Rethinking “Ministry and Congregation”

This quarter I’m teaching Galatians, which in addition to its rich Christ-centered teaching is a masterpiece of ancient rhetoric. Read through the letter in one sitting—or better, listen to it in one sitting—and you can’t miss it. How does Paul return the Galatians to Christ? He presents the problem in 1:6-12 (which Gospel is the right Gospel, mine, or the false teachers?), gives a summary of the answer in 2:15-21 (the Gospel that is based on faith, not works of law), and fleshes out this answer in chapters 3-6. Part of the letter, though, we tend to skip over: the “narration” section of 1:13-2:14. We might read it to glean the few bits of Paul’s life story that are found in his extant letters, but that is not their purpose. Rather, Paul goes through this “narration” in order to get the Galatians up to speed on how his Gospel has been proven to the the right (only) Gospel. For this Gospel is not a new invention (1:12), but it has been demonstrated to be true again and again and again — five times, actually, in Arabia, among the churches of the Jews in Christ, in Jerusalem, in Antioch. This, of course, is very effective: Before giving the answer, let’s recall how we got here, let’s rethink these thoughts again, and when it comes time to give a definitive answer, then we and our hearers will be ready.

I find this approach helpful to turn on myself on many occasions, especially when approaching difficult or controversial questions. How did we get here? How have we talked about this in the past? What have other people recognized about the issues that is a blind spot for me?

One of my favorite conversation partners in this task of rethinking what others thought before is Hermann Sasse. Sasse is likely to be familiar to most readers of this page, but a quick summary of why I find it beneficial to think along with him might be helpful to you. First, he was trained as a New Testament scholar, and in fact wrote several articles for “Kittel” (the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). So he can read the Scriptures very well. But he was also a historian, who knew the early church fathers and the Reformation (especially Luther) intimately. And, he was a churchman. He was involved early on in the ecumenical movement, then in resistance to Nazism and the Kirchenkampf, then in the question of the unity of the Lutheran church both in Germany and in Australia. He had a globally and chronologically broad frame of reference, and so he is much less parochial and short-sighted than I tend to be.

One of the controversial questions that has been stirring my church body, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, is the issue of “pastor” and “people.” That is, what is the relationship between a pastor and the congregation? Which has “authority”? Recently, the Lutheran Witness, the popularly-focused newsmagazine of the LCMS published an issue on the topic of “The Lord’s Office” (recent issues are not available online). This created quite a stir, as is evident in the letters to the editor that appeared in the subsequent issue. It also occasioned some conversation among the faculty of Concordia Seminary. The Winter issue of the Concordia Journal will have a couple editorials by faculty members reflecting on these issues. Here, I’d like to offer a resource that might be helpful as we think through the best ways to answer these questions in the ever-changing landscape in which the Church lives.

One essay that was required reading for a systematics class I took with Dr. Nagel back in the day (I can’t recall if the class was Systematics III or “Office of the Holy Ministry”) was a translation that Dr. Nagel had made for the We Confess series of translations of Sasse’s writings. This essay, titled “Ministry and Congregation,” might be a helpful guide as we review where we have been as Lutherans on this topic, what errors we have fallen into, and how we might refocus on Christ and the Word. I strongly encourage “pastor” and “people” alike to read the whole essay carefully; here I’ll quote a few sections, with some highlighting, in order to provide a taste of how he works through this issue.

[Page references are to the We Confess the Church paperback edition, published by CPH in 1986. This is now available in the single-volume printing of all of Dr. Nagel’s translations of Sasse as the We Confess Anthology.

From Sasse:

That the great freedom of the Reformation is truly the freedom of the Gospel is shown by the fact that the Office of the Keys is given three times in the New Testament: in Matthew 16 to Peter, in John 20 to all the apostles, in Matthew 18 to the whole church. These three bestowals of the office may not be separated. One may not be selected as the chief one, and then played off against the others. To the Twelve Jesus gave the office of preaching the Gospel to every creature and making disciples of all nations by baptizing them. To them He gave the mandate at the Last Supper: “Do this in remembrance of Me.” Who were the Twelve? They were the first ministers (Amtsträger). From them proceeds “the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments” [AC 5]. But they are at the same time the church, the ekklesia, the representatives of God’s new people of the end time. It is therefore in fact impossible in the New Testament to separate ministry and congregation. What is said to the congregation is also said to the office of the ministry, and vice versa. The office does not stand above the congregation, but always in it. In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas are sent out as missionaries by the congregation in Antioch. They were already sent by the Lord. What more could this congregation give to Paul with the laying on of hands than what he had already received by the direct commissioning of the risen Lord, who appointed him to his work? Nevertheless the sending is quite deliberately repeated with the laying on of hands. Office and congregation belong inseparably together.

