|
Excommunication: Who Is Responsible?
A View of the Theology and
Practice of C.F.W. Walther
By Rev. Martin E. Kiesel
It is indeed a privilege and honor to stand before this conference this afternoon. It
would certainly be a boon to all of us if the original speaker were in this time slot, but
I am sure that as Dr. Suelflow would not want to exchange places with me, (no matter how
wonderful this conference may be) as he is now in the glory of the presence of the Savior.
There is no more important topic to be addressed during this meeting, than the topic of
how the Church, as the body of Christ, given the Office of the Keys, addresses the welfare
of the souls in its charge through the use of excommunication. It is clear from the
Scriptures that the power to forgive or retain sins was paramount in the ministry of
Christ, and even was a precipitating cause of His crucifixion. Christ's miracles were
performed simply to indicate His greater power, that of forgiveness of sins. This is
plainly stated in the healing of the paralytic in Matthew 9. We read in the sixth verse:
"But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins,
...Arise, take up your bed, and go to your home."
Who is responsible for the administration of this ultimate power? What are the
parameters which are used in determining who should be excommunicated? Is this power to be
exercised simply to rid the congregation of "alligators" or those opposed to an
individual or group? What is in the best interest of the Church?
For purposes of this presentation, I will not normally quote the Holy Scriptures or the
Confessions. My starting point, as a Missouri Synod Lutheran, becomes the writings of
C.F.W. Walther, for it was his exposition of both Scripture and the Confessions that
normed the beginning of our church body, and it was according to these same things that we
originally walked together, and should so even now!
The story is told that as Benjamin Franklin emerged one day from the Continental
Congress, a passerby approached him with the following question: "What did you
accomplish? What type of government did you give us?" Franklin's answer was, "A
republic! If you can keep it!" If I may be so bold to corrupt this little story for
Missouri Synod purposes, I posit that it would have occurred something like this:
Passerby to Walther: "Well, what kind of church and its administration have you
given to us?"
Walther: "On the basis of God's Holy Word, we have given you a church where the
congregation is supreme, indeed, it is the church ...If you can keep it!"
Just as our republic is constantly under attack, so also the church polity set down by
Walther is under attack today. It is attacked by the Devil, the world, and our own sinful
flesh! Especially is this a sin of the flesh, for many labor under the delusion that it is
our church rather than God's church. Ultimately, this is nothing more than
the sin of Adam, wishing to be lord of ourselves and that which surrounds us. It is no
wonder that we have a difficult time "keeping" the church which Walther's
theology gave us.
To illustrate just how far afield some in our fellowship have gone in exercising the
power of excommunication, we have no more to do than to keep our eyes and ears open, or to
read publications such as Christian News. We all probably know about the case that
is currently going on in Hawaii. Or how about those who are driven from a congregation in
Minnesota (excommunicated?) because they are at odds with the pastor or a power group. But
even more frightful than these cases, are the times when my own ears have heard laymen
with stories about being threatened with excommunication or actually excommunicated
because they were "hindering my [the pastors] ministry" (as if the pastor could
have a ministry separate from the power of the congregation).
Now, before I bombard you with citations from Walther and other giants in of synod
which clearly show how things ought to be in terms of excommunication, I wish to take a
few moments to register my frustration with the need to address this matter, or even the
need for a Walter conference at all. Most of the time, in my naivete, I truly have
problems fathoming how people (pastors) can get so off the track when it comes to walking
together in Walther's shadow as a synod. Perhaps this is so because of the blessing of the
congregation, or more specifically the pastor, under whom I spent all my years until
leaving to study for the ministry at Bronxville. I believe that I have a somewhat unique
perspective among many of the pastors of our synod, as I was the recipient of my basic
theology, my view and knowledge of synod, and my bottom line outlook on things by what I
will term "Waltherian Succession". Let me explain.
Beside learning words and formulations, one needs to have a "feeling" for the
interpretation and intent of those words. Now it is not my intention to go
"schwärmer" on you today, so permit a example story.
My grandmother on my father's side, made a delicious German cake-bread called Kuchen.
It was a wonderful concoction with a sugary top, swirls of nuts and other goodies inside,
and a rich buttery base cake. When she started to age, my mother approached her to ask her
for the recipe. She replied that she could give my mother the ingredients list, but she
would have to show her how to make it! At one point in a teaching session, my mother
became totally frustrated, for although the ingredients were present, it was impossible to
quantify how much of each one to use, for as my grandmother would mix the batter, she
would put in a bit of this and a bit of that, until the batter "just felt
right". (My mother did eventually learn how to make Kuchen.)
So it is in theology. One can have the words (ingredients) but unless one has the
understanding and the "feeling" of how they go together, they are only so many
words.
Just as in days of old, oral tradition carried with it explanations, inferences and
understandings far beyond what mere words could convey, so it was with my formative years.
