Tag: PMW

The longer memorial sent in by my congregations has reportedly been discussed by the floor committee for doctrine. The discussion lasted a couple of hours, which was how long the same discussion took last year.

I was asked by a fellow traveler what I thought would happen with these memorials. My realistic/pessimistic prediction for this memorial was that the floor committee would basically say “We already have a doctrinal statement on the ministry, and are unwilling to change that. Let this be the answer to any memorials that challenge it.” This prediction has reportedly come true. The good news in this was that the discussion was cordial, with deep concern for unity in the synod on this doctrine. The floor committee also spoke of a resolution promoting continued patience and study. So the memorial was not a complete failure.

The problem remains that there is basic disagreement on the meaning of our doctrinal statement. As I have pointed out, a fine paper was delivered at our last General Pastoral Conference on how the PMW might be “parsed,” or how we should read it. This “parsing” is not far from my own understanding of the PMW, and I could possibly subscribe to the PMW on that basis. Yet quite a few of the pastors who heard that paper voiced deep concerns, and even basic disagreement. A majority of the PCM (the committee that drafted the PMW) has privately expressed agreement with the “parsing ” paper, but there has been no public endorsement of any particular understanding of the PMW.

So if the floor committee’s work is adopted by the synod convention, then a serious problem remains to challenge the unity of our synod. Instead of basing our unity upon the teaching of scripture, we will be basing our unity upon the mutual acceptance of a human document that apparently allows for a variety of interpretations. This is dangerously close to “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” It’s the basis of unity in church bodies that have departed from the historic Christian faith — the faith founded upon the unambiguous doctrine of holy scripture alone.

The ministry statement adopted by the ELS in 2005 had been scrutinized by a number of ELS pastors and laymen by that time. Questions and misunderstanding abounded, and there were few satisfying answers. Some wondered if there were really contrary doctrines in play among us, but a greater problem was that some elements of the ministry statement go beyond the purview of holy scripture, describing instead the tradition and sensibility of the ELS. Such things can’t be scripturally defended as doctrines, though there may be nothing wrong with them as local traditions.

Compounding that problem, there has been disagreement about what “the office of the holy ministry” is all about. Is it essentially an activity, or is it essentially a position to be filled, which performs the activity? The adopted ministry statement attempts to say it’s both, but the success of this attempt is a matter of debate. Some say it favors one point of view, and vice versa. Some say that there is really no scriptural support for one point of view, and vice versa. This is another one of those important, but unanswered questions. An answer will require some public exegetical work from both sides, and agreement upon terminology.

The ministry statement was brought to the convention for adoption prematurely. It had enough votes for adoption, but 3/8 of the synod opposed it. Since the implementation stage began, we have seen some effects of these undesirable circumstances. I’ll point out a few that have been brought to light in the report of the Commission on Appeals, formed to deal with the suspension of Pastor P. from the ELS.

Continue reading “Cause and Effect” →

As it turns out, the two memorials sent in by Bethany and Concordia churches (both of which I serve) are half of the memorials scheduled to be considered by the 2007 convention! Wow. Maybe that means they’ll receive some serious consideration. I hope they do.

You may fear the effects of the longer memorial, because it calls for a change in the status of the PMW, as a step toward restoring a God-pleasing spirit to our doctrinal conversation. The change would “demote” the PMW from an adopted statement to a study document. You might fear that this would be the first step in dismissing the PMW altogether. That is not my intention, nor even a necessary outcome, in my opinion.

Continue reading “Do you fear tinkering with the PMW?” →

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.