A Few Thoughts about the Current Debate over the Doctrine of the Ministry

At the risk of oversimplifying a very nuanced discussion, I would like to share a few thoughts about the current debate over the doctrine of the ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

It seems that the so-called “Missouri” approach to the doctrine of the ministry and the so-called “Wisconsin” approach to the doctrine of the ministry are coming at the issue from two different directions. We can and should recognize that God has instituted the office of the ministry as a whole and in all its parts. What “Missouri” has tended to emphasize, however, is that God has instituted the office of the ministry as a whole, and what “Wisconsin” has tended to emphasize is that God has instituted the office of the ministry in all its parts. According to Missouri, the ministry that God instituted is recognizably present when the office of the ministry as a whole is present. Essentially (but not exclusively) this means the pastoral office, which is authorized to carry out the full administration of the means of grace that Christ has ordained for his church. According to Wisconsin, the ministry that God instituted is recognizably present when the office of the ministry in any of its parts is present. This includes the pastoral office as well as the offices of those who assist pastors in the administration of the means of grace (e.g. parochial school teachers).

Missouri attempts to balance out its presentation by saying that, since an actual “part” of the divinely-instituted office of the ministry is entrusted to those who serve in offices that assist in the administration of the means of grace (e.g. parochial school teachers), such helping offices are “ecclesiastical sacred offices” (cf. Walther’s Theses on Church and Ministry). Wisconsin attempts to balance out its presentation by saying that the “most comprehensive form” of the divinely-instituted office of the ministry is the pastoral office, which is authorized to carry out the full administration of the means of grace that Christ has ordained for his church, in comparison to more limited or restricted “forms” of the office of the ministry that do not carry out the full administration of the means of grace (cf. This We Believe). Missouri and Wisconsin agree that God wants all of the means of grace to be administered in the church, fully and completely, by men who have been properly trained and properly called to do this. Missouri and Wisconsin agree that the church has the freedom under Christ to entrust certain limited aspects of the office of the ministry to other people, who assist in the administration of the means of grace.

To use an analogy, the Missouri approach begins with the completed puzzle, and then starts taking some of the pieces out, while the Wisconsin approach begins with all the disconnected pieces of the puzzle, and then starts putting them together. Missouri moves logically from the whole to the parts, and Wisconsin moves logically from the parts to the whole.

Is this perhaps like the difference in approach regarding the doctrine of the Trinity between the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers? As reflected in the Nicene Creed, the Greeks argued from the three Persons to the one Essence. What needed to be explained was how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be one God. The Greeks emphasized that the Son and the Holy Spirit are divine because they have their eternal origin in the Father, who is the source of Divinity. In contrast, as reflected in the Athanasian Creed, the Latins argued from the one Essence to the three Persons. What needed to be explained was how the one God can exist as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Latins emphasized that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine because from eternity the Divine Being exists as three Persons. The Greeks were concerned about guarding the church from unitarianism and modalism, and the Latins were concerned about guarding the church from polytheism and subordinationism. They each thought that their approach was the better one, but they also remained in fellowship with each other until another issue -- papal authority -- disrupted their unity.

For many decades the Missouri approach to the doctrine of the ministry and the Wisconsin approach to the doctrine of the ministry existed side by side in the old Synodical Conference (and also within the ELS). The advocates of each approach thought that their approach was the better one, but they also remained in fellowship with each other until another issue -- the doctrine of church fellowship -- disrupted their unity.

What lessons if any can we learn from all of this?

The current debate over the doctrine of the ministry in the ELS is largely focused on the question of the vocational status of parochial school teachers, who are called by the church to teach the rudiments of Christian doctrine to its children. Certainly the advocates of the Missouri approach and the advocates of the Wisconsin approach are both able to say, without qualification, that pastors are “in the office of the ministry.” According to Missouri the whole office of the ministry has been entrusted to pastors, and according to Wisconsin the most comprehensive form of the office of the ministry has been entrusted to them. But what about parochial school teachers? Are they “in the office of the ministry” or are they not?

If the advocates of the Missouri approach are willing to be conciliatory in the way they express themselves, they need not say, without qualification and in an absolute sense, that teachers are not in the office of the ministry. A careful and complete answer to this question, according to the Missouri approach, can be that teachers are partially in the office of the ministry, or that they are in a part of the office of the ministry. Likewise, if the advocates of the Wisconsin approach are willing to be conciliatory in the way they express themselves, they need not say, without qualification and in an absolute sense, that teachers are in the office of the ministry. A careful and complete answer to this question, according to the Wisconsin approach, can be that teachers are in a limited form of the office of the ministry, or that they are in the office of the ministry in a limited way.

Is this a dogmatic difference, or is this a difference in formulation and emphasis that is not really divisive? Do these two ways of talking about the office of the ministry reflect two contradictory doctrines, or do they reflect two permissible approaches to the same doctrine?

In order to preserve the pure doctrine and to maintain a thorough, lasting, and God-pleasing concord within the church, it is essential not only to present the true and wholesome doctrine correctly, but also to accuse the adversaries who teach otherwise (I Tim. 3:9; Titus 1:9; II Tim. 2:24; 3:16). “Faithful shepherds,” as Luther states, “must both pasture or feed the lambs and guard against wolves so that they will flee from strange voices and separate the precious from the vile” (John 10:12-16, 27; Jer. 15:19). On this point we have reached a basic and mutual agreement that we shall at all times make a sharp distinction between needless and unprofitable contentions (which, since they destroy rather than edify, should never be allowed to disturb the church) and necessary controversy (dissension concerning articles of the Creed or the chief parts of our Christian doctrine, when the contrary error must be refuted in order to preserve the truth). (FC SD R&N:14-15, Tappert pp. 506-07)

David Jay Webber