I was bestowed with a 'sense' of what was right and proper. This was accomplished by my
pastor, Rev. Martin A. Berner. Rev. Berner was my link to Walther himself, for I believe
that he carried the oral tradition of Walther's thinking and taught the same.
Rev. Berner graduated from our St. Louis seminary in 1917 (he was already past
retirement age when he confirmed me). He would often tell us that he spent many hours
learning "at the knee of Dr. Pieper". Now we know that Pieper learned "at
the knee of Walther", and hence not only the words, but the intentions of those words
were communicated to me. I still remember that just before I started Bronxville in 1969,
Pastor Berner took me aside and enjoined me to "...remember what you have learned
here and do not depart from it, for it is what our Synod was founded upon... the truth of
God's Word!" (He very well knew what was going on in our Synod's educational system
at the time and that I would be regaled with liberal theology.) Unless this is engendered
in a person, we are all left to parse the words of the church fathers in an effort to
achieve true understanding. Parsing, while many times beneficial, can also be an
invitation to mayhem. Some have said, "You can make the Bible say anything!" We
need to seek wisdom and understanding above all.
In order to understand Walther and his view of the church, and how the congregation
bears responsibility for excommunication, first let us start with some ingredients -
Walther's words.
In establishing the primacy and authority of the congregation we first look to the
foundational work of Kirche und Amt. Two theses concerning the Church are germane.
Thesis I - The church in the proper sense of the term is the congregation [Gemeinde]
of saints, that is, the aggregate of all those who, called out of the lost and condemned
human race by the Holy Spirit through the Word, truly believe in Christ and by faith are
sanctified and incorporated in Christ. 1
Thesis IV - It is to this true church of believers and saints
that Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and it is the proper and only
possessor and bearer of the spiritual, divine, and heavenly gifts, rights, powers,
offices, and the like that Christ has procured and are found in His church. 2
Concerning Thesis I, Walther cites a number of passages from Holy
Scripture (Eph. 1:22-23; Matt. 16:18; John 11:51-52 and others). When explaining what the
church is, Walter calls it the "aggregate" of those who believe. The entire
church is responsible for the administration of Christ's gifts! Thesis IV clarifies this
position. It is to the church (the aggregate of believers) that Christ gives the
keys of the kingdom. It alone is the "proper and only possessor and
bearer" of the powers of Christ Himself. Once again, Walther backs this up with
numerous passages from the Bible, and the "Witnesses of the Church".
It is key to understand, that these powers rightly belong to the entire congregation,
and only to the congregation, when we then look at appropriate theses on the office of the
ministry in Kirche und Amt. Theses VI, VII, and IX are of particular importance.
Permit me to quote from each one with my emphasis added.
Thesis VI - A. The ministry of the Word [Predigtamt] is conferred by God through
the congregation as the possessor of all ecclesiastical power, or the power of the keys,
by means of its call, which God Himself has prescribed. 3
Thesis VII - The holy ministry [Predigtamt] is the power,
conferred by God through the congregation as the possessor of the priesthood and all
church power, to exercise the right of the spiritual priesthood in public office in
the name of the congregation. 4
Thesis IX - C. The minister has no right to inflict and carry
out excommunication without his having first informed the whole congregation. 5
It cannot be rationally argued that the pastor in and of himself,
has any special powers or the authority of Christ and the Keys, but all these powers rest
in the congregation or church. And, although the congregation has the right and
responsibility to call a pastor to act on its behalf, the power still resides in the
congregation.
Perhaps a small example of a kingly messenger would suffice. When a servant of a king
was sent on a task, he would bear name and protection of the king and kingdom. The servant
is nothing left to his own devices, but it was the power of the king which gave him his
clout. In the same way, Christ (the King) empowers His Church (congregation), and the
pastor is empowered as a servant of that kingdom (congregation).
This lays the foundation for debunking the notion that one can (or should) be
excommunicated for "impeding the ministry of the pastor". Indeed, the pastor has
no ministry apart from that which the congregation deeds to him by virtue of the call, and
the congregation only exercises its responsibility as it faithfully acts "by Christ's
divine command".
To add more flesh to Walther's thinking, let me cite just a few other of his writings
which clearly continue to reflect his thinking on the relationship of congregation and
pastor.
In Der Lutheraner, Vol. 17, No. 7, November 13, 1860, p.49, we read:
First of all, as far as the confessional writings of our Evangelical Lutheran Church
are concerned, all orthodox Lutherans confess in them publicly and solemnly the doctrine
that according to Matt. 16:15-19 the keys were given to the entire church by Christ
"not to certain special persons", and indeed, that the church does not have them
mediately, through the pastors, but "immediately", not from a remote hand, but
"originally." 6
Walther continues these thoughts in Der Lutheraner, Vol. 17, No. 8,
November 27, 1860:
We read among other things in the Evangelienharmonie of Chemnitz, Leyser, and
Gerhard:
Christ bequeathed the keys of the kingdom of heaven to the church, Matt.
