Klem,

Great post. Sadly, we’re going to considered sexist and backward for holding to the historic doctrine and practice of the church in this matter.

Those in the LCMS who want to ignore the order of creation in the church have the world on their side –and they know it.

TW

Unfortunately recent moves (3-08a of 2004) convention have moved away from the historic understanding of the LCMS on this and have neglected the fact that not only pastoral duties but also the order of creation come into play in faithfully answering these types of questions.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/LCMS-Lutherans-for-Repealing-Resolution-3-08a-of-2004-Convention/122570384436550?ref=ts

Also we are reminded in the words of the Formula of Concord:
For this reason, too, believers require the teaching of the law: so that they do not fall back on their own holiness and piety and under the appearance of God’s Spirit establish their own service to God on the basis of their own choice, without God’s Word or command. As it is written in Deuteronomy 12[:8,28,32], “You shall not actall of us according to our own desires,” but “listen to the commands and laws which I command you,” and “you shall not add to them nor take anything form them.” Furthermore believers also require the teaching of the law regarding their good works, for otherwise people can easily imagine that their works and life are completely pure and perfect [FC-SD VI, 20,21].

http://www.reformationtoday.net/id7.html

Todd,
Yes we will be considered backwards and oafish as well as not interested in helping the church to grow with these ancient practices (as if giving in to the world would cause the church to grow).

John,
You bring up a good quote from the FC-SD and the problem in our synod is that this message is clear in some congregations, but when the person WANTS to feel completely pure and perfect in their actions, they just need to go down the road to another LCMS church that does not make a clear statment from scripture and the confessions. So if you want to know what is emptying our faithful congregations it is this. My point is we need to make a clear confession of scripture whether we are looked at as backwards or we fear our congregation being emptied by those who will allow them to feel secure in their sin. I think we need to make that confession to the brothers who are not.

An enjoyable post to read last evening. Pastors need men in their congregations to step up and serve in the roles as well. Too often in our congregations we see men finding excuses for not serving as congregational elders, trustees, etc… The gifts are there in these men, but they reject them by not using them to serve.

Well said Perry. People “think” what they choose, when did that ever stop us from being good, right & salutary? If the Sola’s & Confessions (& all contained within) upset someone’s idea of “relevance”, where is the error? Does it lie with the Sola’s & Confessions (as written) or with the individual? Ah…that would be the latter.
“Relevance” will not change one letter, punctuation, or meaning, no matter what resolution is passed to the contrary. Repeal this vile resolution.

Just some resources to recommend:

For anyone who can find it, “The Office of Woman in the Church” by Zerbst-Merkens (published by CPH in 1955 and sadly now out of print,) is a fantastic, short and accessible assessment of the this watershed issue for our times. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

More recently, Wayne Grudem’s “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” is a nice reference book for countering the many misinformed arguments that are usually adopted in order to impose re-interpretations on the classic texts about manhood and womanhood. I can’t recommend it wholly, as he leaves a little to much room for the role of prophecy in the assembly, but it is a masterful resource for any pastor or layman wanting a broad, gentlemanly approach to addressing (again) this watershed issue.

Thanks for addressing this. The really sad part of it is that women have believed what the world has to say about motherhood–that it is degrading and not worth the costs–, and have largely given it up via contraception and external childcare; then don’t know what to do with themselves and end up pursuing the proper work of men. I couldn’t assist with the Distribution if I wanted to. I’m too busy with my kids, and I will be, God willing, for many more years. And after that, I hope to be very busy with grandchildren.

I’m glad the LCMS is “sexist” and “backward” or I’d still be a raging feminist with no concern for the Word of God. Being told “no” by our church body helped bring me to a right understanding of that very Word. There are lots of women who have your backs, guys! Thank you for standing up for the truth.

Another point to be considered is that when a women distributes the host, she is the one who will be determining who will receive or not receive the sacrament. This is far more than just distributing. This is a matter of pastoral oversight and care of the flock.

Dear Rev. Preus,

I encourage you to apply your sound arguments to woman suffrage in the Church. Surely that fateful vote in 1969, which changed Synod’s doctrinal stance, was motivated by the “agenda of the world.” Surely suffrage contributed to blurring the distinction between the sexes and got us to where women are serving the Sacrament for instance. It was not a cautious move either considering that there was some doubt about whether it was proper. It also went against 2000 years of Church “principles,” not to mention 122 years of Synod theology and practice specifically concerning voters assemblies.

More importantly, though, 1 Timothy 2 is not limited to pastoral authority as the Synod continually tries to put forward, and voting, as most congregations are configured, is not just “service.” It is exercising authority, many times over men.

Many months ago I submitted an article to this Brothers site concerning women roles in the Church and it was not published. I would like to see the topic addressed. In my opinion, it really must be address by any confessional or orthodox movement.

Thank you for your excellent post.

Great post Rev. Preus!

Thank you for addressing this. Unfortunately I believe this practice to be more common than I care to think about. I grew up in a fairly conservative LCMS church and this would never be allowed there…but once the senior pastor retires…we’ll see. *sigh*

John #10 and Rev. Young #11 both make good points as well. We are to obey God and not men and, frankly, if honoring God’s Word over the world means being called a “sexist” then I will take it with a grin.

Thank you again for a wonderful post…it couldn’t be more timely.

Check out “Women Pastors?” edited by (are you ready?) Matthew Harrison and John Pless.

Johannes

I think this problem started with laymen distributing the Sacrament. That was a new thing in the life of Lutheranism in 20th century America. The Confessions certainly do not advocate it or even imagine it. Deacons, who did help with such things, were not laymen, they were ordained – just as they are today in the Siberian Lutheran Church for such work.

Why can a layman do a pastor’s job but not a lay woman? Pr. Preus has come good responses – but I think in the end they amount to the practice of laymen distributing the Sacrament being a less bad practice than lay women distributing, not a good practice.

My elders uniformly express relief that the practice was ended here. They speak of an abiding discomfort from the days when they were asked to distribute the Lord’s Body and Blood – especially distributing the Sacrament to the celebrant. Congregants have also expressed relief – usually rather amorphously, “It just didn’t feel right.”

Again – what has driven this practice? Pragmatism: the distribution was taking too long. This is never a good reason to change the practice of our Confessions (which, to belabor the point, nowhere approve or even envision lay distribution). This always brings unforeseen consequences. In this case, with two generations it brought women distributing the Supper, “lay ministers,” and the complete repeal of AC XIV from the MO Synod.

If we really need help with distribution, we should have explored the restoration of the diaconate – a biblical, Lutheran, historic, traditional office.

+HRC

How will Missouri Synod leadership be dealing with those pastors and congregations who refuse to stop their practice of having women distribute the Lord’s Supper?

Furthermore, unless it is stated up front that such “dealing” (unpleasant as it may be) will indeed occur, nothing will change except the level of huffing and puffing.

If I recall correctly, in the ancient (OT) world women priests existed in the pagan cultures surrounding Israel due to their false beliefs in fertility gods – Baal and the like. God wanted His people to remain pure and separate from their detestable practices. Then, about the time of the apostolic era women had the role of oracles in Greek and Roman society. So if they spoke in the churches the congregants would turn to listen to what they were saying instead of the preacher.

In other words, God had very good reasons for keeping the roles separate. Sadly, though the curse of Gen. 3:16b continues to be true as it has down through history and the battle of the sexes will be pervasive to the end of time.

Pr. H. R. Curtis :

Again – what has driven this practice? Pragmatism: the distribution was taking too long. This is never a good reason to change the practice of our Confessions (which, to belabor the point, nowhere approve or even envision lay distribution). This always brings unforeseen consequences. In this case, with two generations it brought women distributing the Supper, “lay ministers,” and the complete repeal of AC XIV from the MO Synod.

Pr. Curtis,

I noted in reading through the comments and in my heart that the idea that “we need to hurry through communion” was a reason for helpers in the distribution. A poor reason indeed in many, but not all cases. Lutherans seem to have picked up another habit in the form of “watching the clock” in terms of sermons and distributing the Lord’s Supper. Is it so important to be out of church instead of worshiping in it for an extra 10-30 minutes?

Perry – you bring up a good point. I am familiar with one rather sizable Lutheran congregation not far from where I live where the Lord’s Supper is celebrated during every service, every Sunday – and there are three services. Laudable as this may sound, the fact that the distribution takes so long coupled with the need to cram three services into a morning means that the sermons last only about ten minutes, a completely inadequate amount of time to properly exposit scripture.

I appreciate this article as well. When we travel we often find it impossible to locate an LCMS church which does not have women readers and I feel for those living in the towns with no choice in the matter of where they can worship.
On the matter of women serving communion, I have a question in this comment: we have been where women assisted in the sacrament by following the pastor or elder as they served communion, by receiving the empty glasses in a communion tray. I was uncomfortable even with this. Would you pastors feel that is acceptable or is it otherwise?

We have a real mixed bag of what constitutes good practice in our Synod sad to say. And it is something that has been there for some number of years now. I often wonder how this can all be turned around to what we confessionally believe it should be.

As far as practice goes, I guess it’s safe to say that the LCMS ain’t your grandmother’s church, either.

j

@Rev. Philip Young #11

Rev. Young, at least twenty years ago people would still argue about this. Now, essentially all of the pastors who were around at the time of this change are retired or otherwise gone. Essentially all of the pastors now serving were taught the new way of thinking.

Another part of the REPORTER article that struck me was in the section about Dr. Jean Garton.
“Women attend worship more often than men, and study the Bible more often than men, she said, so why not increase their opportunities to serve?”
Isn’t that the old argument if they want to do it and can do it shouldn’t we let them do it? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? That’s not what the Bible says and shouldn’t we be thinking about that and following what the Bible says and not the world?

mbw #21, Rev. Young #11, and Rev. Curtis #14…

I am curious about the discussions of suffrage for women in the church and the diaconate as an office. I would probably be described as a “young’un” but I think it would be worthwhile for there to be some discussion on both of these topics. I am not trying to hijack the thread. I’m just curious about the history of these topics in the Missouri Synod. Any resources you could point me to?

The subject deals specifically with the meaning of the verb “administer” in AC XIV.

