There is a perception that this point has been hashed through thoroughly
by this time, but that perception is mistaken. While statements have
been made on the subject from time to time, they have not been directly
answered. The closest to an answer that we have seen was in a paper
delivered to the official General Pastoral Conference in 2006, entitled
“An Exercise in Parsing.”
I understand the knee-jerk reflex that some will have when this topic is
touched upon: “Quick! Quote the relevant part of the adopted statement,
and wash our hands of the matter!” However, that reaction doesn’t
qualify as doctrinal discussion. Whether we like it or not, genuine
discussion includes the possibility that either side might be won over,
however strongly-worded their arguments may be. Quoting “the adopted
doctrinal statement” is an attempt to end discussion, equivalent in
effect to pulling rank. The only way to “win” in a theological discussion
is to agree with clear scripture. Hopefully, both sides “win” in the
end.
So read this thoughtful explanation of the term “representative
ministry” from a certain controversial figure in recent ELS history:
[There is an opinion] that the public or official ministry of the church exists
by means of a delegation of the private authority of every individual
Christian to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, and forgive
and retain sins. We may call this the “representative ministry”
definition, because it claims that whenever one Christian uses God’s
word or sacraments “on behalf of” other Christians this is the
divinely instituted public ministry of the word. According to this
opinion, every time one person exercises the keys (or uses the means
of grace, or teaches the word — the language varies) on behalf of
believers, this is the divinely instituted public ministry of the
word, whether it is a “full use” of the keys or a “limited use” of the
keys. In either case it is representative ministry and that is what
is divinely instituted, according to this opinion.
That quote came from a certain controversial writing, but has
been mostly ignored because of the inordinate amount of attention
lavished upon another paragraph (to the detriment and sorrow of all).
Another writing from a month prior says this, explaining the problem
the author had with the concept of a divinely-instituted “limited public
use of the keys.”
These texts allegedly address the matter of the church calling someone
to exercise a limited part of the public ministry of the Word but none
of them does. Nowhere does the New Testament speak of the church
assigning the responsibility of teaching God’s word to someone who is
forbidden to preside over the congregation, preach publicly, and
administer the sacraments. What the specific duties of the deacons
were is uncertain, but the Scriptures nowhere say that anyone taught
God’s word but was not permitted to teach the entire congregation.
Simply put, the very concept of a limited public use of the keys as
this is set forth in the PCM document is foreign to the Scriptures.
Nevertheless, these texts are cited as biblical proof that “the extent
to which one is authorized by the call of the church to exercise the
keys publicly is the extent to which one is in the Public Ministry of
the Word.” Being “in” the Public Ministry of the Word to this or that
“extent” is quite impossible if this office is the concrete office of
preaching of the gospel and administering the sacraments.
Whereas the texts cited to prove a limited public use of the keys in
the Bible don’t teach this, these texts do show that the Holy Spirit
moves freely in giving His gifts to men. The Wauwatosa Gospel teaches
that it is the evangelical activity of the Holy Spirit here and now in
the hearts of Christians that constitutes the divine institution of
the office in whatever form it may take. Here we see the Wauwatosa
influence on the PCM document. John Schaller put it this way: “For
whatever the Christian congregation decides upon to further the
preaching of the gospel it does at the instigation and under the
guidance of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”[29] The PCM document puts it
this way: “But it is by divine right that one exercises that work on
behalf of the Christians through whom the call has come.”
What is divinely instituted is representative ministry in whatever
form it may take. When I argued at the microphone during the
convention against applying Romans 10:15 (“how shall they preach
unless they are sent?”) to the calling of a parochial school teacher I
said that nowhere in the New Testament is a woman told to preach. The
President of the Synod took issue with me and cited Mark 16:15, words
that were spoken to the “eleven.” But the exegetical tradition to
which we have become bound insists that this text teaches the giving
of the means of grace to all Christians. The fact that nowhere in the
New Testament is a woman told to preach must yield before this
tradition. The fact that AC XIV refers to the call of men who are
ordained and hold the concrete office of preaching the gospel and
administering the sacraments must be reinterpreted to accommodate the
new definition of the office. [emphasis added]
It should be noted that the author has focused in these quotations on part
II.B of the PMW and any statements elsewhere that support it.
This is how the concerns were addressed in the 2006 GPC paper:
God permits, approves, blesses, and works through those external
vocational arrangements that are made in an orderly way for the
purpose of carrying out public activities that he wants to be carried
out. But this does not mean that God has directly instituted
all such external vocational arrangements. In fact, he has not. The
PMW document acknowledges this when it says that those offices which
have only “a limited public use of the keys” exist as distinct
positions of responsibility — if and when they do exist — because of
the church’s sanctified judgment, and not because of a divine
command. If God has directly instituted something for the church, this
would mean that the church cannot ordinarily do without it, and that
the church would in fact be sinning against God’s will if it declined
to have that divinely instituted thing. According to God’s will and
institution, the church cannot do without the public use of the keys.