18:18...Outside of a case of necessity such a thing is granted to no one if he is not a
rightfully called and installed minister of the chruch...Nevertheless, the right of every
believer, even of the least of them remains inviolate, that he has the keys conferred by
Christ...(Harm. ev. c. 85, p.1687)
If we had been the first to write this, our opponents would cry murder against us. They
would exclaim: There you see how the Missourians introduce their American democratic ideas
into the church's doctrine. However, it is well known that neither Chemnitz, nor Leyser,
nor Gerhard were Americans or democrats. Nevertheless, the church is here likened to a
free republic, in which all power of state, all office and titles originally, so far as
their root is concerned, rest in all citizens, none of whom can, however, make himself
president, or mayor or senator, but whom the citizens through free election clothe with
these powers, offices and titles which originally rest in them. Thus, the Evangelienharmonie
wants to say, it is also with the church. 7
Walther continues to show that it is the congregation that must
responsibly exercise the powers and privileges granted to it by its Master, Jesus Christ.
Yet a few more citations of Walther's thinking.
In The Form of a Christian Congregation Walther notes:
John Gerhard writes: "From Acts 15:22 the conclusion is warranted that not only
the apostles but also the elders were present at this congregational meeting; indeed, that
the whole congregation with the apostles and elders had a deciding vote...Daniel
Arcularius writes: "In public church affairs nothing should be concluded without the
vote and consent of the congregation. This the example of the apostolic synod teaches
(Acts 15), for though the apostles and elders, to whom the congregation had entrusted the
decision, presided there, they nevertheless did not act as rulers and did not so assume
the decision of a public [congregational] matter as to exclude the vote of the
congregation..." 8
Hesshusius therefore writes: "In Matt. 18 the Lord Christ
entrusts not to the secular government but to his congregation the supreme judgment and
power in matters pertaining to the church, among which about the most important are: the
election and calling of pastors, the judgment of doctrine, and the power to depose
unfaithful teachers. He says expressly that if anyone does not want to hear the
congregation, he should be banned as a heathen man and publican. This must be understood
in the sense not merely that the congregation has the power to excommunicate impenitent
sinners but also that it has the highest power in all church matters - in reproof, church
punishments, the judging of doctrinal differences, the calling of ministers."
("Concerning the Calling and Dismissal of Ministers" [Giessen: 1608], pp. 50f.) 9
Lastly, the congregation shall also see to it that neither the
congregation nor individual church members enter into any church union with unbelievers or
heterodox communions and so become guilty of religious unionism in matter of faith and
church. 10
Walther also addresses these concerns for the church and
excommunication in his Pastoral Theology. Concerning the Lesser Ban and the
pastor's participation in excommunication we read:
...Then the preacher is in a situation in which he cannot administer the holy Supper to
a person, although he does not have the authority to excommunicate a member of the
congregation. Under such conditions there occurs the necessity of the suspension from the
holy Supper, by virtue of which a member of the congregation is denied the holy Supper,
not absolutely as if he had already been excommunicated, but only for a certain time until
the matter has been settled ... 11
So as definitely as our old orthodox theologians deny to preachers
the right to excommunicate without [the participation of] the congregation, so definitely
do they also ascribe to them the right to suspend people from the holy Supper. [Walther
quotes several Lutheran theologians to this effect. Suspension may be the first stage in
church discipline according to Matt. 18:15-20]. 12
Under the chapter entitled The Order of Fraternal Disciple Walther
begins by saying:
The necessary basis of true Christian church discipline is that the order of brotherly
admonition prescribed by Christ in Matt. 18:15-17 be followed in every way, not only by
the individual members of the congregation and by the congregation as a whole, but
also by the preacher himself. (My emphasis added). 13
Walther continues in this same vane in the chapter entitled The
Case of Public Repentance.
Those who show themselves repentant after a manifest fall into sin or error, either
right away or after admonition by the congregation, are not to be excommunicated but are
to remove the offense they have given, as much as possible, by a public apology or
repentance to the church {Kirchenbusse} and so to the offended congregation (Matt. 18:15;
5:23-24; Luke 17:3-4). 14
A manifest fall into sin is at the same time a sin against the whole
congregation. 15
Specifically concerning cases of excommunication, Walther states
that one of the conditions for such is:
[A person] whom the congregation has unanimously declared worthy of excommunication. 16
In the same manner he goes on to outline that one cannot be
excommunicated:
...about whom the congregation cannot agree that they deserve to be excommunicated (1
Cor. 5:13). 17
Further:
Since according to God's Word the excommunication is a matter for the whole
congregation, it cannot be carried out by a mere majority of the members, no matter how
large. 18
Excommunication by the one or a few is condemned specifically by
Walther when he writes in a comment:
Since, according to God's Word, the power to exclude or excommunicate from the
fellowship of the congregation is an authority of the whole congregation (Matt. 18:17; 1
Cor. 5:2, 4, 13), and excommunication which is not unanimous, [but is] resolved by a
simple majority, with the exclusion of the minority, without even the tacit consent of all
members, is illegitimate and invalid. 19
In speaking concerning the readmission of the excommunicated Walther
again consistently insists that it is a function of the congregation. Although the pastor
is a conduit for information and acts on behalf of the congregation to pronounce
absolution, nonetheless it is the congregation which directs such action on the part of
the pastor. Here Walter quotes Martin Chemnitz by saying, "...then the congregation,
having seen that discipline had achieved its desired goal, applies such mildness ..."
