I’ve been trying to keep before us the possibility that the PMW can be improved over time by suggesting specific improvements to its parts. It cannot be denied that some had sincere and weighty objections to the PCM document before it was adopted, and became known as the PMW. It also cannot be denied that these objections were not all answered before the adoption took place, and that the circumstances of adoption reflected a serious opposition to the document.
Though the point is arguable, I believe that these circumstances were the primary cause of the ensuing controversy that resulted in at least five pastors and more churches being separated from the synod. The objections and opposition to the PCM document that existed before its adoption continued afterward. Though this should not be surprising, it was regarded differently after the adoption than it was before the adoption. After the adoption, opposition to the document (now called the PMW) is regarded as a rejection of the synod’s doctrine, which must place the opposition outside the synod’s doctrinal fellowship. While in some cases this opposition has been treated with a measure of patience, that patience did not extend to those who expressed their conscientious objection to the PMW in the form of a statement, rather than in the form of questions and requests for clarification. Others (myself included) stated that the PMW would only be acceptable on the condition of a particular understanding of its meaning. Thankfully, that position has also been tolerated.
It has been my hope that those with reservations or objections about the PMW would be able to continue discussing it, and finally make changes that would be acceptable to all. This could potentially restore the parts of the synod that have been severed, though the animus that was begotten in the PMW’s adoption has produced other sins on all sides that may render complete healing impossible for some time.
At this point, I will discontinue the thread I’ve been following, in which I have been suggesting for consideration certain changes to the PMW’s wording. For those who have been reading that thread, it has already served its purpose. It should be apparent that further changes are at least possible, and may actually be desirable in some places.
I suggest a different approach. Pastor Jay Webber, who is now on the synod’s Doctrine Committee, has restated the PMW with the intention of changing its format, but not its doctrine. The new format is “thetical.” That is, it is stated as relatively short, numbered statements that carry the thought sequentially from start to finish. This is the same format used by Martin Luther in several works, including the 95 Theses and the Heidelberg Disputation. It has also been used by the ELS in earlier doctrinal statements.
Pastor Webber’s thetical arrangement has some advantages. First, it isolates each point so that further discussion may focus on specific parts of the PMW’s text unambiguously. Second, Pastor Webber has prefaced most of the theses with a statement of the particular context of each one, derived from the heading under which the statement is found in the original formatting of the PMW, and the heading’s explanation in the text of the PMW. This explicit statement of context is invaluable in reading the statements, and may prevent some of the problems of interpretation that arose with the original formatting. Third, the thetical form of the PMW is technically not the PMW itself, so that strong criticism of it need not be regarded as a rejection of the synod’s doctrine.
I suggest that further discussion of the PMW focus upon the thetical form that Pastor Webber has provided. It may be compared and contrasted with the original form, and the theses themselves may be criticized and specified by number.
Please allow me to note several things from my first reading of the thetical format of the PMW. Feel free to comment on these points as you like. My observations are not all of grave importance, but they are nevertheless food for thought. I’m surprised that there are so few. It speaks to the advantages of this thetical format of the PMW.
-
Theses 6 and 11 use the term “Universal Priesthood of All Believers.” this term is a redundancy. It would be better to use the language of 1 Peter 2:9: “royal priesthood” of all believers, or simply “priesthood” of all believers.
-
In Thesis 7, the words “when they forgive the sins of those who sin against them” diverge from the definition of the Office of the Keys given in Thesis 1, where it is defined as an authority from Christ. Since it is an authority from Christ, the Office of the Keys applies to sins insofar as they are offenses against God, not insofar as they are offenses against anyone else. Hence, the words “when they forgive the sins of those who sin against them” are ambiguous. They may refer to the Gospel spoken to others, or they may refer to the personal forgiveness between us, which, though based upon the forgiveness of God, is not exactly the same thing. In fact, since this phrase follows a phrase that fully describes the way Christians may confer God’s forgiveness, it would be redundant to say the same thing again. Hence, it probably describes the personal forgiveness between us, and does not really describe the Office of the Keys.