Considering a historico-grammatical interpretation of this confessional sentence, I believe the intended audience as well as the subscribers to this article would have found today’s wholesale employment of communion assistants to contraindicated by this article.

German word here is: reichen [to hand]

German for “administer” (as in manage or direct) is verabreichen. This is NOT the word used in the German of the AC. It appears to me that the German would be more indicative of “handing out” or “distributing” rather than “directing” or “managing.” If we only had the German to deal with, this would seem a no-brainer.

The English word “administrator” has various potential meanings based upon its Latin etymology, but in today’s world “director” seems to be the immediate meaning one assumes when reading it with contemporary eyes.
However, I do NOT believe this is even the Latin word in the AC meant — firstly because of the word chosen in the German version of the same sentence, but also because of a lost understanding of what the Latin can mean.

The noun “administer” in Latin means “assistant, helper, supporter; one at hand to help, attendant.” And this meaning is often found in the verb “administro (-are)” as “to help or assist.”

Since “administro” can mean to “direct” in Latin, we need to consult the historical clues we have as to which meaning was intended and would have been understood by those at the time.

Here I get into some information for which I have notes that tell me it was provided by then-seminarian Ryan Fouts in the course of a different discussion on AC XIV:

He stated that there isn’t a parallel to ACXIV in either the Schwabach or Marburg Articles, and that ACXIV, then, is likely a response to the accusation made by John Eck in his 404 Articles. Here Eck lists two particular teachings he believes are being put forth by the Lutherans as heresy:

267. “The church of Christ does not know the Sacrament of Ordination. Luther…”

268. “All Christians, as many as are baptized, are equally priests. And any layperson can consecrate churches, confirm children, and so forth. Luther.”

Eck’s 13th is of great importance here with regard to the question I (Erich) have about AC XIV and communion assistants:

13/ In the sacrament of Penance of remission of guilt, the Pope and bishop do no more than the lowest priest. In fact when there is no priest, any Christian – even a woman or a boy – can do just as well.”

Eck was misrepresenting Luther here, quoting only a portion of what Luther actually said. Luther continued…

“Even so one should observe, and not despise, the established orders of authority. Only make no mistake about the sacrament and its effect, as if it counted for more when given by a bishop or pope than when given by a priest or a layman. As the priest’s mass and baptism and distribution of the holy body of Christ is just as valid if the pope or bishop were doing it, so it is with absolution, that is, the sacrament of penance.” (LW 35:12).

So Eck is taking Luther’s statement here as if Luther were saying that the Sacrament of Penance can ordinarily be done by anyone. That isn’t Luther’s point – he says, in fact, that we should observe ecclesiastical orders. Luther’s point was that the efficacy of the absolution isn’t dependent upon the individual who speaks the word. Luther isn’t saying that a layman SHOULD administer sacraments ordinarily, he is saying that if a layman did the sacrament would still be the sacrament. The point Luther was making was the point of AC VII and the condemnation of the Donatists. This point is cleared up in AC XIV. So the issue here is who is doing what is particular to the Office. It should be no one who isn’t rite vocatus: who isn’t ritely/rightly called. Called and Ordained.

That is the extent of the information I obtained from that discussion from then-seminarian Fouts.

So, considering this argument of Eck’s, to which it is assumed AC XIV is responding, I believe the question being addressed by AC XIV is who is doing what. “Who” it should be that does these things is clear: the called and ordained pastor. “What” things AC XIV is referring to as being particular to the office is less clear, and this is the reason for our modern confusion.

I would like to remind us all that we recognize a 3 part Supper – Verbum, distributing, and eating. To separate these leads us to a Catholic concept of the priest as ordained-magic-worker who created the body and blood of Christ for others to use/misuse. The Confessions speak directly to this issue:

“This do (which embraces the entire action or administration in this Sacrament, that in an assembly of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown forth at the same time) must be observed unseparated and inviolate, as also St. Paul places before our eyes the entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution and reception, 1 Cor. 10, 16.” [FC, SD, Art. VII, 83-84 Bente]

I believe that the common use of assistants introduces a separation of sorts, which abuses the Sacrament.

I am not saying that assistants nullify the Sacrament. However, the fact that I need to say this raises an important issue. The use of assistants can also introduce doubt.

@Sojourner #23

I will find a way to get my email address to you. Thanks.

@Sojourner #23

See Fall 2009 issue of CHI. “Service of Women…etc…” by Ken Schurb. Concise, well documented. Norm can give you link to a spreadsheet I did on this paper here. This traces just the LCMS’ slide down the slippery slope.

See “Women Pastors?” Edited by Matthew Harrison & John Pless. Covers suffrage as well as related topics, including office of Holy Ministry.

Johannes

@Carl Vehse #15
So, am I the only other person besides Mr. Vehse who wonders these things?
LCMS women serve communion, LCMS women serve as elders, LCMS women have authority over the pastor, and by not doing anything about it, those who oversee the LCMS de facto approve of it.
And this issue isn’t even a quarter of the way to the bottom of our problems.

At the end of Luther’s “The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests” (1533), he wrote, “Our consecration shall be called ordination, or a call to the office. And if the fingers of a person are not smeared with chrism, they shall be anointed sufficiently when they shall have touched the sacrament…” (AE 38:214).

At Luther’s time, only pastors administered (i.e. distributed) the sacrament. It seems to me that this context tells us what was meant by AC XIV. Even in Missouri’s history, I believe the practice of having the laity assist at the distribution is less than a century old. The pastor used to perform all the “administration.”

@fisharmor #27

I am with you, fisharmor, I too share these concerns and it irks me to no end when others tout about how unified in doctrine we are. Hopefully we will see some changes in July, not only in leadership, but also in resolutions, etc.

Kiley

@Carl Vehse #15

The LCMS will not deal with these things. Ecclesiastical Supervision has fallen on hard times. Huffing and puffing, as Carl puts it, is about it. Even PK talks a good game about the somewhat related issue of open communion, but nothing is done about it. The issues of communion, women’s service, and worship are perennial subjects at LCMS Conventions; and affectionately known as “Wine, Women, and Song.” The convention will generate a lot of heat on these subjects, shed very little light, and end up with more watering down (dare I say “neutering”?) of our doctrine and our practice.

Johannes

Regardless of what happens at the Convention, I am being optimistic, I think it more important to remain faithful where we are, meaning in each of our congregations. Through our congregation we belong to the Church, not through a synod; and trust that Christ will not forsake His Church.

Kiley

@Kiley Campbell #31

Well said.

j

Great comments Pastor Curtis. Communion assistants (male elders) was an inherited practice here – size of the congegation doesn’t require it by any means. Under what circumstances could the diaconate be revived to ease the scandal that some of our folks still feel with lay communion assistants? Could this be extensive training within the parish and call and ordination? Would a seminary process even need to be involved? Could such a practice be good and proper within a congegation? Is there a worry about scandalizing neighboring parishes? Wouldn’t seem to be so since they’ve already embraced lay elders. My elders are a rich blessing, but it would certainly end the potential of being handed elders that may be less than spiritually inclined and term limiting out those that are. Again, no reflection on my situation just a reality I know exists for some congregations. It seems we don’t get serious reflection on these issues in seminary training. Where do you start?

Lay Elders—A Brief Overview of Their Origin in the
Missouri Synod: Implications for Elders Today
Albert Collver
http://www.csl.edu/Img/Publications/cjjan06.pdf

Dear Sojourner,
See Douglas Judish’s powerful article “Theses on Woman Suffrage in the Church,” CTQ, Volume 41 Number 3, 1977. Contact Concordia, Fort Wayne, or I can get you a PDF copy if needed. In response to Kiley Campbell and Johannes, women can be strong confessors of the truth when they refuse to go along with the Pastor’s or the Synod’s latest scheme to give them more “privileges.” Follow conscience and let your conscience be known (respectfully). “Pastor, I will not be serving communion/voting/serving as elder because of the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the pastoral ministry/exercising authority over men.” May we all have a conscience captive to the Word of God. Blessed Ascension Day tomorrow. The Lord Christ is still on his throne!

I’d like to second Pastor Young’s posts: there needs to be serious discussion of ALL women’s roles in the church (and, I dare say, in society at large) in any movement that aims to be orthodox and confessional. The Word of God, not the trends of our godless society, ought to determine the practice of our church and of every household therein. I for one would really appreciate seeing the article that Pastor Young submitted on women’s suffrage.

@Rev. Philip Young #35

Re: Judisch’s “Theses” Here’s the link from CTSFW.

Judisch, Douglas McC. L. “Theses on Woman Suffrage in the Church” [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 41 (1977) no. 3:36-45. Available from http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1729

At the church Kieschnick attends while in St. Louis, Concordia, Kirkwood, women serve communion side by side with men, wearing white robes.

@Pr. H. R. Curtis #14
Pr. H. R. Curtis: I agree with you. According to the Lutheran Confessions, AC #14 reads: “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.”

My congregation has women regularly (along with men, not the elders either) ‘distribute’ the wine. They follow the pastor, I suppose so they are not making the determination of who should receive, though my congregation also sadly lets communicants make the call as to going to communion (known as open communion in some circles). The lay’people’ in my congregation also pronounce (to my recollection) “the blood of Christ given to you for the forgiveness of sins”.

I have been instructed – by someone in a role that provides oversight – where he used the office of the keys as justification, saying that women can forgive sins as any Christian can. He also said in an earlier conversation that administering the Lord’s Supper was the consecration of the elements, and thus simply passing out the elements was ‘assisting’, I believe in line with Pastor Preus’ article.

This keeps me from going to communion in my church on those Sunday’s when a women is ‘assisting’. Am I wrong to do so? Especially when I do receive communion when a layman is assisting. I feel that is wrong also, just not ‘as’ wrong, not as in your face.

Pastor Preus, can you comment on both of these reasoning’s given to me by this person? I struggle with this mightily.

Great article, bravo.

Sounds like Walther’s introduction of Lay Presbyters (an oxymoron) out of Calvinism is coming to full fruition. Elder = Presbyter = Pastor = Ordained only! To use such a word as “Elder” that most modern English versions of the Bible translates in place of the Greek “Presbyteros” is irresponsble at the very least, and quite possbily heretical. No wonder the laity are confused!