(Examen Concil. Trident., Loc de indulgentiis, p.m. 75-78). 20
Even concerning the admission of new members to the congregation
Walther writes: "Just as it does not belong to the pastor alone to exclude a person
from the congregation , it does not belong to him alone to accept new members. The
decision about that belongs rather to the whole congregation, the preacher and the
listeners." 21
Now it is my hope, that at this time, even the dimmest of bulbs
among us will begin to be able to see a pattern of thought and purpose developing here!
Certainly those theological truths which Walther puts forth were not lost on those who
soon followed in his footsteps. It is to those fathers which we now turn. Besides Walther,
these are the men who have authored the volumes which we were directed to learn and study
in Seminary. It was these authors and works which we were led to believe were at least
somewhat normative in the theology and belief system in the LC-MS. Rather than being
taught to "question everything", we should be incubated in the faith as we
digest these writings. Indeed, as the title of one of my citations indicates, what we are
exposing ourselves to is THE ABIDING WORD!
In 1902 G. H. Gerberding published The Lutheran Pastor. In the work he echoes
much of the theology set forth by Walther. He especially councils that all church
discipline has but one goal - that of the reclaiming of the erring party. In all cases of
possible discipline cited, each one is clearly an offense of doctrine or practice which
left unchallenged would certainly lead to the offender's eternal damnation.
Excommunication was never to be carried out in a capricious or haphazard manner, but in
each case copious records need to be kept by the congregation, and the offense must be
well documented as being contrary to God's word.
The pastor's role in excommunication is addressed in the following manner:
The pastor alone can neither exclude nor suspend from membership in the congregation.
In special cases, known to him alone, where there is a good reason for not yet informing
the church council, or where there is not time, the pastor alone may refuse to administer
the communion to the offender. Of course he will inform the offender, privately, before
communion, of his decision.
We have known pastors, to their shame be it said, who would strike the names of persons
who refused to support them, or against whom they had a personal pique, from the church
roll. They should themselves be called to account before their synod or conference. The
pastor can no more exclude than admit to membership in the congregation. 22
(N.B. - This author sees little difference between excommunication
and "taking one off the list". If we as a church rightly exercise the Office of
the Keys, then to "remove from the rolls" is tantamount to excommunication.)
Francis Pieper, who first published his Christian Dogmatics in 1920 writes
concerning the pastor, the congregation, and excommunication. Particularly in dealing with
the lesser ban we read:
"The thing that must be maintained is that the pastor is personally and directly
responsible not only to the congregation, but also to God, with regard to the persons he
admits to the Lord's Supper." 23 He then quotes Walther's
Pastoral Theology: "A pastor, though without authority to excommunicate a
member of his congregation, must suspend...It must, however, be kept in mind that the
pastor by suspending does not excommunicate, as many mistakenly have claimed, but he
merely demands postponement of the person's communing...Of course, the suspended person
always retains the right of appeal to the congregation..."24
In his discussion of the public ministry, Pieper again citing
Walther and others, establishes the proper relationship between pastor and congregation.
Hase says correctly that "evangelical teaching" makes the congregation the
source of all authority in the Church. All that the pastors of a congregation do as
pastors is delegated, that is, done solely at the command of the congregation. This is
true in particular when they pronounce excommunication. The Smalcald Articles say:
"It is certain that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those guilty of
manifest crimes belongs to all pastors." But this is not to be done "without due
process of law." (Trigl. 525, Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops, 74; 521, 60.) This
"due process of law" includes, above all things, the hearing of each case by the
congregation and the verdict of the congregation. Luther's strong term for an
excommunication which has been pronounced without investigation and verdict by the
congregation is well known. (St. L. XIX:950ff.) He says: "The congregation which is
to treat him as excommunicated should know and be convinced that he has deserved and
fallen under the ban, as this text of Christ (Matt. 18:17-18) states; else it may be
deceived and accept a lying ban and thus do the neighbor wrong... . Here, where the souls
are concerned, the congregation, too, should be judge and mistress." Loescher
correctly states as Lutheran doctrine that the congregation passes judgment and pronounces
the excommunication, while the pastor as the public servant of the congregation declares,
or proclaims, the excommunication. 25
John H. C. Fritz in his Pastoral Theology (published in 1932)
explicitly gives credit to Walther in his preface. Listening to the following quote, could
there be any doubt that in 1932 Walther's understanding of what our church should be
theologically was accepted without reservation?