-
In Thesis 12, the words “they are to beware of false prophets” does not describe the Office of the Keys. It should be dropped. Furthermore, the statement that Christians use the Keys to judge the teaching of their pastors and teachers only applies to circumstances where false teachers are personally confronted with the sin of teaching falsely. This does not necessarily occur when Christians judge the teachings of their pastors and teachers. The statement should be clarified.
-
In Thesis 15, the words “throughout the New Testament” imply that the divine ordering, establishment, and institution does not occur also in the Old Testament. It does, though not every aspect of the ordering in the Old Testament applies since the death and resurrection of Christ.
-
In Thesis 19, the words “includes both a narrower sense and a wider sense” imply that both senses are instituted by God in the Public Ministry of the Word. Though I realize that “senses” are simply shades of meaning that are attributed to a term by human beings, and are not required by God, the way this thesis is worded still has the implication I mentioned, mainly because the words “divinely instituted” are joined with the word “includes.”
-
I noticed that there is some repetition. Theses 27 and 37 are the same, and Theses 22 and 53 also say the same thing. These general statements seem to apply in more than one place.
-
Thesis 40 has caused a lot of confusion, and serves little purpose in the PMW. Its intent is to define how a person may be said to be “in” the Public Ministry of the Word, but it ends up saying that one may be “in” the Public Ministry of the Word in various degrees. That does not really make any sense. The thesis should be dropped, or possibly replaced with one saying “Only those are in the Public Ministry of the Word who are authorized by the call of the Church to exercise the keys publicly.”
-
In Thesis 49, the words “but is in accordance” imply that Romans 10:14-17 and AC XIV apply directly to the circumstance of school teachers. While I do not condemn someone who thinks so, this cannot be proven. What we can say is that the spirit of these passages would require that anyone who publicly teaches the Word of God be authorized to do so, and that a rightly-ordered call is the model used by the Church for that authorization.
-
Thesis 58 only lists Acts 1:15-26 as an example of a mediate call. Other examples could be mentioned, in which pastors receive their specific vocations through the mediation of apostles.
Interesting that only those who are in full doctrinal agreement are to be in fellowship, yet those who are in fellowhip are currently in doctrinal debate… Why debate what we agreee on?
Anyways a point about the “thetical” by Webber. Thesis 52 through 54 contain no bible passages for support. If I recall correctly that was one of Preus arguments. The PMW says “God commands this”, without providing any passages where He does that.
This can be seen in Thesis 53: “By divine right†refers to those things which are commanded by God. And then in 54 he uses “by divine right” to show that a limited use of the keys is commanded by God. No bible passages.
Your comment rang a bell. Someone (Walther?) wrote about doctrinal fellowship being based not upon full agreement, as in 100% in every detail, but rather upon a fundamental agreement on the central articles, including the nature and normative role of Holy Scripture. I suppose there are those who include the Public Ministry of the Word as one of those central articles. In light of Pietism and similar -isms, it seems to be the case. However, it is not as central as some other articles of faith.
Good point about the Bible passages. The general principle should be this, that when we claim God commands something, we should cite it. Otherwise, who would rightly trust what we claim? The thetical format should probably be adjusted to place the existing, PMW citations after each thesis to which they apply. Then it would be clear which ones are supported, and which ones are not.
Jesse,
You wrote concerning Pr. Webber’s new paper:
“The new format is ‘thetical.’ That is, it is stated as relatively short, numbered statements that carry the thought sequentially from start to finish.”
“relatively short” with 65! Theses? “relatively” is the key word. At least it isn’t 95.
I am personally very gratified to see some of the language of the Circuit #8 Revision used word for word in this document. For example: Thesis 7 says:
“The keys are used privately or unofficially when individual Christians, on behalf of Christ, speak the Gospel of forgiveness to others; when they forgive the sins of those who sin against them; when they retain the sins of those who do not repent, e.g., when they confront in a brotherly way those who need to repent of their sins; and when in “the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren” they comfort one another with the words of the Gospel”
The Circuit #8 Revision states:
“The Office of the Keys is the church’s authority to preach the Gospel, administer the Sacraments, and practice church discipline. Individual Christians also speak the Gospel of forgiveness to others, forgive the sins of those who sin against them, confront in a brotherly way those who need to repent of their sins, and in “the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren†comfort one another with the words of the Gospel. This may be called the private or unofficial use of the keys. (1 Peter 2:9, Matthew 18:15-18, Matthew 6:12 – The 5th Petition of the Lord’s Prayer, SA Part III, Art. IV).”