“To use such a word as ‘Elder’ that most modern English versions of the Bible translates in place of the Greek ‘Presbyteros’ is irresponsble at the very least, and quite possbily heretical. No wonder the laity are confused!”

It is ironic that such a statement is made by a person whose self-referential title seems to irresponsibly ignore the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, spoken to His disciples and to the people in Matthew 23:8-10, that refer to the context of titles for religious leaders, and specifically in v.9 to the title of “Father” (Fr.): “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.”

In verses 8-10, Jesus is warning His disciples and the people, about following the Pharisees’ use and desire of honorific titles, and our Lord gives three specific examples, including one with which “they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’” (v.7)

While honor to servants of the Word is due from congregations through whom these men have been called into the office of pastor, or undershepherd, our Savior’s own words and the relevant context in which they were given warn against using certain official titles for pastors or other church leaders. Jesus’ own words proscribe pastors being referred to or giving themselves or other church leaders the specific title of “Father.”

Lately in the Missouri Synod our Lord’s warning is being ignored as an increasing numbers of pastors slap “Father” all over their business cards, church web pages, blog postings, and other references to themselves and other pastors. Such titular flamboyancy is most certainly confusing the laity. For the edification of the Church, the body of Christ, this irresponsible, at the very least, and quite possibly heretical habit needs to stop.

@Carl Vehse #41

For the edification of the Church, the body of Christ, irresponsible comments based upon very poor exegesis, such as this offering (again!), needs to stop. Good grief!

Rev. Messer,

In the context they were given I have taken the words of our Lord (Matt. 23: 8-10) literally and not given them any figurative interpretation or eisegesis. If you believe our Lord’s words mean something other than what they literally say in context, or if you have an exegesis that interprets these verses in some different, no­nliteral or figurative sense, please provide references to such interpretations of what Jesus was saying in vs. 8-10 to the Pharisees, His disciples, to the people hearing Him, and to us today (2 Tim.3:16).

“Carl,”

Not interested in participating in an exercise in futility. You’ve been shown on numerous occasions before, but refuse to listen. Carry on as you wish.

Yes, well….

While you’re being BOC correct, get the “lay ministers” (another oxymoron!) out of the pulpits and consecration and absolution and….!!!

I don’t want women in the chancel but I am equally not interested in taking communion from a ‘pseudo pastor’.

Enforcing one won’t wash if you are going to excuse the other. The Pastor is a Pastor because he’s ordained and called; “anything in trousers” is not an equivalent or a justifiable substitute.

Rev. Messer,

I was not asking you to spend time to prepare and post a voluminous treatise to support your position. I only asked that you provide some substantive reference to such an exegesis I and others may read (1 Peter 3:15).

Yes, Helen.

There are a number of titles, phrases, and euphemisms, along with their associated heterodoxies, which have infiltrated into the Missouri Synod. These need to be identified in articles and blog postings as opportunities arise. It would be beneficial if a resolution were to adopted at a synodical convention which would address such heterodox jargon.

Erich Heidenreich DDS :
I would like to remind us all that we recognize a 3 part Supper – Verbum, distributing, and eating. To separate these leads us to a Catholic concept of the priest as ordained-magic-worker who created the body and blood of Christ for others to use/misuse. The Confessions speak directly to this issue:
“This do (which embraces the entire action or administration in this Sacrament, that in an assembly of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown forth at the same time) must be observed unseparated and inviolate, as also St. Paul places before our eyes the entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution and reception, 1 Cor. 10, 16.” [FC, SD, Art. VII, 83-84 Bente]
I believe that the common use of assistants introduces a separation of sorts, which abuses the Sacrament.

Dr. Heidenreich,

I am still wrapping my brain around your argument, but have a question for you to try to clarify something for me.

Does this argument preclude distribution by anyone save the celebrant alone? In other words, since the verbum, distribution, and eating are to remain together, and the “use of assistants introduces a separation of sorts,” even in a large parish with multiple ordained pastors, the other pastors should not distribute the Sacrament unless they were “con-celebrants,” standing at the altar and speaking the Verba all together? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.

The difficulty I am having is that this conclusion would seem to fly in the face of historic practice, where Luther, upon invitation to preach at a given congregation, would assist in the distribution of the Sacrament. Since he was not the pastor loci, Luther refused to the pastoral responsibility of admission to the Lord’s Supper by distribution of the bread, but readily “confirmed” that admission by distributing the chalice behind the pastor. I have not read that he con-celebrated the sacrament (that seems to be a more recent practice of our Roman brethren to underscore their episcopal hierarchy), but he did assist with the distribution.

Just thinking out loud.

Carl,

Read the Confessions (Large Catechism/Part I–Ten Commandments), read Paul (I Cor. 4:15), and consider the speaker of the quote you give from the Holy Evangelist Saint Matthew.

Also, Chemnitz refers to Luther as “our Reverend Father” all over the place in his Loci.

And consider, if we had this term in use perhaps alot of our issues with women in the church would be thrown into a different light.

Good day.
Rev. Matthew Johnson

Carl Vehse :
It would be beneficial if a resolution were to adopted at a synodical convention which would address such heterodox jargon.

My District submitted just such an overture. It was misplaced and not found until after the printing of the Convention Workbook, but will be printed in the first edition of Today’s Business and considered by the Floor Committee.

In summary, this overture calls upon the Synod to terminate all programs which result in a candidate preaching and administering the sacraments except for Residential Seminary Education (which does include colloquy and “alternate route” programs) and the Specific Ministry Program. All other non-residential programs, such as DELTO and the Licensed Deacon Program (i.e. “lay ministers”), should be terminated – DELTO is redundant to SMP and Licensed Deacons create the theological difficulty of having someone preaching and administering the sacraments without being rite vocatus, regularly called.

We will see how far that overture gets, especially with several overtures calling for retaining the Licensed Deacon Program.

When I came to the church I serve, it was the practice the a few men (not elders) would assist the pastor in the distribution. As pastor, I would present the bread/body to each communicant. The assistant would silently pass out the individual cups to those who desired them. I would then distribute the wine/blood from the chalice to those who desired to receive from the common cup. I quickly learned that those who had taken the individual cups were still waiting for me to “give” them the wine/blood with words spoken to each of them directly.
As it became difficult to schedual lay assistants for the communion distribution, I decided that henceforth, I would do the entire distribution. This became our accepted practice without objection. WHile it may add a few extra minutes to the service, I think that is of little consequence. I also like dirfectly at each communicant and personally deliver the elements to them with the entire spoke word rather than spreading the words over several communicants.
This move to dispense with assistants was based in part on the activity that the assistant performed–that of silently distributing the individual cups. Since from the beginning, I have practiced communing myself, there was very littly reason for an assistant.

“Carl,”
According to you novel interpretation all Christians teach our children to break this command from a young age. Any time we call our father “Dad” or any synonym thereof, or even a student who addresses his teacher as “Teacher” or “Professor,” breaks this command. Surely in the thousands of years of the church they would have squelched these practices?

You should note that when a person, such as yourself, proposes a new interpretation he must bear the brunt of explaining why we should change our practice and therefore our theology.

On topic: I agree with Pr. Curtis. How can we as laymen be surprised when pastors act as CEOs delegating tasks when we usurp the biblically mandated tasks of publicly reading scripture, distributing the sacrament, and preaching (with cute children’s sermons).

While honor to servants of the Word is due from congregations through whom these men have been called into the office of pastor, or undershepherd, our Savior’s own words and the relevant context in which they were given warn against using certain official titles for pastors or other church leaders. Jesus’ own words proscribe pastors being referred to or giving themselves or other church leaders the specific title of “Father.”

It is important to see the dangerous legalism in this manner of interpretation. In Matthew, Jesus condemns thinking honorific titles belong to the person, and not to the office, as Luther teaches in the Large Catechism on 4th Commandment.

Thus we have two kinds of fathers presented in this commandment, fathers in blood and fathers in office, or those to whom belongs the care of the family, and those to whom belongs the care of the country. Besides these there are yet spiritual fathers; not like those in the Papacy, who have indeed had themselves called thus, but have performed no function of the paternal office. For those only are called spiritual fathers who govern and guide us by the Word of God; as St. Paul boasts his fatherhood 1 Cor. 4:15, where he says: In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. 158-159

Yet, if we take the exhorted exegesis regarding the word father, and apply it to John 10 we find that no on ought be called pastor either:

7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door. …11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

It is somewhat ironic that while “pastor/shepherd” rouses no ire in the American Protestant ethos (at least, not until the 1980′s), and “father” does and always has, “pastor/shepherd,” OT-wise, is the far more established and honorific title, as it is a synonym for “King.” (ex. 2 Sam 5:2)

Biblically and Confessionally speaking, Officers of the Holy Ministry might be called “Father,” (Rom. 4:16) “Pastor” (1 Peter 5:2), “Elder,” (Tit 1:5), “Deacon” or “Bishop,” (Philippians 1:1) or even “Priest” (Rom. 15:16) so long as one remembers that the Office is not their person, self, value or worth, but Christ’s very own Reign among us in Word and Sacrament.

I have seen men take more pride in the Christian title “brother” than others take in the Christian title “father.” It is like the classic pietists of old who refused to wear whigs because they deemed it an overt external focus. “Look at me, the only man in town who doesn’t wear a whig, because unlike all you pharisees, I know that the outside doesn’t matter. You should be more righteous like me and not wear a whig, because the outside is irrevelant.”

Concerning the title “Father,” it is not a title that I use but I do on occasion remind the congregation that I serve that they are my spiritual children. This does have Biblical precedent that runs counter to the literalism of brother Strickert’s (i.e. Vehse) use of Matthew 23. Paul refers to himself as the father of the Corinthians (I Cor. 4:15) He also calls Timothy his child (II Thess. 2 :11) and likewise Onesimus (Phil. 1:10). Food for thought…

TR

@Kiley Campbell #29
I keep hearing anecdotal evidence that all the things we think are funny about WELS, like not participating in cross-denominational prayer, are treated the way LCMS treats the role of women – meaning, it’s just what they believe on paper.

So I’m wondering what I’m still doing here, considering that the problems with WELS are, in my relatively uninformed opinion, less numerous and less consequential than the problems with LCMS.