Church history confirms this. Only where there is a vital ministerial office working with the full authority of having been sent, only there is a living congregation. And only where there is a living congregation is there a living ministerial office. Of all Lutheran churches there can hardly be another in which the office of the ministry is so highly honored as in the Missouri Synod where the congregation is so much the center of churchly thinking and activity. [p. 78]

Pick your passage? John 20 or Matt 16 or Matt 18? Sasse points out this is the starting point of the problem. If you only take Matt 18, you have church but no pastors; only Matt 16 or John 20 you have pastors but no church. Unfortunately, this is one of the shortcomings of the November, 2012 Lutheran Witness article. The only bestowal of the Office of the Keys cited there is from John 20. Granted, the piece is short, not exhaustive, and aimed at a popular audience. Nevertheless, there is a danger (which the article flirts with) in removing from the church (the baptized) the gift of forgiveness given to all the baptized to share. This insight of Sasse should not be overlooked; it also helps solve an exegetical problem that I’ve heard put out for consideration many times: Is Matt 28 (the “great commission”) give to “pastors” or to “people”? Given that the power to forgive is given to both earlier in Matthew, the answer should be, “Yes.”

Back to Sasse:

 . . .  the alternative “ministry or congregation?” in the 19th century was falsely put. Löhe himself saw this, by the way, as Hebart has shown in his illuminating book about him. What was lacking was the strength to draw the consequences of this recognition, and instead there was misapprehension in diagnosing what lay behind the other’s position. The position taken by Missouri had nothing to do with the American propensity to do things democratically, as Mundinger has shown in his penetrating study Government in the Missouri Synod. After all, Walther and those like-minded with him were all antidemocrats. And Hebart has shown that no conservative political notions distorted the concept of the church for Löhe, who was never so dominated by nationalistic motives . . . On both sides there was an overemphasis on one aspect of Biblical truths which in the New Testament belong together. This happened because each party took one side of the New Testament passages as the important one, under which the other had to be subordinated. [p. 79]

Here Sasse demonstrates, in the history of the church, what happens when someone picks one passage over and against the others. Notice, “On both sides there was an overemphasis on one aspect of Biblical truths which in the New Testament belong together.” Selective use of the Scriptures, caused by our own blind spots, can be dangerous. Church historians are actually useful! We’ve been there, done that, and it hasn’t turned out very well.

This isn’t exactly on topic, but shows the kind of side observations that Sasse tosses in on occasion that reveal his clarity of insight:

It would also mean the end of the notion that what the Confessions say of church government is fulfilled by having a clever—alas all too clever—central church bureaucracy running things not by the Word but by force (non verbo, sed vi). All of this must pass away and will pass away. . . [p. 82]

Finally, where should a discussion of “Ministry and Congregation” end? In the entire essay, Sasse does not use the word “authority” (which permeates the Lutheran Witness piece). Rather, he focuses on the Gospel, and the one who gives and is the Gospel, Jesus Christ, the Lord:

This faith in what God is doing does not exclude our responsibility, but rather includes it. This means renouncing everything that is destructive of the genuine holy ministry instituted by Christ and the genuine congregation instituted by Him, everything that makes of what Christ has instituted a place for exercising our lust for power, whether clerical or congregational. The office of the holy ministry is not lord over the congregation (2 Cor. 1:24); the congregation is not lord over the office of the holy ministry (Gal. 1). Both are under Him who alone is Lord; in Him they are one. [p. 83]

“Ministry and Congregation” are not new questions. Where have we been and how did we get here? What have we thought and what needs rethinking? Are we over-reacting in our new settings? Is it enough just to “freshen up” what we’ve always said? Errors have been made before; we will make them also. As we seek answers in our age, it is necessary to return to the text, and those who read the text before we came along. Read, mark, and learn from Sasse. And inwardly digest the Word.

Related posts

Lutheran Theology: Kill Your Passions

Lutheran Theology: Kill Your Passions

Lutheran Theology: Kill Your Passions

This is part four in a series of posts by Dr. David Maxwell. The first was "What Should You Do With Anger and Desire?" The second was "Gregory of Nyssa: Direct the Passions." The third was "Cyril of Alexandria: Lull Your Passions to Sleep." My sense is that Lutheran spirituality leans more in...

Cyril of Alexandria: Lull Your Passions to Sleep

Cyril of Alexandria: Lull Your Passions to Sleep

Cyril of Alexandria: Lull Your Passions to Sleep

This is part three in a series of posts by Dr. David Maxwell. The first was "What Should You Do With Anger and Desire?"The second was "Gregory of Nyssa: Direct the Passions." Cyril of Alexandria is a good example of a Christian appropriation of the Stoic view of the passions. The goal is not...

Gregory of Nyssa: Direct the Passions

Gregory of Nyssa: Direct the Passions

Gregory of Nyssa: Direct the Passions

This is part two of a series of posts from Dr. David Maxwell. The first post was "What Should You Do With Anger and Desire?"  Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Soul and the Resurrection is a treatise that demonstrates what a Platonic spirituality of the passions looks like when Christians adopt it...


  1. Matt Priem December 22, 2012

    Good stuff. I think the OT precedents also help us to consider this. For example, the royal priesthood in Peter is a direct reference to Exodus 19.

    • Andrew Bartelt December 23, 2012

      Yes indeed! Two thoughts on the Exo 19 connection to 1 Peter:
      1. You are quite right in making the connection.
      2. Neither text is quite as focused on the “priesthood of all believers” as is often read, as though 1 Peter 2 were the sedes for this.