There are several other places in which unity is shown between the Circuit #8 Revision. There are several places where the PMW and the Circuit #8 Revision are expressed where they were in no way contrary to one another. And there are some, perhaps several, places where Biblical and Confessional evidence and citations were lacking.
Pr. Webber’s paper will receive study among those who wrote and supported the Circuit #8 Revision.
It may be a good basis for discussion in one respect. But the basic issue is still that one particular interpretation of the PMW, concerning which these Thesis at some points differ and at other points affirm.
On a cursory reading (and I must say that my reading is too quick on this, so I am likely to be misunderstanding): problematic in these Theses is the retention of the notion of divinely instituted ranks in the ministry(this is the so-called “limited use” offices, and the loss of freedom to a congregation to define an office of CDS teacher in the way that fits its needs–that is, the congregation should be free to define a grade-school teacher’s office (like shop, art, phy-ed, or temporary worker) in such a way that the congregation may merely hire a teacher without the formality of a call [when the position does not involve the administration of the means of grace].
Yes, that’s too long a sentence. Sorry. I hope you and your readers know what is meant.
I agree with the first comment on the need for Biblical support for many of the Theses. It is lacking. But I suspect that Pr. Webber was wanting to get a basis for discussion presented before the next convention. If discussion takes place I would be very happy. So far discussion has been stifled from the top down.
Thank you, Joe, for your comment.
You wrote:
“On a cursory reading (and I must say that my reading is too quick on this, so I am likely to be misunderstanding): problematic in these Theses is the retention of the notion of divinely instituted ranks in the ministry(this is the so-called “limited use” offices, and the loss of freedom to a congregation to define an office of CDS teacher in the way that fits its needs–that is, the congregation should be free to define a grade-school teacher’s office (like shop, art, phy-ed, or temporary worker) in such a way that the congregation may merely hire a teacher without the formality of a call [when the position does not involve the administration of the means of grace].”
I understand and agree with the second criticism. That may be what Thesis 40 attempts to address, but as I mentioned, it is not sufficient. But regarding the first criticism, I either don’t understand it or, as you mentioned, you may have missed a subtlety in your quick reading of the theses. Thesis 36 says that the “wider sense” offices beyond the pastoral office are not divinely instituted in themselves, but rather, they are ones “which the church in her freedom may establish.” This is further stated in thesis 52, and then thesis 54 puts a fine point on what actually *is* “by divine right” (commanded by God) in relation to those offices: not the offices themselves, but the work or activity of using the Keys, for which the Church is collectively responsible. It’s a fine distinction, and certainly open to further criticism. Yet I don’t think it can be fairly said that these theses teach that the “limited-use” offices are divinely-instituted ranks.
Yet in this area, the other criticism still applies: there are no scriptural passages cited in support of the thing that thesis 53 claims to exist by divine right, and there should be.
I hope “that one particular interpretation of the PMW” is something that can be discussed, too. I hope and anticipate that it might be corrected and strengthened by a discussion of these theses.
Again, thanks for your comment.
Jesse,
Thesis 36 states:
“36. The Public Ministry of the Word (i.e. the public or official use of the keys) in the wider sense refers to a presiding office, which is indispensable for the church; and, in addition, to offices having a limited public use of the keys, which the church in her freedom may establish.”
I don’t see the distinction you see. You said:
“Thesis 36 says that the “wider sense” offices beyond the pastoral office are not divinely instituted in themselves, but rather, they are ones “which the church in her freedom may establish.”
Then you refer to Theses 52 and 54 as clarifying this position.