I see a reoccurring theme in Scripture and the confessions: truth. I’m after that truth. Truth is either extant, or it isn’t, and that isn’t contingent on the results of an election.

@Rev. Thomas C. Messer #42

Ok, you are not necessarily advocating self-reference as “Father” by Lutheran pastors, right?

You agree that in the vernacular, in the US, it could cause a lot of confusion?

You are saying it does not have to be un-Scriptural, right?

@mbw #57

I’m simply saying that to suggest that the use of “Father” as a pastoral title is “irresponsible” and “quite possibly heretical” is outrageously derived from a gross misinterpretation of certain Scripture passages, as has been pointed out to Dr. Strickert on numerous occasions around the blogosphere, evidently to no avail, since he continues to raise the subject.

Am I advocating for self-reference as “Father”? Well, no. I don’t go around telling the parishioners I serve that they need to address me as “Father.” But, neither would I condemn them or accuse them of heresy if they did. And I certainly wouldn’t teach them to avoid thinking of me as a spiritual father sent to serve them in Christ’s stead and by His command, as if I feared that such thinking would originate from some confusion they might have between myself and their Father in heaven. Quite silly, that. And not even close to what our Lord is teaching us in His Word.

Could Lutheran pastors being addressed as “Father” cause confusion? I suppose so. But, then, so could Lutheran pastors making the sign of the cross or elevating Christ’s Body and Blood or genuflecting or chanting or what have you. I think we should just go ahead and work on catechizing our people so that they understand these things rather than to purposely avoid them because they might misunderstand them. Why take the easy way out?

That’s all.

@Rev. Thomas C. Messer #58

> I think we should just go ahead and work on catechizing our people so that they understand these things rather than to purposely avoid them because they might misunderstand them.

Amen! Perfectly clear. Thank you!

@fisharmor #56
Truth. This has been the struggle since that very first recorded question posed to Eve: “Did God actually say you shall not eat of any tree in the garden?”

This is the same question Satan poses to the Church, “Did God really say…” insert your doctrine. Thankfully God has supplied us with numerous faithful men who have passed down the truth so that we may know what is the Truth and what is from Satan.

On goes the battle…

Kiley

My church is currently allowing women to distribute Communion in its “contemporary” service, but not at its “traditional” services. If it’s supposedly okay to do this, why not let them distribute at all services? The answer is obvious, I guess. They know it will offend the folks at the traditional services, but not the contemporary. Isn’t that interesting? It seems my church is actually two (maybe three) congregations that happen to share the same building, and it makes me sad to think of it that way.

E-Raj,
Yours is the condition of many churches these days. How very sad indeed!

I hope this is not a change in topic or a divergent path off the topic. If it is, perhaps this can be placed as a separate topic in the future.

Should a change in leadership in the LCMS occur this summer at convention and the policy follow sound doctrine (?) towards a statement of pastors and “men in leadership roles” in the congregations serving in the distribution of the Lord’s Supper, how does the learned folks here and familiar with the LCMS polity propose that good and sound practice be maintained across the LCMS? This process could be true of any doctrine where practice must be maintained. What is the general process? Would there still be DPs and pastors in the hierarchy that do against a policy statement? How important is discipline in these matters and would efforts be made public or kept private?

I probably ask too many questions, but am genuinely interested in how positive change towards matching doctrine and practice would manifest itself.

Blessings as summer and convention time nears.

PPPadre,

The separation I sense in what was historically an inviolate three-part “administration” of the Lord’s Supper is the belief that somehow the Sacrament has been properly “administered” as long as the elements have been consecrated by the pastor, and that the distribution “part” of the three-part administration can thus be separated from the ordained hands of the office of holy ministry. My position is that the ordained should be the only ones distributing. Specifically, AC XIV states that only the rightly called are to distribute (“reichen”) the Sacrament. It would be hard to make the German be any more clear on this point.

Read the Confessions (Large Catechism/Part I–Ten Commandments

Rev. Johnson (#49),

After having talked about fathers in blood and fathers in office in his LC, Part I.158, Martin Luther talks about “spiritual fathers” who govern and guide the church by the Word of God. And Luther does point out that these “spiritual fathers” are entitled to be honored, as I stated previously in my post #41. But just as Luther does not state that fathers in office, who care for the country, are to call “Father” by the citizens, Luther does not state that pastors are to be called “Father” by each other or the laity.

That the title was used by the 16th century Lutherans is more likely due to habits formed prior to the Reformation. (Given the opposition of his Roman and Reformed opponents, correcting that habit was probably pretty far down on Luther’s to-do list, right after trying to get Phillip of Hesse to stop acting like he was Bill Clinton.)

And just as we call George Washington the “father of our country,” one could refer to Martin Luther and other early Lutheran Reformers and contributors to the Lutheran Symbols as “Lutheran fathers.” For the same reason C.F.W. Walther is sometimes called “the father of the Missouri Synod,” just as Christiane Buenger is called the “mother-in-law of the Missouri Synod.”)

And consider, if we had this term in use perhaps alot of our issues with women in the church would be thrown into a different light.

There are doctrinal reasons why women are not pastors and should not act like pastors. Faux Lutherans and heretical churches who choose to ignore such doctrine will not be hindered by the use of a title. Just look how well the title of “Father” worked out for Anglican and Episcopal churches.

According to you novel interpretation all Christians teach our children to break this command from a young age.

Justin (#52),

Did you read what I wrote? The phrase “context” or “relevant context” was repeated four times. Perhaps it should have been at least five times.

Also I gave no “novel interpretation.” I took Christ’s words in their plain literal meaning, in the context in which Christ spoke to his disciples, the Pharisees, and the people who heard him. If there is an interpretation in some different, non-literal or figurative sense instead of the simple literal meaning, surely in the thousands (or almost two thousand) years of the church they should have written plenty of explanations for an exegesis that interprets “Call no man your father on earth” to mean “Hey, go ahead and call all your pastors ‘Father,’ and while you’re at it, call your head pastor, ‘Papa.’”

… even a student who addresses his teacher as “Teacher” or “Professor,” breaks this command.

Justin, in Matt. 23:10 10, the Greek word “kaqhghtai” (kathegetes) is used in Jesus’ statement, but elsewhere in Matthew, in the other Gospels, and in Paul’s letters the word “didaskaloV” (didaskalos) is used in passages like 1 Cor 12:28, 29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:3. Apples and oranges! Today students may continue to address their teacher as “Teacher” or “Professor” without breaking a commandment.

“In Matthew, Jesus condemns thinking honorific titles belong to the person, and not to the office”

Jimbob (#54),

What a novel interpretation, according to which when our Lord said, “Call no man your father on earth,” He was really saying, “Hey, go ahead and call all your pastors ‘Father,’ but realize that you’re just calling the office of public ministry ‘Father,’ and not really the person; and while you’re at it, you can call the Antichrist, but not the person, ‘Papa.’””

Who would have thought exegetic interpretation would be this simple?

Rev. Rossow (#55),

In 1 Cor. 4:15, St. Paul uses the term “father” as a reminder to the Corinthians that he preached the Gospel to them and established the church in Corinth. analogous to referring to a person as the “the father of a country” or “the father of a city.”

I don’t know what your reference to II Thess 2:11 means, but Paul does refer to Timothy as a son in 1 Cor. 4:17 as well as in his letters to Timothy. However Paul also refers to Timothy as a brother in 1 Cor. 1:1 and in 1 Thess. 3:2. Also in Philippians 2:22, Paul talks about Timothy “as a son with his father.” Here the word “as” indicates Paul is using “father/son” as a metaphor.

In Philemon 1:10, even though Paul said “my child, Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds,” it would be silly to stretch this into a claim of “Father” as the honorific title Paul wanted to be called by the Church, or even Onesimus or Philemon, when in the same letter (vs. 16 and 20) Paul calls both of them “brother.”

In none of these passages does Paul give the title of “Father” to the new pastor, Timothy, nor does he tells the Corinthians to address their new pastor, Timothy, by the title, “Father.”

As for a title used for early church pastors and religious leaders, try Acts 21:17,20; 1 Corinthians 16:12; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; and 2 Peter 3:15.

Could Lutheran pastors being addressed as “Father” cause confusion? I suppose so. But, then, so could Lutheran pastors making the sign of the cross or elevating Christ’s Body and Blood or genuflecting or chanting or what have you.

Rev. Messer (#58),

The difference between a pastor being addressed as (or himself using the title) “Father” and all the other things you mentioned is that one of them our Lord said to his disciples, to the Pharisees, to the people who heard Him, and to us, quite clearly not to do.

Again, it is not my interpretation, it is what Jesus plainly said. If you believe there is a non-literal or figurative interpretation in which our Lord’s words do not have their plain meaning in the context that He said them, then provide a reference that clearly substantiates such an interpretation.

Thanks be to God. I though Carl Vehse was dead.

Carl,

You wrote to me: “That the title was used by the 16th century Lutherans is more likely due to habits formed prior to the Reformation. (Given the opposition of his Roman and Reformed opponents, correcting that habit was probably pretty far down on Luther’s to-do list, right after trying to get Phillip of Hesse to stop acting like he was Bill Clinton.)”

Please note that I mentioned the practice of Martin Chemnitz, a second-generation Lutheran, who in his Loci Communes constantly refers to Dr. Luther as “our Reverend Father.” Chemnitz, as a reading of his work will attest, took great care with terms and as his “Examination of the Council of Trent” will attest was a clear critic of the errors of the Roman church. This term was alive and well a generation after Luther had died.

I would tend to agree with you(!!!) that the term “father” is especially appropriate for the giants of Lutheranism–Luther, Walther, etc. However, wouldn’t it be wonderful if our members had been instructed and nourished for many years by faithful pastors, they might even spontaneously think of their pastor as akin to a father…which might be even more appropriate to a mature Christian than the “pastor” metaphor that we use.

You wrote: “There are doctrinal reasons why women are not pastors and should not act like pastors. Faux Lutherans and heretical churches who choose to ignore such doctrine will not be hindered by the use of a title. Just look how well the title of “Father” worked out for Anglican and Episcopal churches.”