In writing this new Pastoral Theology, I have used Walther's Pastoraltheologie
as a basis; I desire at this place to make full acknowledgment of this fact. The principles
laid down by Walther in his book on the basis of Holy Scripture have not changed,
neither can they change. 26
In addressing proper procedure for excommunication Fritz states:
"A Christian congregation which has excommunicated any person must, in order that any
pastor or congregation can convince themselves of the correctness of the procedure, submit
its official minutes if requested to do so." 27 One can deduce that a pastor
or council cannot be synonymous with a congregation.
Concerning Church Discipline Fritz writes:
It goes without saying that a pastor has no right of his own accord, without having
presented the case to the congregation, to excommunicate any person. What concerns all,
especially in matters of one's salvation, must be taken care of by all. It is contrary
even to good common sense and to common justice that one person decide what the relation
of one member should be to an entire group or the relation of a group to that member,
especially when the fraternal relation of believers is under consideration, Matt. 18:17; 1
Cor. 5, 1. 2. 13; 3 John 9, 10. "It is certain that the common jurisdiction of
excommunicating those guilty of manifest crimes belongs to all pastors. This they have
tyrannically transferred to themselves alone and have applied it to the acquisition of
gain. For it is certain that the officials, as they are called, employed a license not to
be tolerated and either on account of avarice or because of other wanton desires tormented
men and excommunicated them without any due process of law. But what tyranny is it for the
officials in the states to have arbitrary power to condemn and excommunicate men without
due process of law! And in what kind of affairs did they abuse this power? Indeed, not in
punishing true offenses, but in regard to the violation of fasts or festivals, or like
trifles. Only, they sometimes punished adulteries; and in this matter they often vexed
[abused and defamed] innocent and honorable men. Besides, since this is a most grievous
offense, nobody certainly is to be condemned without due process of law." Smalcald
Articles.
"In our Church," says Valentine Ernst Loescher, "no one has ever said
that excommunication and church discipline are things about which only the clergy should
be concerned, but these things have by Christ been put into the charge of the church; the
church examines and decides; the servant of Christ, or the pastor, being the os
ecclesiae, announces the result to the sinner and according to God's established order
has the duty to excommunicate that sinner. 28
Concerning the Ratification of Excommunication Fritz says:
Since the power to excommunicate is vested in the entire congregation, Matt. 18, 17; 1
Cor. 5, 2.4.13, a resolution to excommunicate would not be valid if no opportunity had
been given to all the members of the church to voice either their approval or disapproval.
Therefore a resolution which has been passed to excommunicate a person should not be
considered final until at a following meeting properly called such resolution has been
ratified. 29
May we from the above comment assume that a so-called
excommunication voted on by only a pastor or a council or Board of Directors should be
considered invalid?
Concerning the power of the local Church John Theodore Mueller writes in his Christian
Dogmatics (first copyrighted in 1934):
From all this it follows that it is indeed God's will and ordinance that Christians
should establish and maintain local churches; for without them these Christian obligations
[the exercise of the Office of the Keys], enjoined so definitely, cannot be performed.
This principle is in full accord with the practice of the apostles and their followers,
who consistently gathered the believers into local churches and commonly instructed,
admonished, and comforted them as such in their epistles,…
For this reason we rightly insist that the ban, or excommunication, Matt. 18,17; 1 Cor.
5, 13, should be declared by local churches and not by assemblies of Christians which have
not been divinely instituted. 30
With respect to the power of the pastor and excommunication, we read
further:
With respect to the power which Christian pastors possess by virtue of their call our
dogmaticians rightly say that all power which they have as ministers is conferred
upon, or delegated to, them by the congregation, so that their jurisdiction is limited by
the call.
The power of excommunication, commonly called the ban, the pastor must never administer
without the congregation, Matt. 18, 17.18; 1 Cor. 5,13. It is properly the function of the
pastor rightly to guide the congregation in judging each case and, if the sinner under
discipline is found to be impenitent, to publish and declare publicly as a servant of the
church what the congregation has decided to do, 1 Cor. 5, 1-7, 13.
Again, if the sinner repents, it is the duty of the pastor to urge the congregation to
forgive him, 2 Cor. 2,6-11, and then to publish, or declare publicly, the absolution of
the congregation. A ban which a minister executes contrary to God's Word and without the
congregation Luther calls a "lying ban" (Luegenbann). (Cp. St. L., XIX,
950ff.) 31
Certainly, Waltherian thinking and practice continued to be
prescribed through this generation of churchmen in our synod. To demonstrate that this
thinking continued to be accepted to the next generation, we turn now to The Abiding
Word.
