Month: April 2007

The last point (whoo hoo!) summarizing my explanation of the PMW is about what it means by a “call” in regard to offices that the Church creates in her freedom. Sometimes the term one hears is “divine call,” which only serves to confuse the issues in this case. A proper understanding of the concept of a call must begin with a proper understanding of Christian vocation in general. In a certain sense, every Christian is called by God. For one thing, we are all called to faith in the Gospel. For another, we are called to stations in life. Have a look at the Table of Duties in your Small Catechism, and you’ll see a few of them. Who calls us to these stations, or to faith? It’s God, of course! I recommend the Gustaf Wingren book Luther on Vocation as a pretty thorough textbook on the topic. Gene Edward Veith has also written a more popular treatment called God at Work.

When the statement uses the word “call” in connection with the wider sense of public ministry, it does not mean the outward arrangement of a formal call, which we are accustomed to use for the pastoral office. While that arrangement may be used for teachers, the statement means only that an orderly, outward authorization must be given by the Church before the minister can carry out any ministerial duties in its name. This authorization recognizes that Christ has empowered the Church to create and fill such offices. Continue reading “Explaining the PMW: Calls for “Wider” Offices” →

The Thirteenth point summarizing my longer explanation of the PMW says this:

When the statement says, “Extending calls to teachers who have spiritual care of children in Christian schools is not merely a laudable custom, but is in accordance with Romans 10:14-17 and Augsburg Confession XIV,” it does not mean that Romans 10:14-17 or AC XIV apply directly to the circumstance of teachers in Christian schools. Instead, it means that these citations establish the principle that anyone who teaches God’s Word on behalf of the Church must be authorized by the Church to do this. That authorization is what the statement means by a “call.”

Continue reading “Explaining the PMW: Application of Romans 10:14-17 and AC XIV” →

The Twelfth summary point of my longer explanation of the PMW says:

When the statement includes the titles “professor of theology” and “synod president” in a list of those which fall into the pastoral office, it assumes that such vocations are defined in accordance with AC articles V, XIV, and XXVIII, and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. That is, the duties of these vocations are primarily the administration of the external means of grace, and any distinction between them and other titles for the pastoral office is purely by human arrangement, not from God’s Word. If such a title is found to be defined in conflict with these principles, then the doctrinal statement’s categorization does not apply: it is not part of the pastoral office.

Continue reading “Explaining the PMW: Professors and Presidents” →

The tenth and eleventh points summarizing my longer explanation of the PMW both clarify what the PMW means in relation to the keys. Here they are:

(10) When the statement speaks of an individual retaining or binding sins privately or unofficially, it does not mean that the individual is bespeaking a sinner to be cut off from heaven in the manner of an excommunication from the Church. Rather, the statement refers to an individual’s authority to repeat the judgments of God upon sin, and so admonish other sinners.

By this I don’t mean that the Law, applied to sinners, ever fails to slay us and condemn our guilt. The Law kills every time it’s applied, even if it’s spoken “in the third use,” as we say.

However, the words “retain” and “bind” in this context imply to many the act of excommunication. It must be clarified that this is quite different from a simple private or unofficial admonishment, though both are expressions of the Law.

(11) When the statement speaks of Christians using the keys to judge the teachings of their pastors and teachers, it only means those pastors and teachers still living on earth, and only those times when the Christian confronts the pastor/teacher with the sin of teaching false doctrine. The Christian’s duty to test the spirits is not an exercise of the keys.

It seems that this should be a no-brainer, but the way the PMW is worded might allow someone to think that the Christian’s duty to test the spirits is an exercise of the keys. It’s not. The Christian receives both the duty and the keys upon entering the Kingdom of Grace, but they are not the same thing. The keys are about sin. Judging false teaching is about doctrine. Though false doctrine happens to be sin, the keys are only in use when God’s Word is applied to the sinner. Naturally, sinners who are elsewhere or who have already died can’t have Law and Gospel applied to them.

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.