Yes, the doctrinal/Scriptural reality is the foundation of the issue; but, the presence of the terminology (“father”) at least makes people think twice–if not the leadership, then perhaps some of the laity. And, it gives us who oppose Anglican/Episcopal practice an entree into conversation about the Scriptural foundation via the terminology that the other churches themselves employ.

Dr. Strickert, aka “Carl Vehse,”

What are your credentials as a Bible student? Are you a pastor? Are you a trained exegete? The reason I ask is that your understanding of Matthew 23:10 is simplistic and literalistic and flat out wrong. I have checked the understanding of this passage in several non-Lutheran protestant Bible scholars and not even they, even more anti-Catholic than we Lutherans, see anything remotely close to your private exposition of this passage.

While you are providing your credentials could you please share with us other exegetes who echo your opinion on this text.

BTW – I do not put stock in credentials. I teach my congregation that a third grader armed with the Word of God can refute any error that I may teach. However, because you are “teaching” on this string with an aire of authority, I think it would be good for you to share with us your credentials.

BTW Pt. II – most of the third graders in our congregation would read the Matthew text and understand that Jesus is not saying that we are not to use the title “father” of anyone.

TR

@Carl Vehse #66
I know what “call no man your father on earth” literally means. You didn’t literally mean literally. Please excuse my hyperbole.

I am trying to parse your hermeneutic for this passage. We may call our blood and adopted fathers as fathers, as Jesus was obviously not addressing this usage. Context! We may call someone a father of something, even though this is a title, because it is clearly a metaphor. We may call someone “as a father” because it is also clearly a metaphor. Calling pastors as fathers is not allowed. Even though context makes clear that this usage is also a metaphor.

As far as I can tell, your hermeneutic is: all usages of the word father are allowed except to reference pastors. Seems arbitrary, care to elaborate? Since you are teaching us the law, perhaps you could give us a test so we will know when we may and may not use the word “father.” Thanks.

First “Bishop”, now “Father”…What next?

Kiley

Kiley,

Next time I am out in the Tetons I will make you kiss my ring!

TR

lol, yes your Eminence..

Kiley

Dr. Strickert, aka “Carl Vehse,”

I thought it might be good to check out Luther on this matter of “father.” I studied all of Luther’s comments on Mattehw 23:9-10 in the American edition. He references v. 10 a dozen times or so and never teaches what you are teaching on this passage. Instead he teaches that a true teacher must be called, as the Pharisees were not. So according to Luther, Jesus point is that we ought to listen to those who are properly called, and not those who call themselves. In these dozen or so comments he also mentions someone who does agree with you and that is the “wacko” loose cannon Carlstadt who said it was a sin when he installed a brother as a “doctor” of theology, citing Matthew 23.

In Luther’s one comment on v. 9 he says this:

“Therefore they can be called fathers in Christ, [referring to Peter and Paul] but not in themselves, because I listen to Christ speaking to me…And so I call Paul “father” not for his own sake but for Christ’s.” (V. 29, p. 15)

That seals it for me. I take Dr. Luther’s teaching over Dr. Strickert’s ramblings.

TR

Carl Vehse :
“In Matthew, Jesus condemns thinking honorific titles belong to the person, and not to the office”
Jimbob (#54),
What a novel interpretation, according to which when our Lord said, “Call no man your father on earth,” He was really saying, “Hey, go ahead and call all your pastors ‘Father,’ but realize that you’re just calling the office of public ministry ‘Father,’ and not really the person; and while you’re at it, you can call the Antichrist, but not the person, ‘Papa.’””
Who would have thought exegetic interpretation would be this simple?

Cut off any body parts recently? Matthew 5:30

“However, wouldn’t it be wonderful if our members had been instructed and nourished for many years by faithful pastors, they might even spontaneously think of their pastor as akin to a father””

Rev. Johnson (#71),

Yes, that would be wonderful for congregations to think of their pastor as akin to a father. However, the issue to which Matthew 23:9 speaks is that of pastors calling themselves and being called “Father” as a title.

“What are your credentials as a Bible student?… BTW – I do not put stock in credentials…. because you are “teaching” on this string with an aire of authority, I think it would be good for you to share with us your credentials.”

Rev. Rossow (#72, #77)

Other than being a Christian, I have neither claimed nor taught anything here “with an aire of authority.” That is your description. I have merely stated that I have taken Christ’s words in Matthew 23:9 with their plain literal meaning in their context Christ spoke them to his disciples, the Pharisees, the people who heard him, and to us today.

“…your understanding of Matthew 23:10 is simplistic and literalistic and flat out wrong.”

If there is substantive exegesis within the Lutheran Church that holds the plain literal meaning of Christ’s words within the context of Matthew 23 is not correct and that a non-literal or figurative interpretation must be taken to correctly understand what our Lord was actually saying to his disciples, the Pharisees, the people who heard him, and to us today, then I request, again for the fourth time on this thread, that a reference to such exegetic explanation be provided.

Until then, based on our Lord’s clear and plain statement (in its context), I maintain that one should agree that for the edification of the Church, the body of Christ, the title of “Father” should not be use by pastors and congregations within the Missouri Synod.

As for your quote of Martin Luther’s “one comment on v. 9″ (V. 29, p. 15), I certainly agree that Peter and Paul are “fathers” of the Church, in the sense that Martin Luther is the “father of the Reformation” or C.F.W. Walther is the “father of the Missouri Synod.” Although I have not read the entire context of the quote or when it was written, there is nothing in the quote to indicate Luther has asserted that the Apostles (wished to or should) be referred to by the title of “Father Peter” and “Father Paul.” Of course, the Romish Church continues to claim that “Father Peter” was the first “Papa.”

Dr. Strickert,

Yes, there is plenty of clear teaching within the Lutheran church that contradicts your understanding of this text. I just demonstrated from numerous Luther texts that he does not take this text literalistically as you do. Instead he takes it literally. According to Luther the one literal sense of this text is that we are to beware those who trump up their own call and do not teach the word of Christ. The Pharisees fit this description. Insetead, Luther says that we ought to listen to those who are rightly called and who teach the wrod of Christ purely. That is what Luther said the text means. I take that as the “Lutheran” view of the text.

By Luther’s own words, your teaching is that of the “wacko” loose cannon Carlstadt who like you, takes the words literalistically thinking that this text bans us from using fitting titles for the clergy.

Also, thanks for sharing your credentials. It is good for the readers of this string to know that your opinion on the meaning of this text is based on your own intution and not on pastoral or scholarly research of the text. You are certainly a bright man but on this count it is clear that Biblical exegesis is not one of your vocational skills.

TR

@Pastor Tim Rossow #81
Pastor Rossow,
Since you have said you give “credentials” no value, Dr. Strickert wisely did not bother to supply any to you. It does not follow that all he says is by “intuition” and “not [based] on scholarly research.”
If you are the Moderator here, you have gotten, IMHO, as silly as Mike Gelhausen on LQ, who also thinks he can “moderate” while steering the discussion with his own comments, (which, he seems to think, need no “moderation”).

This topic has strayed very far from its title, with the “Moderator” as much at fault as anyone. [What was it again, anyway? Oh, yes, "Women"... all their fault, no doubt. They have a way of giving birth to males and even being glad about it!]

C’mon! Get back to the subject, or better yet,
close this twice chewed cabbage down.

Helen,

I did not mean to say credentials have no value. I intended to say that credentials without the pure teaching of Christ have not value. Credentials do have some value. I did not know Dr. Strickert’s credentials but guessed that they were not of such that I would take a seventh, eighth or ninth look at his words. I have taken a first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth look and finally got to the point of wishing to know if he had some exegeticla credentials or if there were some other experts in the field that were on his side on this debate.

You are correct. We should leave this topic now. I will give Dr. Strickert the last word after this post. Please cut me some slack however, in that I have never had the opportunity like you and so many others to chew this cud before. I agree with you. It only deserves chewing once. Now we are done with it here at BJS (unless we decide to write a post on it someday), however, I suspect as he has done with other countless threads, if anyone even hints at using the word bishop as a helpful way to describe the oversight that we need from our district presidents, that Dr. Strickert will once again seek to hi-jack the discussion.

TR

Father Rossow,

Your Eminence would be wise to simply let Mr. “Vehse” have the last word and be done with any attempt to try to persuade him away from his folly in this matter. Indeed, as surely Your Grace has learned in this brief encounter, whether you allow it or not, Mr. “Vehse” will have the first, middle, and last word here, even while pretending to be interested in hearing proof that he is in error. Such proof has been provided numerous times, so that Helen is not quite right in her depiction of this as “twice chewed cabbage.” It would rather be more prudent to refer to it as “cabbage regurgitated in futility,” as Mr. “Vehse” has proven beyond a doubt that he has no desire to listen, but simply wishes to play not only the teacher, but also the accuser, of those from whom he should be learning and gaining knowledge.

As always, my dear father in Christ, I hope to remain in your good grace and favor,

Your most humble servant,
Father Messer

Rev. Rossow,

If there is “plenty of clear teaching within the Lutheran church that contradicts” taking the plain literal meaning of Christ’s words in Matthew 23:9, where can at such clear teaching be found?

Rev. Messer claims proof has been presented previously. Where? On what URL link? Proof by man-made fiat or by sophistic “literal/literalistic” hairsplitting or by continuing ad hominem arguments is not proof… other than to suggest there is no other better proof.

“It is good for the readers of this string to know that your opinion on the meaning of this text is based on your own intution and not on pastoral or scholarly research of the text.”

The plain literal meaning of Christ’s words is not based on my opinion, or my meaning, or my intuition; the plain literal meaning of Christ’s words is based on Christ’s own words in the context that he gave them.

If, instead of the plain literal meaning of Christ’s words within the context of Matthew 23, a non-literal or figurative interpretation must be taken to correctly understand what our Lord was actually saying to his disciples, the Pharisees, the people who heard him, and to us today, then, for the sixth time on this thread, and my last comment about the Matt. 23:9 verse on this thread, I ask where out of the “plenty of clear teaching” is a reference to such an explanation.

