Category: PMW

The previous post on the Private Use of the Keys only included the first part of my summary explanation. Here’s the second part:

Christians, on their own part, may also forgive others the sins committed directly against them. While this is only possible because of the keys, it is not in itself a use of the keys. This may be considered a “private” use of the keys, but it is not what is meant by the statement.

Public and Private are opposites, showing by what authority some “ministerial act” is done. When it’s public, it’s done by the authority of Christ. When it’s private, it’s done by the authority of the one who does it.

As shown in the last post, that usage is modified a little bit when the PMW speaks of the private use of the keys.

But this part of my explanation shows something that could really be called “private,” because the forgiving is done on the authority of the one who was wronged. Sister sticks out tongue at brother. Brother pinches sister. Sister cries. Mother tells brother to apologize. Brother says “I’m sorry.” Sister… does what? She says “I forgive you,” meaning that not Christ, but she herself forgives her brother. That’s what this is about.

However, the PMW doesn’t have this in mind with the phrase “private use of the keys.” Why not? Because it’s not concerned with sister’s keys and forgiveness, but with God’s keys and forgiveness.

The Ninth point summarizing my longer explanation of the PMW says:

“Unofficial or private use of the keys” describes those times when individual Christians speak for Christ, giving His forgiveness to sinners without having received a regular call to do so. Though it is called “unofficial” or “private,” such an act is really public in the sense that Jesus has given Christians the authority to do this in times of special need. In effect, the individual Christian is acting as the pastor of the one being forgiven.

Personally, I would prefer that our use of terms like “public/private” and “official/unofficial” were more consistent. Such things are hard to standardize, so we end up needing to clarifying the sense we mean almost every time we use them. This makes our expressions more unwieldy, but maybe it has the advantage that the uninitiated can more easily understand what we’re saying, as long as we explain what we mean sufficiently.

I think this point is pretty self-explanatory. Let me know if you disagree.

You might think that it should be easy to tell what we mean by the word “church,” but it’s not. It turns out, we use the word in plenty of different ways. Is there a best or most proper way? That depends if you’re asking a language question or a theology question.

In terms of language, you can use the word church in any way you like that effectively communicates your message.

In terms of biblical doctrine, the word is most properly used to describe the communion of saints. In other words, the church is “the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd” (S.A. III, XII). In still other words, the church is “the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered” (A.C. VII). Some people, by convention, spell it with a capital C when they are using the word this way.

Colloquially, the word “church” usually refers to a civic organization of people which may be associated with at least one fixed piece of real estate. That’s not the same thing as what I wrote in the previous paragraph. Martin Luther’s Roman opponents believed that “the Church” was the organization of people headed by the Pope, associated with real estate all over the world. We make the same mistake when we think of our congregation or the synod as “the Church.” We play with that fire a bit when we ask questions like, “Is synod Church?” We must be careful. (“Get out the sticks and matches, boys!”)

Continue reading “Explaining the PMW: the Church” →

The seventh point summarizing my longer explanation of the PMW is the first one in which I would expect some disagreement. There are several ways in which the PMW’s expression is a bit lacking on this topic. For example:

• A doctrinal statement should express the Bible’s doctrine. If it must describe our merely human arrangements too, this should be explicitly distinguished from the Bible’s doctrine. The word “limited” denotes a human arrangement, because the limitation is not characterized or imposed by God, but rather by human beings. Yet the PMW could give the impression that the “limited public use of the Keys” was handed down by God from heaven. This is neither true nor biblically supported.

• The use of the Keys is specified by God. The Keys are used to bind and loose the sins of sinners. (Matthew 18:18 — See point 5 of this summary explanation.) If the term “limited public use of the keys” is taken to mean that the use is limited, then the PMW’s doctrine becomes hopelessly muddled. It would mean that by human limitation, a person may bind but not loose, or a person may loose but not bind. Or it could mean that a person could loose and bind certain sins but not others. Or, that a person could loose or bind the sins of certain people but not others.

• Someone could say that this phrase really means “limited public administration of the means of grace.” If that’s how it should be taken, then why doesn’t it say that? We have to work with the document the way it’s stated, or we have to fix it.

Continue reading “Interpreting the PMW: Limited Public Use of the Keys” →

The sixth summary point summarizing my full explanation of the newest ELS doctrinal statement builds upon the fifth point.

When the statement speaks of an “office of the keys,” it refers sometimes to the office of ministry in the narrow sense (the pastoral office), which belongs to the Church, and through which the Church exercises the keys. Other times, it refers to the authority Jesus gave both to His apostles and to His Church to bind and loose the sins of sinners.