The supremacy and power of the congregation is declared by George H. Perlich in his
essay on The Lutheran Congregation. He says, (in part) "The local congregation
stands supreme, unequaled in splendor, power, and influence among the organizations of the
world and surpasses in importance all other institutions." 32
The most telling article, however, is that which was written by
Edgar J. Otto entitled Church Discipline. I would like to quote the entire
treatise, but time will not permit, so I encourage each one to complete its reading at a
later date.
Debunking the possibility of the use of excommunication for the purposes of clearing
the rolls of detractors or banishing those who are not "in line" with a certain
mode of thinking, Otto quotes a Wisconsin District convention and says: "In a
Synodical essay read before the Wisconsin District convention of 1886, G. Kuechle stated:
"Whoever is not guilty of mortal sins or soul-destroying error must not be subjected
to church discipline." (Wisconsin, 1886, p.35.) 33
He goes on, "Whatever specific designation may be employed,
whether it be "loss of grace" or "loss of spiritual life," the terms
include trespasses of a twofold nature: (1) persistent adherence to false doctrine and (2)
manifest sins of the flesh.." 34
How dare anyone seek to remove from the Christian congregation those
who are guilty of anything less than that which would lead to the eternal ruin of the
soul! This certainly excludes mere disagreements among the saints, as well as those who on
the basis of our common confession who question the doctrine and practice of the
congregation or pastor. In any case, all things of such a nature must be carried out in
the best interest of the offending brother.(My emphasis added) 35
This is echoed as Otto quotes Walther:
In presenting his reasons for employing the evangelical method in church discipline,
Dr. Walther says: "As always, so here, too, love is the highest law..." 36
Under Thesis X - The excommunication of a member from the church
must be unanimous. Otto writes of the obligations and rights given only to the
congregation.
When Christ our Lord says: "Tell it to the church," He confers upon the local
congregation the final and supreme authority to excommunicate a former brother when that
becomes necessary. The pastor can therefore not order the congregation to exclude a
certain person who might be undesirable to him personally, neither may he prohibit the
excommunication of an impenitent sinner for reasons of intimate friendship.
Luther reminds us that although Saint Paul was an Apostle, he would not presume upon
his own right to ban the incestuous person at Corinth. He required the congregation to act
in the matter. (C.F.W. Walther, Pastorale, p.324.)
Excommunication as an official church act is valid only upon the unanimous vote of the
congregation. 37
Two later sources are also of note. Hermann Sasse in his book on The
Church (July 1949) rightly explains the Missouri Synod position on the primacy of the
ministry or the congregation when he says, "When Walther and Missouri contended for
the priority of the congregation, they could justly call on Luther and the old Lutheran
Church as witnesses. In his To the Christian Nobility Luther gives the following
well-known illustration of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Some
Christians find themselves in the desert. There is no ordained priest among them. They
elect one of their number to the holy ministry. By this election he has whatever rights
and responsibilities belong to one who occupies the church's ministry (WA 6, 407 [American
Edition 44, 128]). 38
A reference is also made to the question of authority and
excommunication in Pastoral Theology (ed. Mueller/Kraus -1990). A few key comments
are: "Because a Christian congregation excommunicates in the name of the
entire Christian church ..." "On behalf of the congregation, the pastor
announces the excommunication ..."(My emphasis added to both) 39
It is clear that Walther posited that all authority, especially that
of the exercise of excommunication, was given to the local congregation! To relinquish
such power to the one (the pastor) or the few (a board or council) is either an abrogation
of that power or the abuse of same. In any case, such a view clearly does violence to
Walther's contentions!
Those who would seek to usurp this power by any means, take to themselves an office
which they have not been given, and a responsibility which is far greater then any one (or
few) can rightly endure. Just as we believe that the Lord Jesus did not place the power of
the church in the hands of Peter (a clay vessel), so none of us dare claim such authority
for ourselves and make ourselves popes over the souls of others. The Lord gave this power
to the whole congregation so that it may be rightly carried out for the benefit of the
erring soul, not to further any human contention or agenda. Frankly, as one poor servant
in God's Kingdom, it puzzles me as to why anyone would desire or want exclusive use of
such a power. The burden is certainly too great for any clay pot!
In terms of the church polity given us through the writings of Walther, the
congregation is represented in such matters by a Voter's Assembly. It is the form of self
government that represents the whole congregation. No one is denied a voice, everyone has
the right to be heard and attend. What better solution can be brought to fulfill God's
injunctions and care for His people. But the process does require integrity! Integrity on
the part of the congregation that they hold to the Word of God and those things to which
they have pledged themselves. Integrity on the part of the pastor, who will understand
that he is the servant of the congregation and not its lord. These two, working in
harmony, according to "His divine command", will alleviate and ultimately solve
our current conundrum.