Thesis 52: “52. Regarding the Public Ministry of the Word in a wider sense, and regarding the distinction between that which is by divine right and that which is by human right: It is by human right that the church separates to one individual a limited portion of the office (or work) of the Public Ministry of the Word.”
Thesis 54: “Regarding the Public Ministry of the Word in a wider sense, and regarding the distinction between that which is by divine right and that which is by human right: It is by divine right that one to whom a limited portion of the office (or work) of the Public Ministry of the Word has been separated exercises that work on behalf of the Christians through whom the call has come.”
But with reference to the dictinction between the “narrower” and the “wider” the theses still fail to make a clear distinction between offices–as positions of responsibility–which are clearly instituted in Scripture or those created by the church in her freedom as instituted by the church–and not specifically instituted in Scripture.
I appreciate Pr. Webber’s emphasis on the “work”, but I think he fails to clearly distinguish the “work” from the “position of responsibility” in these theses with respect to what is actually specified in Scripture.
Joe,
You wrote,
‘But with reference to the distinction between the “narrower” and the “wider” the theses still fail to make a clear distinction between offices–as positions of responsibility–which are clearly instituted in Scripture or those created by the church in her freedom as instituted by the church–and not specifically instituted in Scripture.’
I wonder if the problem is one of terminology. Theses 22, 23, and 24 serve to define the phrase “indispensable for the church,” which occurs in theses 20 (in the context of the narrower sense) and thesis 36 (in the content of the wider sense). The reason for the indispensability of the pastoral office — as a position of responsibility — is the divine institution or command that establishes it. By contrast, offices that only fit under the wider sense — as positions of responsibility — do not share in that indispensability, because they do not have a divine institution or command.
Does that partly address the issue, or have I missed it?
I also notice that the “work” and the “position of responsibility” can both be designated as an “office.” Perhaps you are saying that the particular intent of that word here is not clear each time it’s used, and that it is also not clear whether what is said about these things is drawn from Scripture.
Perhaps it would be helpful to say that there is only one ministerial “office” — as in the body of work assigned (or instituted) by God, just as there is only one divinely-commanded (or instituted) “office” — as in a position of responsibility — to carry out that body of work. Then it would be easier to distinguish between the divinely-assigned work, the indispensable pastoral office, and the dispensable offices established by the Church to carry out some of the teaching or preaching duties.
Thanks again for your comments, Joe.
Jesse
I’m flattered by the kind things Pastor Jacobsen has said about the usefulness of the “thetical” document I prepared to help in the discussion of the PMW. But as I have read some of the exchanges between him and Pastor Abrahamson, I think it would be important to point out that what I prepared was explicitly and deliberately NOT a REWRITING of the PMW, but simply a RESTATING of the PMW. All of the terminology in my theses is taken directly from the PMW. No formulation or Bible reference is added which cannot be found in the PMW itself. Every formulation and Bible reference that can be found in the PMW can also be found in my theses. Again, the theses are not a REWRITING of the PMW – reflecting my attempt to improve or smooth out the arguments or terminology of the original document. They are simply a RESTATING of the actual content of the PMW – warts and all.
The theses’ usefulness may lie in the fact that they do tease apart some statements of the PMW that are sort of jumbled together in the original. Also, the thetical format may help people to make better sense of the teaching of the PMW, since it is less complicated than the multi-layer outline structure of the original PMW.
One additional observation that I will make in regard to the above dialogue, is that in the PMW (both in the original format and in the thetical format), the term “is” is not necessarily synonymous with the phrase “refers to.” “Refers to” is a more indirect way of connecting two ideas, while “is” shows an exact correspondence between two ideas. It is highly significant, therefore, that the PMW says that the public use of the keys IS the public ministry of the Word. It is not as significant – or perhaps we should say that it is significant in a different way – when the PMW says that the public ministry of the Word in its two senses REFERS TO the offices (positions of responsibility) that are entrusted with the carrying out of the public ministry of the Word (either to the “full” extent or to a “limited” extent). Likewise, when the PWM says that the different definitions of the phrase “pastoral office” REFER TO the men who serve in the pastoral office.