More specifically, the church cannot do without the full public
use of the keys. But the church often can do without specific
external offices of one kind or another that are set up for the
purpose of carrying out only a limited public use of the keys,
or only a limited part of the Public Ministry of the Word. Such
positions of responsibility are not commanded for the church of all
times and places, and they are therefore not indispensable for the
church of all times and places. [emphasis original]
And again:
Section II B of the PMW document is an elaboration on, and an
explanation of, the “Public Ministry of the Word” in its wider sense.
The focus and purpose of this section must be kept in mind when we
consider the meaning of antitheses 8 and 9, which appear within it,
and which can be a source of some confusion if they are not
interpreted and applied according to their context. These antitheses
state that “We reject the teaching that only those qualified to carry
out a full use of the keys are in the Public Ministry,” and that “We
reject the teaching that the Public Ministry is limited to any one
divinely fixed form, that is, limited to the pastoral office to the
exclusion of other teachers of the Word.” Understood contextually,
these statements are simply reaffirming that there is indeed a
legitimate “wider sense” of the phrase “Public Ministry,” which refers
to the public use of the keys as carried out to any degree or level,
from within any and all ecclesiastical offices. These statements
should certainly not be understood as repudiations of the teaching
that appears in section II A of the document: that the “Public
Ministry of the Word” in its narrower sense does in fact
refer exclusively to “the exercise of spiritual oversight” that is
carried out (by divine design) only from within “the pastoral office”;
and that the “Public Ministry of the Word” in its narrower
sense does in fact require competency for a full public
use of the keys. [emphasis original]
And finally:
But let’s not forget that the “divinely instituted Public Ministry of
the Word” — which is synonymous with the “divinely instituted
preaching and teaching office” — includes two senses or
meanings. From the perspective of the narrower sense of the
phrase, we can say that when Jesus trained and sent the apostles, and
entrusted to them the full public ministry of Word and sacrament, he
was thereby inaugurating in and for the Christian church the full
public use of the keys. This continues to be a defining trait of
the Public Ministry of the Word in the narrower sense. Whenever the
full public use of the keys is being exercised in an orderly and
proper way, this is an example of the Public Ministry of the Word in
the narrower sense — and of “the pastoral office,” from which,
according to God’s command, the full public use of the keys is carried
out. From the perspective of the wider sense of the phrase, we
can say that when Jesus trained and sent the apostles, and entrusted
to them the full public ministry of Word and sacrament, he was thereby
inaugurating in and for the Christian church the public use of
the keys. This continues to be a defining trait of the Public Ministry
of the Word in the wider sense. Whenever the public use of the keys is
being exercised in an orderly and proper way — either to the full
extent by pastors, or to a limited extent by other ecclesiastical
office-holders — this is an example of the Public Ministry of the Word
in the wider sense.
The full public use of the keys includes within it, at least
potentially, any and every limited public use of the keys. There is no
divine institution of a limited public use of the keys per se.
There is a divine institution of the public use of the keys, as
a whole and in all of its parts, from which, in the church’s freedom,
limited public uses can be vocationally extracted and entrusted to
qualified individuals, according to the church’s needs and
circumstances. Section II B of the PMW document explains that when the
church in this way calls individuals to fill positions of
responsibility involving only a limited public use of the keys, it is
thereby separating, “by human right,” a “limited portion of the
office” to such individuals, and is authorizing them to exercise or
carry out only a “specific” and “limited part of the Public Ministry
of the Word.”
The answer given in this paper does not provide the scriptural basis for
a divinely-instituted limited public use of the keys. It says
that such a thing does not exist. Instead, there is a
divinely-instituted use of the keys (not “limited public”), and the Church has freedom and
authority to entrust a limited part of that use to certain individuals.
Is that “representative ministry?” Yes, in a sense. (See how nuanced
this discussion can be?) It is representative ministry, with the
caveat that it is not divinely instituted. In other words, we may
call it ministry simply because we need a word for it, and we want to
call it that. By definition, it is ministry because it is a kind of
service.
I have wondered why our doctrinal statement would take such care
to describe what is more a matter of our choice than a matter of doctrine.
That is, why not just let II.B say that the Church has freedom to entrust
certain ministerial duties to individuals alongside the “office of oversight,”
and call it finished? Do we have to pollute a summary of biblical doctrine
with descriptions of what the Church has elected to do in her freedom?
In my mind, this is one of the most important criticisms of the PMW. In its
current form, it leaves itself open to the charge of teaching human traditions
as though they were the Word of God.