So, where have we gone wrong? What has caused many to seek their own ways and refuse in
word or practice to "walk together" as a synod. The cause is as old as creation
itself. It is the ego of man, seeking self aggrandizement and looking to build kingdoms of
our own. It comes in the same words as that of Satan in Genesis, "Did God really
say?" It overtakes us when we fail to respect our history as a Synod (something that
Dr. Suelflow would have said), and instead we parse words and look for "modern"
solutions to old problems and questions which have already been answered.
This is not something that has come upon us overnight. It has been slowly and steadily
grinding away our foundations over the years. It greatly reared its ugly head in the 60's
and the 70's in a form that led to our Synodical divide. Some thought they had conquered
and the battle was over, but to think so would underrate Satan himself, and assume that he
would no longer attack the Church of Christ! The enemy continues, but now in a more subtle
form. It is an insidious and persistent enemy which will never relinquish, and just as
"eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" so eternal faithfulness is the boon
of faith! Indeed, to paraphrase the late Barry Goldwater, "Extremism in defense of
God's Word is no vice." We MUST be extreme as we hold to God's truth!
One last word of example as we see how words changed slightly alter the meaning of
things and lead people astray. In The Lutheran Agenda published as a companion to
the 1941 edition of The Lutheran Hymnal, The Announcement of EXCOMMUNICATION, OF
SELF-EXCLUSION, AND OF REINSTATEMENT reads as follows:
Beloved in Christ: It is my painful duty to make known to you that our fellow member,
N., was under discipline and, although repeatedly admonished from the Word of God, has
manifested no evidence of true repentance. The assembled congregation has,
therefore, excommunicated him until he give evidence of repentance. May the
almighty and merciful God grant him grace to know his sin, work in him
true repentance, and awaken him to reformation of life. Amen. (emphasis added)
Beloved in Christ: Whereas N., after being under excommunication for a time, has now,
by the grace of God, give evidence of repentance, the congregation, in meeting
assembled, has removed the excommunication from the said N. and has restored him
to Christian fellowship in this congregation. May God, by His Holy Spirit, graciously
enable him to continue steadfast in faith and godliness unto the end, through Jesus
Christ, our Lord. Amen. (emphasis added)
Clearly this reflects Walther's view of the church and its polity!! It is the
congregation that is clearly empowered!
Now we turn to the 1984 Lutheran Worship Agenda. The rites of excommunication
and reinstatement read thus:
Beloved in Christ, I am bound as a called and ordained servant of the Word to make
known to you that our fellow member _______ was under discipline and, although repeatedly
admonished from the Word of God, has refused to repent. Following the direction of our
Lord in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, one and two or three members have pleaded
with him/her on several occasions, but without success. Others have done likewise, but to
no avail. Finally, _______refuses also to hear the Church.
So that the seriousness of his/her sin may be more fully shown to him/her as a last
effort to win him/her back to the Lord, I announce that he/she is excommunicated from the
Church. He/she may not come to this or any other Christian altar until he/she repents. May
the almighty and merciful God grant him/her grace to confess his/her sin and work in
him/her repentance.
Beloved in Christ, because ______, having been under excommunication for a time, has
now by the grace of God given evidence of repentance to the Church, I joyfully announce
that his/her excommunication is removed and that he/she is restored to Christian
fellowship in this congregation.
Notice, that over 43 years we have lost the emphasis on the congregation. No indication
is given in the 1984 rite that the congregation is necessarily involved in the
excommunication. Walther's view of the church is lost and our theology is diminished in
this rite. Certainly this rite opens the door for the abuses we now see. Although in the
reinstatement it talk about the "Church", one would be free to assume that the
church is something other than the congregation!
We conclude with a quotation from Luther's Small Catechism. A passage from the
Office of the Keys which we have all learned and memorized.
What do you believe according to these words?
I believe that, when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command,
especially when they exclude manifest and impenitent sinners from the Christian
congregation, and, again, when they absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing
to amend, this is as valid and certain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt
with us Himself. 40
Let those who are called take heed that the power they wield is only
by virtue of their call to the people of God in a congregation. May we solely act
according to the divine commands of Christ, and so only have the welfare of the souls in
our charge as paramount in all we do.
May the Lord continue to embolden us by His Holy Word, that we may stand firm on the
Biblical faith and doctrines which have been handed down to us through our faithful
fathers!
Soli Deo Gloria
A note about Endnotes
The endnotes used in this work are linked from the note number in
the text to the endnote at the bottom of the page, and vice versa. In addition,
where a note uses "ibid." or "op. cit.", it is linked to the
appropriate parent endnote information.
If you use this "ibid." or "op. cit." link, you will need to use the BACK
button on your browser to return to the endnote you started with. From there, you
can click on the endnote number to go back to where you were in the text.
1.
C. F. W. Walther, Church and Ministry, trans. by J. T. Mueller (Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1987), p.19.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid. p. 22.