Helen,
Again, your post in #82, was priceless and perfect. I cannot understand, how Pastors, who hold that blest Office, that I have grown so fond of & have such a deep esteem for, could speak this way, on a globally accessable site. Knowing full well, JF, Dstar, CTapestry, etc, are watching us, that this could devolve into a sarcastic free for all, by Pastors, no less. Carl V, may be as wrong as wrong can be, but for those who hold the Divine Office, to goad, tease, and resort to sarcastic insults, is disappointing to me, but hey, I was just raised in LCMS & was just warming a pew. Not to mention, UG, DOES NOT BODE WELL, Carl’s psuedo being violated…again.
Pastors/Shepherds are to instruct, encourage, edify, correct, rebuke or admonish, in love, and using Christ’s loving manner. That is not what I have seen done w/CV, by those who hold that blest Office, on this thread(see above multiple postings). If we continue to focus on the dust bunnies in the corner, we will ignore & miss the pink elephant wearing the Pope’s purple, in the middle of the room.
Bear in mind here, if the psuedos & anons continue to be violated, BJS will loose many, and so will the reason BJS is here. We are being read & watched and this can hurt those who attend in July, and I have a hard time thinking this is how Pastor Harrison would have handled Carls’ posts.
This isn’t nor ever was, about who gets the upper hand, the last word, or who wins. That is how PK & the purple herd think. I thought we were better than this.

This article was to be about women distributing the Sacrament. Allowed under that vile resolution, but not echt, in practice, per doctrine, nor Scripture. The thread was overtaken by definitions, titles, power, and opinion, how sad. How ironic is it, that is veryt hing, is what we fight against in St Louis at present?

Defend what is defendable, correct what is correctable, and stay above the board no matter what. That did not happen on this thread. How very disappointing, to many, not just me.

Dr. Strickert,

(Sorry Helen.) You still get the last word once I answer your question. As I said above, Luther cites Matthew 23:9-10 about a dozen times in the American Edition. Go to Volume 55, The Index, go to the last section, Scriptural Index, look up Matthew 23:9-10 and you will see that Luther teaches on numerous occasions that Jesus is not prohibiting the use of titles in this text but is saying that the Pharisees have improperly granted themselves the authority to teach, apart from God’s calling.

Kretzmann in Vol. 1 of the New Testament commentary (p. 128) likewise says that this does not negate the use of titles in the church but rebukes those who seek honor before men.

Another great Lutheran teacher on the Gospels, J. Ylvisaker in his commentary titled The Gospels, (p. 585) teaches like Luther that this is not a tirade against the use of titles but against those who seek glory and find satisfaction in the use of titles.

I would offer you more but I really do not use commentaries much. Instead I prefer to do my own research on the text.

So I have offered you Luther and two other prominent Lutherans on this text and they disagree with you. I would like to know if you have Lutheran theologians who agree with you.

Once again I will give you the last word unless you ask another question of me.

TR

Dutch,

I don’t know what you are fighting for but I am fighting for the truth of God’s word.

TR

Father Messer,

Pardon my last response to Dr. Strickert. I have not been chewing on the cud as long as you have. I am nearing the end but I still have enough patience to answer questions with more and more factual data. I hope something will finally make sense to our friend.

TR

Pastor Rossow,
If we truly fight for the Truth, the Truth speaks and stands on it’s own. We need not add, nor insult, goad, or tease. It belittles the Truth you fight for, when you do.
This was wrong, and we know it. I just hope this thread, wasn’t read by anyone, who will oppose “Confessional” discussion.
The Office, and those who hold it, are better than this. We know who visits & posts. We know what we are willing to comment & respond to, and what is a baited hook.
Pastors are to instruct their flock to recognize these, very few did on this thread.
I thought so much better, of you. I remember our contact, I had the highest of esteem, but today, not so much. I thought better of you than this.

Hey,

This is my first post to this site. As a new elder and a lay delegate to the convention, I am cramming a lot of material. Please consider my opinions as malleable and of a novice. I look forward to being “set straight.”

Regarding the CV tangent from this thread, Rev. Messer said everything I needed to hear in #44. Apparently there is some history here, the battle lines are drawn and unlikely to change.

What I take from Matthew 23:9, as it applies to this thread, is that the consecration of the Sacrament is due to God, not by the pastor. The BoC clearly states that the sacraments can be received from evil men. I think that when we discuss whether lay-men or even lay-women are suitable to assist we are placing too great a significance on the role of man(kind) in the consecration of the Sacrament.

It’s interesting that the Augsburg Confession states simply that “Our churches teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the sacraments, without a rightly ordered call.” I say interesting, because this is in Article XIV – Order in the Church. Does this then mean that using lay-men or -women is a violation of church order and not an invalidation of the Gospel and Sacraments themselves?

I think that the pastor’s role is to ensure that the consecration is performed properly: i.e. the word proclaimed in its truth and purity in conjunction with the physical elements. If so, then God fulfils his promise despite the sinful nature, education, ordination, or gender of those distributing.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe Church order is a serious matter and we should respect the divinely commanded division of roles between the two genders. For this reason, I believe women should not assist in distribution. Not because they would corrupt the sacrament. I have great respect of the women I have seen posting. The secular world certainly works against the Church on “women’s rights.” The question I ask is not “Why can’t women serve?” but instead “Why don’t more men serve?”

Again, I am open to correction.

Thanks,
Kelly

Rev. Rossow,

Thank you for providing these references that deal with Matthew 23:9. I believe most of these are available in the library at my church or at Concordia-Texas library. I’ll read them and get back to you by email on what I have learned from them.

Golly, Dutch, why don’t you take the beam out of your own eye first before you “help” others to take theirs’ out.

I don’t mean to belittle at all, but we ARE to defend the truth, not let the truth stand on its own, it does that anyway; we are in battle, literally. I am glad Martin Luther did not just let the truth stand on its own but fought tooth and nail, and sometimes not nicely by our standards, in fact neither did Christ for that matter, to ensure the truth was proclaimed.

I am always reminded of an oft quoted statement by Luther in the Bondage of the Will: (Caveat: not pertaining to the “topic” but pertaining to the “nicety” of defending the truth against heresy)

” And next, because, on so great a subject, you say nothing but what has been said before: therefore, you say less about, and attribute more unto “Free-will,” than the Sophists have hitherto said and attributed: (of which I shall speak more fully hereafter.) So that it seems even superfluous to reply to these your arguments, which have been indeed often refuted by me; but trodden down, and trampled under foot, by the incontrovertible Book of Philip Melancthon “Concerning Theological Questions:” a book, in my judgment, worthy not only of being immortalized, but of being included in the ecclesiastical canon: in comparison of which, your Book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile, that I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash; and I feel an indignation against the matter also, that such unworthy stuff should be borne about in ornaments of eloquence so rare; which is as if rubbish, or dung, should he carried in vessels of gold and silver.”

Gotta love Luther!

Kiley

@Dutch #90

Dear Dutch,
Please don’t worry too much. It will be ok. Mr. Vehse, while dead, is a big boy like the rest of us, and in fact is going to study it and get back to Fr. Rossow.
About the anonymity thing: a living person self-identified as the owner of the computer that Mr. Vehse somehow is using. It is ok.
Your friend,
mbw

Some rather unorganized thoughts upon skimming the article and all but ignoring previous comments (though I Pastor Fisk’s book recommendations I would second).

- This comes right down to the issue of vocation and whether or not passing out the elements of the Lord’s Supper constitutes “Administration of the Sacraments.” If so, then no lay person should do so… this includes elders… for to do so would be to Administer the Sacraments without a proper call (and let me be clear… AC XIV is not referring to what we call a “call” given to teachers/DCEs/etc… it is that given Divinely to pastors and “ratified” through ordination)

- The issue of “axillary office” is still rather befuddling as understood in the LCMS. I have never heard a consistent definition across two sources/authorities. Simply put my take on it is the pastor is the one who publicly is the Word/Sacrament/Absolution guy (I’ll leave that without unpacking it). Outside of this, it has pleased the Church to assign laypersons to assist with the “other stuff” (a technical term… or at least it should be) of the Church.

- Then there’s the question of subverting God’s design in creation for headship of the husband. Plain and simple we dare not.

- If it is proper to allow lay communion assistants (since the forgone conclusion must be that such a “passing out” activity does not constitute “administration”… but I’m not so sure about this) and if such assisting does not subvert God’s order of creation… then it should not matter who is assisting. In a way it is a twofold litmus test: both vocational.

Thing is, I can’t think of a compelling argument for the latter if the former is assumed to be true. If however, the former is not true… then should we not rethink this whole issue. Regarding the numerated points in the OP:
1. I would call into question the propriety of assigning any person who is not rightly called into the Holy Ministry to carry out the functions solely reserved for the Office of the Ministry.

2. Right on.

3. Agreed, though, I would also argue if we are going to take Scripture seriously, we should stop doing theology by out of context proof text… especially when the CTCR’s proof texts on this are rather weak(but that’s another discussion… I’d point you to Dr. Biermann’s discussion of this on itunes.csl.edu – in his “Woman, Man, and God’s Plan” on day 3)… the case can be made solely by looking to Gen. 1-3.

4 & 5… again agreed.

Finally… and this is getting much longer than I had planned. It is correct to point out that pretty much from the start Deacons/Sub-Deacons assisted the Pastor in the distribution. These had their own set of qualifications, much of which was shared with the qualifications for the Office (some argue that is because Deacons are in the Office… again… another topic). Elders are not Deacons or SubDeacons. Maybe we should transition to such a practice… or maybe we should be willing to admit that despite the nearly 2000 year unanimous practice of the church, it is adiaphora and acceptable for both men and women to assist (again, I’m not so sure about this… but then we really must fix the auxiliary office mess that we have in our polity).

Rev. Lorfeld,

Can you give some detail on what you define as the “auxillary office mess” in our synod. I have mixed emotions/thjoughts about the notion and may be able to clarify them with your help.

TR

mbw #93,

Thanks for getting my backside.

TR

Kelly #91,

Welcome aboard! Your post has a wonderful spirit about it. Overall, I think you are correct. Distribution by women is about gender and not about validity. However, the validity is not there if I cannot trust the promise of Christ and if I am wondering about the giver, I may not be able to trust the gift.

I look forward to your future comments.

