, Church and Ministry, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987), 228.
57 This issue is the heart of the dispute between the Lutheran and the Papistic understanding of the episcopate. "For it is certain that the expression Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth me, does not speak of traditions. For it is not a mandatum cum libera (a bestowal of unlimited authority), as they call it, but it is a cautio de rato (a caution concerning something prescribed), namely, concerning the special command [not a free, unlimited order and power, but a limited order, namely, not to preach their own word, but God's Word and the Gospel]" (Ap XXVIII, 18-9).
58 In the Tractate on the Power and Primacy of the Pope Melanchthon lists as evidence of the antichrist, "[The Pope] wishes His articles, his decrees, and his laws to be regarded as articles of faith or commandments of God, binding the consciences of men, because he holds that his power is by divine right and is even to be preferred to the commandments of God" (Tr 6). Concerning the power of bishops, therefore, Melanchthon writes: "they have the Word, they have the command, how far they ought to exercise jurisdiction, namely, if any one would do anything contrary to that Word which they have received from Christ. [For the Gospel does not set up a rule independently of the Gospel; that is quite clear and certain]" (Ap XXVIII, 14). Luther expands on this saying, "And in this respect the pope has also exalted himself above Christ, since he has put his decretals and decrees on a par with the Word of God. But we do not want to hear the pope speaking in the church; we want to hear God alone." Lectures on Genesis, (1545) AE 8:271.
59 See Chemnitz, Loci, II, 703-4.
60 See Gerhardt, 498-502.
61 Among the canons of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325), Canon XV declares: "On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter." Canon XVI adds, "Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void." and Caption LXXII of the Arabic Canons attributed to the Council of Nicea says, "No one is allowed to transfer himself to another church than that in which he was ordained." cf. Apostolic Canons XIV, XV and XVI. Also canons III and XXI of the Synod of Antioch (341) which were subsequently ratified at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (381). Canons V and XX of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon (451). Canons I and II of the Council of Sardica in (344); Canons LXXI and XLVIII of the African Code (419); Canon XVII of the Council in Trullo (692) all of which were ratified by Canon I of the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea (787) and which also added its own Canon X to strengthen it further still.
62 "About the few rare cases of bishops being transferred before the fourth century, see Historia ecclesiastica VI, XI, 1-3, SC 41, pp. 100-1 and VII, XXXII, p. 227. We are dealing here respectively with Alexander (+250), bishop of Cappadocia who became co-adjutor and then the successor of Narcissius of Jeruslem, and of Anatolius who was ordained by Theotecnius of Ceasarea in Palestine to be his co-adjutor but who became bishop of Laodicea in Syria." Peter L'Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996) 96, footnote 319.
63 Fourth Lateran Council (1215): Canon 29 "Multiple benefices require papal dispensation: With much foresight it was forbidden in the Lateran council (1179) for anyone to receive several ecclesiastical dignities and several parish churches, contrary to the regulations of the sacred canons, on pain of both the recipient losing what he had received and the conferrer being deprived of the power to confer. On account of the presumption and covetousness of certain persons, however, none or little fruit is resulting from this statute. We therefore, desiring to remedy the situation more clearly and expressly, ordain by this present decree that whoever receives any benefice with the cure of souls attached, if he was already in possession of such a benefice, shall be deprived by the law itself of the benefice held first, and if perchance he tries to retain this he shall also be deprived of the second benefice. Moreover, the person who has the right to confer the first benefice may freely bestow it, after the recipient has obtained a second benefice, on someone who seems to deserve it. If he delays in conferring it beyond three months, however, then not only is the collation to devolve upon another person, according to the statute of the Lateran council, but also he shall be compelled to assign to the use of the church belonging to the benefice as much of his own income as is established as having been received from the benefice while it was vacant. We decree that the same is to be observed with regard to parsonages adding that nobody shall presume to hold several dignities or parsonages in the same church even if they do not have the cure of souls. As for exalted and lettered persons, however, who should be honoured with greater benefices, it is possible for them to be dispensed by the apostolic see, when reason demands it. " Norman P. Tanner ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (Georgetown University Press, 1990).
64 "The most remarkable thing about pastoral life in the eighteenth century was the extent to which pastors and their communities were bonded together. For example, of the 221 who graduated from Yale College between the years of 1745 and 1775 and went into the ministry, 71 percent remained in the church to which they were first called until their deaths. Only 4 percent held four or more pastorates. By contrast, today the average pastoral stint is as low as two years in some areas and denominations and seldom more than three years. Lying between the eighteenth century and our own is a cluster of steadily declining graph lines indicating shorter and shorter tenures, growing pastoral impermanence, and increasingly shallow bonds between pastors and their churches... Among Presbyterians and Congregationalists in New Hampshire, for example, the average pastoral tenure in a church at this time (1670) was twenty years, and the figure did not fall below this level until the beginning of the nineteenth century. A serious decline seems to have begun in 1808. By 1810, the figure had fallen to fifteen years; by 1830, to five years; and by 1860, to less than four years" David F. Wells, No Place for Truth, or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1993) 228-9.
65 Lecture on Titus 1, (1527) AE 29:13.
66 Commentary on Psalm 82, (1532) AE 13:65.
67 Chemnitz, Enchiridion, 30.
This essay was first delivered as an open/academic topic at the Sixth Annual Theological Symposium at Concordia Seminary (St. Louis). the reverend jonathan g. lange is a 1990 graduate of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and is dominically ordered to serve in the Preaching Office at Our Saviour Lutheran Church in Evanston and St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Kemmerer, Wyoming.