4. Ibid. p. 22.
5. Ibid. p. 23.
6. C. F. W. Walther, The Congregations Right To Choose Its Pastor,
trans. by Fred Kramer (Fort Wayne, Ind: CTS, 1987), p. 23.
7. Ibid. p. 40-41.
8. C. F. W. Walther, The Form of a Christian Congregation, trans.
by J. T. Mueller (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961), p. 48.
9. Ibid. p. 54-55.
10. Ibid. p. 136.
11. C. F. W. Walther, American Lutheran Pastoral Theology, trans.
by John. M. Drickamer (New Haven, MO: Lutheran News Inc., 1995), p. 125.
12. Ibid. p. 126.
13. Ibid. p. 238.
14. Ibid. p. 244.
15. Ibid. p. 244.
16. Ibid. p. 247.
17. Ibid. p. 247.
18. Ibid. p. 248-249.
19. Ibid. p. 250.
20. Ibid. p. 252.
21. Ibid. p. 261.
22. G. H. Gerberding, The Lutheran Pastor, (Philadelphia: Lutheran
Publication Society, 1902), p. 264.
23. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol III, (Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1953), p. 389.
24. Ibid. p. 389-390.
25. Ibid. p. 458-459.
26. John H. C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology, (Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1932), p. III.
27. Ibid. p. 58-59.
28. Ibid. p. 236.
29. Ibid. p. 242.
30. John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1934), p. 555-556.
31. Ibid. p. 578.
32. Geo. H. Perlich, "The Lutheran Congregation," in The
Abiding Word, Vol. II, ed. by Theodore Laetsch (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1947), p. 449.
33. Edgar J. Otto, "Church Discipline," in The Abiding Word,
Vol. II, ed. By Theodore Laetsch (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947), p.543.
34. Ibid. p. 543.
35. Ibid. p. 545.
36. Ibid. p. 548.
37. Ibid. p. 555.
38. Herman Sasse, We Confess The Church, tr. by Norman Nagel
(Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), p.76.
39. Norbert H. Mueller & George Kraus, eds, Pastoral Theology,
(Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1990), p. 183-184.
40. A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther's SMALL CATECHISM
(Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943) p. 18.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fritz, John H. C. Pastoral Theology. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1932.
Gerberding, G. H. The Lutheran Pastor. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication
Society, 1902.
Joerz, Jerald C. and McCain, Paul T. eds. Church and Ministry. Saint Louis: The
Office of the President LC-MS, 1998.
Lueker, Erwin L. ed. Lutheran Cyclopedia. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1975.
Lutheran Worship Agenda. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1984.
Mueller, Norbert H. and Kraus, George, eds. Pastoral Theology. Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1990.
Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1934.
Otto, Edgar J. "Church Discipline." The Abiding Word. Edited by
Theodore Laetsch. Vol. II. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947.
Perlich, George H. "The Lutheran Congregation." The Abiding Word.
Edited by Theodore Laetsch. Vol. II. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947.
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. Vol. III. Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1953.
Sasse, Herman. Here We Stand. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1966.
Sasse, Herman. We Confess - The Church. Translated by Norman Nagel. Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1986.
The Lutheran Agenda. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943.
Walther, C. F. W. Church and Ministry. Translated by J. T. Mueller. Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1987.
Walther, C. F. W. The Congregations Right To Choose Its Pastor. Translated by
Fred Kramer. Fort Wayne, Indiana: CTS, 1987.
Walther, C. F. W. The Form of a Christian Congregation. Translated by J. T.
Mueller. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961.
Walther, C. F. W. American Lutheran Pastoral Theology. Translated by John M.
Drickamer. New Haven, Missouri: Lutheran News Inc., 1995.
Rev. Martin Kiesel was
born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1950. His formative years were spent in the area of
his birth, attending St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church in Philadelphia. He was blessed
for his entire youth to have the Rev. Martin A. Berner (a 1917 St. Louis graduate) as his
pastor. Rev. Berner instilled a love for the Lord in Martin as well as a burning desire to
stand firmly on the truth of God’s Holy Word.
Rev. Kiesel graduated Concordia College at Bronxville in 1971 and Concordia Senior College
in 1973. He completed his primary Seminary training and received his M.Div. from Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis, in 1979. From 1979 until 1990 he served as pastor of Zion Lutheran
Church in Hillsboro, MO. Since 1990 he has served as the pastor of St. John’s
Lutheran Church in Waterbury, CT.
Rev. Kiesel has held a number of positions in Synod and District. He was a regional
coordinator for His Love - Our Response, as well as Alive in Christ. He served two terms
as Circuit Counselor. He has been active as a member of the Board of Directors for a local
Birthright, and very supportive of Lutherans For Life. He currently serves on his district
Finance Committee, Conference Committee, and is the Lutheran Layman’s League district
advisor. He is also on the Board of Directors for the National Evangelical Lutheran
Conference.
November 5, 1999
|