TR

MBW,
Thanks bunches. I think it right to concern how we speak & treat each other on this site. Nothing about me being “above” it, quite the contrary. Friar Daniel & Pastor Stephanski, can atest. However, I hold no office, let alone a Divine one.
I hold the those who post here, in the highest regard & esteem. But, I must say, to see name calling, sarcastic & thinly veiled insults, are far below those who Pastors who post here. Not to mention, the fact that JF, watches here. Their article on Pastor Hendrickson bears remembering.
Since July in Houston, is so vital & pivotal, we should all take the greatest of care when discussing, instructing, rebuking, or admonishing.
I would try, with all my heart, not to speak to someone who misunderstood, the way that this has gone. We chide those who do so, from the “other” camp, but we are guilty of said same, just in a different manner.
M, again thanks bunches!!!!

@Pastor Tim Rossow #97

Honored to be of a little service, rather than being a pain in same, as I can be at times.

@Kelly #91

Hey Kelly – I am only a layman too, but I think you have made some good distinctions!

It is very cool that you are a delegate. God bless your work at this convention!

mbw,

You, a pain? No way.

@Pastor Tim Rossow #102

One wonders how many lurkers who come to different Lutheran sites are led astray by Carl Vehse?

Dear Dutch,

If you have such a high view of the pastoral office, why don’t you find it offensive when a layman enters discussions like this and accuses pastors of being “irresponsible” and even of spreading “heresy” (oh, wait, possible heresy – what is “possible heresy,” by the way?), based on that layman’s faulty, literalistic, un-Lutheran interpretation of a certain Scriptural passage? I find it troubling that you would be so quick to express your disappointment toward those of us who do hold the office and are charged with combating false teachers/teachings, while, at the same time, coming to the defense of those who are guilty of spreading the same.

You also must have a different understanding of name-calling, since I don’t see any evidence of any pastor calling Dr. Strickert any names. Do you? If so, please identify such.

Now, I will admit to using sarcasm in post #84, but I would hardly classify my usage there as insulting or unloving toward Dr. Strickert. The fact is, in case you missed it being stated a number of times, that this is not the first time he has brought up this subject. And each time I have witnessed him bringing it up, including the way in which he brought it up in this thread, it has been with the intent neither of dialogue nor of learning, but to accuse and tear down those who do not hold his erroneous interpretation (an erroneous interpretation, by the way, that is held by many a Protestant). My use of sarcasm, then, is meant to reveal the absurdity of Dr. Strickert’s erroneous interpretation and false accusations.

Furthermore, no one here is violating Dr. Strickert’s anonymity. His use of “Carl Vehse” cannot be an attempt at anonymity, since he has identified himself here and elsewhere. If he had any desire to maintain anonymity, he could surely do so by choosing some other name under which to post.

Lastly, it would be much appreciated if you would point to specific things written which cause you concern or offense. To chime in with sweeping comments about what you see as bad behavior by pastors, without providing specifics, is unhelpful. What exactly caused you concern or offense? If that be known, then perhaps it could be dealt with, for I am sure that your hope and prayer is that the pastors you hold in high esteem would desire to be shown their errors that they may repent and seek to avoid repeating them. At the same time, it is always fruitful for all of us to ask, especially when looking in on blog discussions, whether or not we have all the facts necessary to reach conclusions about what is being said, and whether or not it is possible that we are misinterpreting what is being said or why.

In Christ,
Pr. Messer

@Dutch #99

> Not to mention, the fact that JF, watches here.

Dutch, let me just say this to JF:

JF, please point me to the open discussion area of your website.

Pastor Tim Rossow :
Rev. Lorfeld,
Can you give some detail on what you define as the “auxillary office mess” in our synod. I have mixed emotions/thjoughts about the notion and may be able to clarify them with your help.
TR

It’s rather multifaceted… and I’m not sure I can do it justice… but here goes:

1. What exactly is an “auxiliary office” anyhow? Frankly, I’m not even sure how to define it. Not a pastor… I got that… not sure beyond that (in so far as an official definition).
2. The “everybody a minister” confusion and blurring the lines of the vocations of pastor and layperson.
3. Given that there is a definable thing called “auxiliary office” where exactly are the boundaries. I’ve seen it go so far as to say, so long as the pastor is “overseeing” someone can step in and preach (male/female… doesn’t matter) or administer the Lord’s Supper. Which makes me wonder What happened to AC XIV (which I wondered all through vicarage… even though I had to submit every sermon and did not administer (speak the verba) of the Lord’s Supper).

I honestly don’t see why it is so difficult a concept of letting pastors just be pastors. Would it just kill us if communion took an extra 10 minutes and the pastor alone distributed the Lord’s Supper? Even a congregation of a few hundred could be communed in an orderly fashion in (what I think is…) a reasonable time (especially since a congregation that size typically will have an associate assisting).

Pastor Messer,
Amongst the many things I was taught, in the LCMS, were these

Proverbs 10:19
Matthew 10:16
Matthew 5:5-9

Carl was wrong, so very much so!! It was obvious to many, but him. Sarcasm is not encouragement, that is what we are called to do. I wonder…would this have been handled & Carl spoken to in like manner, had he walked into your office, off the street? I choose not believe so.
I don’t argue with Pastors, unless it is over false doctrine or compromising the Confessions or the Solas. I fish quite a bit, I know what a baited hook is.

Dutch,

How was Dr. Strickert “handled” and “spoken to”? In my last post, I asked you to identify exactly what it was in this thread that concerned and offended you. You have accused pastors of behaving badly; of name-calling, insults, and the like. I believe those accusations are unfounded and false, since I cannot find an instance in the above comments where any pastor, including myself, has called Dr. Strickert names or personally insulted him. Unless you consider telling him that he is flat out wrong insulting. But, then, if that’s the case, you are guilty of the very same thing here, since you write: “Carl was wrong, so very much so!!”

The only person doing any “fishing” in the above thread was Dr. Strickert himself. Go back up to #41 and re-read his response to Fr. Daniel. There, my dear Dutch, is the gauntlet thrown down by Dr. Strickert, who enters the thread at this point to rail against pastors in what has become an expected and all too common tactic employed by him. Not only does he insult Fr. Daniel, but he also rips into a group of “Missouri pastors,” who, according to his estimation, based on his faulty interpretation of Matthew 23:9, are guilty of “confusing the laity” by “titular flamboyancy.” These pastors are “irresponsible” and “heretical” (possibly), according to Dr. Strickert’s personal and flat-out false interpretation.

I fish quite a bit myself and know what a baited hook is, too, which is why I refused to take the bait and desired only to warn the other fish swimming in the pond of this thread to steer clear of this baited hook as well. This is a baited hook Dr. Strickert has thrown into many a thread around the blogosphere. Many of us have taken the bait in the past, believing that Dr. Strickert actually wanted to discuss this topic and learn. That has never proven to be the case. Instead, he refused to listen and showed that his desire was simply to play the Master and Accuser of those from whom he should be learning. The fact that he brought this subject up again here is proof sufficient of this.

Your belief that I’m trying to bait you into an argument is woefully inaccurate. I really have no desire to argue about this with you. I simply asked you to explain exactly what it was that concerned and offended you. You have made accusations against pastors (including myself), but have not substantiated those accusations. As I stated before, that is unhelpful. And wrong. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since I believe that this is solely due to the fact that you do not have all the facts and are confused by exactly what transpired in this thread. For my part, having reviewed my contributions to this thread, I stand by them. I stated what I had to say about this matter in #58 and the sarcasm I used in #84 was not out of bounds, since referring to Pr. Rossow as “Father,” “Your Eminence,” etc. merely served the purpose of revealing the absurdity of Dr. Strickert’s false teaching.

If you wish to correspond further about this, I’d be happy to do so. If not, that’s fine, too. Whatever the case, I pray God’s blessings continue to visit and rest upon you and yours.

In Christ,
Pr. Messer

Pastor Messer,
I am aware, that CV, has been on other sites, as the “good Dr”, shall we say.
I do read a fair bit more than BJS. I said CV was wrong, I would not know if he is otherwise, on other sites. I parooze, when certain things or links are mentioned, at BJS. My opinion, is of little consequence, when attempting to use sarcasm as a correction tool for anyone, Office or laity. I just expect wiser & more level heads in such cases.
However, that is the duty of the Office, not mine. I have listened at nauseum, to many, who have met w/sarcasm for questions & met those I esteem w/sarcasm, said same. See Tilly’s response to kindness, gentleness, & mercy. (The Tapestry post, most enlightening)

So many I have spoken with, have done a “so called study” endevored, for the lacking in a congregation. Reading Concordia, loosely translated German papers by the founders of the LCMS, and the like. By the time, they got down, to little old pew sitting me, there was quite a bit of venom. Why? They were met w/sarcasm & belittled, for the asking, or stating. I would have no knowledge, outside this site, if CV, does so or not. Much here, is as at times, assumed. When instructing, on a global blog, being gentle but wise, (open ended questions) is the better avenue. Not for the individual, but for those who may read this later.
The reference to the Papacy termage, was funny. It gave me a grand giggle, I watch the Tudors!!!! (English History maj). I had no beef w/ that. But, CV, is obviously not “in Office” that much I have gathered of the last 1 1/2 years. He may be like me, where I have no alternative, but to go through, & read the Concordia alone. It is, what many who have blogs here, do reccomend, do they not? Well, should those of us, who must do so, have misunderstandings, or misdiscernments, is this they way to address it?
I can understand speaking this way, to those who have been thru Sem, Ordained, Or hold Office. THEY BLOODY WELL SHOULD. But, if we continue to reccomend, w/o guidance, to relearn or review, can we afford to treat these, with, as you say, sarcasm, or one who know next to nothing, who stumbles ont this site? You & I may not remember them, but they do, and so does HE.
Pastor Messer, I esteem a great many to BJS. From WELS, LCMS, and ELCA. I am, quite exhaused, of having to respond to the question, “your a ‘confessional lutheran’. You don’t act like one, and ya don’t talk like one. I read your stuff, but your not like what I hear “they are’. Your kind, firm but kind’. You listen, but ya dont’ cave in. Why aren’t the rest like that?
This thread, would be why I have no answer, it was to be on what topic?
I would like to have a better response, than the ones we have had the last 9 years. It is why PK is still in office. Don’t shoot the ones, on your side, or anyone who may be. They may very well end up, in Houston…at the mike, that may or may not defend us…at that mike. It is unnerving to me, that Pastors speak this way, and it is unnerving to me, when they speak to me, for the simple reason, of keeping emotion out of defending. It is, what BJS does quite often. Why shoot someone, on your own side? Houston, is going to be, a pivotal moment in the LCMS, is this what is to be remembered or used as example? I hope not, and I have not heard or read Pastor Harrison speaking in such sarcasm. Why should we? He is an esteemable Pastor, so we do not mirror his candor why?