Continue reading “Explaining the PMW: The Office of the Keys” →

The fifth point summarizing my longer explanation of the new ELS doctrinal statement is rather simple. Yet it’s a much-needed clarification, to ensure a consistent understanding of what is meant.

When the statement uses the term “keys,” it means the application of God’s mercy or judgment to a sinner.

Please note that “keys” refers particularly to the application of God’s mercy or judgment, to a sinner. God’s mercy or judgment may well exist in the abstract, without application to any sinners, but these things only become the Keys in their application to a sinner.

Sometimes we speak of the Keys as though this is synonymous with Law and Gospel. That can work, to a point. But it breaks down inasmuch as Law and Gospel may be abstracted from their application to sinners. In other words, the Gospel as a message is not the loosing key until it becomes absolution, or until it is proclaimed to the hearers of a sermon, etc. Likewise with the Law.

To what does the wider sense of “The Public Ministry of the Word” refer in the newest ELS doctrinal statement? In answer to that question, here is the fourth point from the summary of my explanation of that document. Again, comments are welcome.

The wider sense refers to the Church’s God-given freedom to establish other offices that carry some of the responsibilities which belong both to the Church as a whole and to the pastoral office. It may be considered “divinely instituted” insofar as we recognize that God wishes these duties to be performed. This is not the same kind of divine institution as we find in the narrow sense.

Continue reading “Interpreting the PMW: The Wider Sense” →

Here’s the third point from the summary of my explanation of the new ELS doctrinal statement, The Public Ministry of the Word (PMW). The PMW speaks of this ministry using two different senses of the term “public ministry.” The first one it addresses is called the narrow sense, or narrow meaning of the term. To what does the narrow sense refer? Here’s the third point. Comments are welcome.

The narrow sense refers to the office of ministry that was established by Jesus when He called and sent His apostles by command and promise, an office characterized by the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments, and perpetuated today is those stations collectively known as the “pastoral office.”

Continue reading “Interpreting the PMW: The Narrow Sense” →

Pastors can’t send memorials to the synod any more; they must come from congregations now. I was a cosigner on a memorial in the last year or two, containing a simplified listing of points on the ministry. (I haven’t heard yet from the standing Doctrine Committee what they thought of those points.) But now, the word is that only congregations can send a memorial.

A memorial is a proposed resolution for the synod, containing two kinds of clauses or paragraphs. The “whereas” clauses state the reasoning or motivations behind the resolutions, and the “be it resolved” clauses state the actions that the synod would resolve to do. The memorial is written as one, giant, run-on sentence.

Most people in congregations are unfamiliar with this kind of thing, and it looks kind of like another language when they see it. Below is a sample memorial that could be sent in by any of the (remaining) ELS congregations for the 2007 convention, or by several congregations at once. I assure you that it’s English, but you might have to read it a couple times to understand what it’s saying.

Memorials have to be sent to the synod office at 6 Browns Court in Mankato, Minnesota, and there’s a deadline every year too, in order to get the memorials printed in the Book of Reports and Memorials. For example, I think the deadline this year is April 1.

Continue reading “A Possible 2007 Memorial from Some ELS Congregation” →

Quite a while ago, I published an explanation of the new ELS doctrinal statement on the ministry (the PMW). The explanation is rather long, going through each sentence and evaluating its possible meanings in the larger context of Lutheran theology. Some disagree with this interpretation, but for me, it’s the most acceptable alternative. Many other alternative explanations would make the PMW entirely unacceptable to me, because then it would either contradict the Bible and our confessions, or it would be stating as doctrine things that are not supported by holy scripture. As it is, I have given it the most charitable interpretation that I can manage. Some disagree with that approach, saying that we should not hesitate to be critical and demanding of our doctrinal statements. They have a point, because we and those who follow may be dealing with the PMW for a long time. On the other hand, human expressions of doctrine are a messy business. We all have our own preferred way to say things. For this reason, I think we should say as little as possible, and use the proven expressions of our confessions instead. But here we are now, with a doctrinal statement that is creating division between those who formerly were acknowledged to be in fellowship. Oh well. Wisdom is justified by her children.

Anyway, I summarized my explanation of the PMW into 14 points. The first point says:

When the statement speaks of a “narrow” and a “wider” sense of Public Ministry, it is not speaking of two things that exist concretely, but rather two ways of using the term “Public Ministry” that have been prevalent in recent years.

I know that some disagree with me on this, but I am right. The word “sense” means “meaning.” Hence, “wider sense” is equivalent to “wider meaning,” and “narrow sense” is equivalent to “narrow meaning.” These meanings are not from God, but from our own usage. They are two ways that we have become accustomed to using the term “Public Ministry.” So my second point says:

Neither usage is, in itself, required by holy scripture.

In subsequent posts, I’ll describe that to which each sense of “Public Ministry” refers.