Dutch,

I’m glad you caught the “Tudor-like” language I used and found it funny. Good. Actually, that language was fresh on my mind, having just finished watching the third season of “The Tudors” (thank God for Netflix!). I thought Pr. Rossow (and others) might get a laugh at that. But, more importantly, I hoped that it would serve to illustrate how ridiculously silly Dr. Strickert’s accusations are. And that hope was not completely unfounded, since I have heard from a few readers of this blog in private thanking me not only for the laugh, but also for standing firm against the false teaching of the “good Dr.,” since, well, they, like me, have heard him tout this nonsense ad nauseum in other places as well.

I’m still woefully confused as to the exact nature of your beef here. Dr. Strickert did not enter the thread to dialogue with the pastors here or to listen and learn from them. He entered to take pot shots at them, call them names, and falsely accuse them. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to his contributions around the blogosphere.

Do you think that I would have responded to a layperson who was honestly confused about the meaning of Matthew 23:9 and sought understanding in the same way that I responded to Dr. Strickert? I would hope not. Those who know me would definitely know better, and even those who only know me via online contact would know better. I am all for exercising the sort of pastoral care you espouse with love and patience, kindness and gentleness, etc. I would never dream of treating a layperson, who was honestly seeking counsel and instruction from me or any other pastor, with anything but what they, as dear children of God, redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ, most certainly deserve from me. I think you are trying to apply what has transpired with Dr. Strickert here to a situation that simply doesn’t exist. Had he said, “I have concerns about the use of the title ‘Father’ by Lutheran pastors and laypeople, because I understand our Lord’s command in Matthew 23:9 to forbid such use, and would like to hear what others think about that,” things would be different. As it is, essentially what he has said here (and, again, many times elsewhere) is: “Matthew 23:9 forbids us from using the title ‘Father’ for Lutheran pastors and those pastors who use this title of themselves or allow laypersons to use it of them are guilty of ‘titular flamboyancy,’ ‘irresponsibility,’ and ‘heresy.’ Also, any attempt to defend the use of ‘Father’ as a pastoral title comes from the refusal to understand the clear meaning of our Lord’s words. Any interpretation other than mine is wrong!” That’s quite a different thing, is it not?

Furthermore, I’m with you on the whole “shooting each other on the same side” thing. However, what you fail to realize is that someone who is accusing pastors of “heresy” (or, “possible heresy”) based on his own misinterpretation of Holy Scripture is not on “my side” (or, “our side”). What you also fail to realize, it seems, is that such a person is the one who is actually doing the “shooting.” To hi-jack a thread in order to take shots at faithful pastors and laypeople (AGAIN!), based on a misinterpretation of Holy Scripture, is the very definition of “shooting those who should be on the same side.” In other words, if your beef is about shooting each other on the same side, it ain’t with me, but with persons like Dr. Strickert.

I don’t know how much more we could say about this. As I said above, I’m still confused as to exactly what your beef is here. As I’ve said twice now, it would be helpful if you would point to the exact comments made by me or others which caused your concern. In any event, we’ll have to agree to disagree as to the degree any of this has had on the effectiveness of the confessional Lutheran public witness or on the pivotal moment in the LCMS, since I honestly do not see it having any impact whatsoever. I guess I just don’t see the issue here, Dutch. That could very well be my fault, chief of sinners that I am.

Blessings in Christ,
Pr. Messer

I don’t know why all y’all have such a short fuse about Carl Vehse’s remark.
He’s just repeating what he grew up learning in his grandfather’s church!
And so did you learn it!
Thirty/forty years ago no Lutheran Pastor answered to “Father”.
(Well, one I know did, but that was humoring an Irish cop who looked after his car while the “Father” made hospital calls.)
These days, I have heard one Pastor say that he would prefer it to “Pastor [insert first name]” and I tend to agree. (They called my son, “Pastor Bill”. I called him one thing or the other but not both at the same time.)

I am amused by “Fr.” John Berg, whose congregation did it because his ecclesiastical superiors made an issue of a rumor about such nomenclature! As the BOC says, “It’s adiaphora, until someone tells you it can’t be done/you have to do it!”
Tnen, it isn’t.

Do you suppose you can “chill out” now?

Helen,

Yeah, I’m done. Should have never begun. Should have known better. Lesson learned. It’s okay to rail against pastors and even accuse them of “heresy” without proper warrant; it’s not okay to speak out against those who do, ’cause, well, they’re just repeating what they were taught in their grandfather’s church. Got it. “Chilling out” now.

(Man, suddenly I feel a special kinship to Pr. Stefanski)

Rev. Thomas C. Messer :
Yeah, I’m done. Should have never begun. Should have known better. Lesson learned. It’s okay to rail against pastors and even accuse them of “heresy” without proper warrant; it’s not okay to speak out against those who do, ’cause, well, they’re just repeating what they were taught in their grandfather’s church. Got it. “Chilling out” now.
(Man, suddenly I feel a special kinship to Pr. Stefanski)

WTTDS, Fr. Messer!

EJG

… no one should should teach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called.

1. Is not the public reading of God’s holy word the true and living voice of God amongst His people and thus the highest form of teaching in our Divine Service? If the reading of God’s own word is the epitome of public teaching, should it not be reserved for those whom God Himself has called to speak in His stead and by His command?

2. Is not the distribution of Christ’s true body and blood the very essence of Gottesdienst among us? If the distribution of the Sacrament is in fact God serving us, shouldn’t this distribution be reserved for those whom God Himself has called to administer His sacraments in His stead and by His command?

3. Is it fair to say that a lay reader is to the Word what a lay distributor is to the Sacrament?

4. Is it fair to say that lay readers and lay distributors are, at best, products of pragmatism? Is it fair to say that these are, at worst, evidences that a given church has lost its understanding of Gottesdienst and thereby also lost its understanding of the God-Ordained Office through which Gottesdienst is to be bestowed?

I have just read through most of the comments on this post. I would just like to add one thing. While we may agree or disagree on who should do what in the worship service, there is one thing to keep in mind.
When you stand before Jesus, He will not revoke your salvation because you accepted Holy Communion elements from a lay person or a woman.
Let’s keep the real Door to salvation in mind, so that we don’t waste time arguing with one another while Satan enjoys the show and welcomes more lost souls into his hell.
Keep the personal attacks at bay–there are more important things to do, like sharing the Gospel of Salvation with the world.

Sue Wilson, #16:

Will He revoke your salvation because you didn’t believe what was on the altar was His Body and Blood? Will He because you don’t teach the Baptism of infants? I.e., are Baptists also going to Heaven? Then, using your reasoning, we shouldn’t waste time arguing with one another about such things, either.

Rather, every lessening of Christ’s Office and how he has established its being carried out is a lessening of His gifts among us, and every lessening of His gifts is a lessening of the “sharing [of] the Gospel of Salvation”…which leaves us having to try to ‘share’ that message from a Law motivation and perspective.

No, thank you.

EJG

Sue Wilson :
I have just read through most of the comments on this post. I would just like to add one thing. While we may agree or disagree on who should do what in the worship service, there is one thing to keep in mind.
When you stand before Jesus, He will not revoke your salvation because you accepted Holy Communion elements from a lay person or a woman.
Let’s keep the real Door to salvation in mind, so that we don’t waste time arguing with one another while Satan enjoys the show and welcomes more lost souls into his hell.
Keep the personal attacks at bay–there are more important things to do, like sharing the Gospel of Salvation with the world.

You are trying to rationalize realities that are far above us. This absolutely does not work. We cannot make bargains with God. The question “how far can I go my own way and not lose my salvation” is not being asked by the new person (the believer). This is not a question coming from faith. It is coming from unbelief. Following this road is weakening your faith, if indeed you have saving faith. Even if by His grace and patience you do not ultimately lose your faith by dabbling in doctrinal invention, how can this possibly be His will for you?

Any implication that there are people in hell because of any believer’s (for example a pastor, professor or lay person) desire to know and practice God’s truth is damnable heresy. You cannot pit one part of God’s truth (that His doctrine is pure and should be held so by believers) against another (that He has died for all and desire none to be lost, and that even a tiny bit of faith saves) without falling into heresy.

EJG,
Of course Baptists are going to Heaven. Those who believe that the sacrament of Holy Communion is a remembrance and not a sacrament are not barred from God’s presence. God’s grace is a product of His love and Christ’s gift, not the proper administration of what we as Lutherans believe are sacraments. We do not have a lock on the perfect understanding of Scripture. One does not have to follow the BOC or belong to a LCMS church to receive the free gift of salvation through faith. It is faith that is decribed as the gift from God “lest any man should boast,” not the traditional LCMS page 15 worship service. Jesus did not invent denominations–His Church is one body of believers that covers the world.

As far as women serving as teachers of adult males and as worship assitants please to not disregard the women of the Bible like Deborah whom God appointed as a judge of His people; Huldah “the prophetess” whom the priests of the temple went to for advice (and God honored that action); Lydia who held church gatherings in her home, as did John Mark’s mother; the women who were the first to proclaim the risen Christ; Pricilla who was at least an equal partner with her husband in ministry; Phoebe, who carried Paul’s most important theological treatise to Rome.

Doctrine is found in God’s Word; in the plain words of Scripture, not in the Pharisee practice of deciding who is worshipping in the exactly legal way and who is not.

As for the disqualification of even lay-men in serving the sacrament, Jesus sent out seventy of His disciples, not just the twelve apostles to minister in the surrounding communities. Do you think that all of them were ordained? Jesus’ approval of them was enough–none had been to seminary; none raised his status to “Father.”

The LCMS is presently so wrapped up in the politics of who will do what in what kind os worship service that it is losing its sense of priority. Jesus said to make disciples of all nations, teaching them about Him–not teaching them the “proper”, traditions of the LCMS and the elevated position of those ordained.

sw