      Peter is making the point that the NT folks, both Jews and Gentiles, are now the same “Israel” that connects to the exodus and Sinai; what is predicated of them in Exodus can be predicted of them in the NT.
      In both places the “royal priesthood” (Greek) or “kingdom of priests” (Hebrew) is more about the corporate people of God mediating God’s presence to the nations, certainly not about “everyone an ordained priest” (though that’s not what anyone should mean by the “priesthood of the baptized”), since Leviticus follows Exodus and sets up the priesthood for the “public ministry.” But Luther was right in noting that even individually, we can be the mediators, the masks of God, into the world, declaring the “excellencies” of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
      While the NT must always be read in light of the OT foundation, I do think more study and some healthy discussion would be helpful in noting both continuity but also some discontinuity between priesthood and temple (and even divinely prescribed liturgy) in the OT as the basis for the NT church. What does it mean that all this is fulfilled in Christ? (see Hebrews, antilegomena though it be!)

  2. Jeff Kloha December 22, 2012

    Yes, Matt, it is always good to get a solid read from the OT, too. If I remember right, Reed Lessing has made that argument before, but I don’t remember if it was in print or in symposium paper.

  3. Gary Bauch December 28, 2012

    Thank you for providing a helpful article on this important topic. I especially like the reminder that Paul and Barnabas were sent by the congregation at Antioch. A call to the office of holy ministry is a call that is validated by the affirmation of the church (read “people”). The “divine call” is mediated by the local body of Christ that issues that call to one they elect to serve as their pastor.

  4. Matthew Lorfeld January 8, 2013

    A slight correction:
    ” In the entire essay, Sasse does not use the word “authority””
    Yet above, quoted from Sasse: “Only where there is a vital ministerial office working with the full *authority* of having been sent, only there is a living congregation” (emphasis mine)

    I do think a discussion of “authority” is important. Jesus speaks of the authority he gives in both Matthew 28 and also Matthew 20 (and elsewhere, but the two are important). And since Jesus speaks of authority in relation to the apostolic office we must ask from whence does this authority come from and also what is the nature of such authority?

    In light of Matthew 28, there’s a given-to-ness that makes this authority, namely in the task of making disciples a Gospel thing.

    As a sole pastor of a small congregation I’m often put in a position of making decisions that go way beyond Word and Sacrament Ministry, and often find myself putting the decision making back in the hands of congregation members (ie. when asked “Pastor where should we position the utility shed” my response was to the effect, “Do what you think is best.”)

    • Jeff Kloha January 8, 2013

      Yea, I’m always hesitant to use absolute language, because all it takes is one example, but, you get the point. And, it is worth reading the whole essay, not just my redaction of it.

      To your point, Matt– “Authority” is given to Jesus, not to pastors (or the church, for that matter). He has authority over all things as Lord, and so his church (including pastors) now live under that authority to proclaim that he reigns (has authority) over all. This is the Gospel. This is accomplished (in Matt 28) by baptizing people into this kingdom/reign and teaching them “to obey” – that is, obey the one who has authority, i.e., Christ. It’s all about Christ. This is Sasse’s point at the end of the essay, quoted in the post.

      Much of the time, living with Jesus Christ as Lord can leave a lot of unanswered questions, like the “decisions that go beyond Word and Sacrament Ministry,” even in “church life.” Sometimes all we have is prayer, discernment, wisdom, attitudes shaped by the Spirit, like love and self-sacrifice. Thankfully, all those gifts are given to all the baptized, not only to pastors. And with all that, we live in freedom to do those things which will be “for the upbuilding” (1 Cor 14:26).

  5. Trackback: Concordia Theology » Guiding Themes for Pastoral Education

  6. The Right (sometimes Left) Reverend Eric J Edwards January 9, 2013

    Kloha, if you’re parochial, than I’m infantile! Be that as it may, we are the church and I greatly appreciate the comments.

    Here is what i have been thinking about “congregation and ministry”. I’ll provide a crass analogy; the “ministry and congregation” is like a cyclist and a bike. The two work together, without the bike the cyclist is a guy in spandex standing around and without the cyclist, the bike is an expensive decoration.

    There is something to be said about distinction here too. With bike and cyclist, the two are of different “kinds”; with pastor and congregation both are of the same kind, i.e. redeemed sinners, but there too is a distinction (not a separation!) The pastor is called by the congregation to ‘publicly’ preach and administer the sacraments, and the congregation is called minister in their vocations. Both are under the authority of Christ Jesus and are therefore authorized to be ‘salt and light’ or any of the other wonderful realities of who we are in Christ. Unless we are under Christ’s authority, we are neither “church” or “ministers”. But under Him, we are the people of God, called to our various vocations (parts of His body) to proclaim Him in the loud public sphere and the quiet individual home.

    Thanks again for the post- I’ll need to pull Sasse off the shelf and give him a read!

    • Jeff Kloha January 9, 2013

      So, didn’t you learn at seminary, Eric, that every analogy will, in some way, be heretical? But, it was a beautiful day in St. Louis, I got to ride my bike in between classes and meetings, so I’ll be charitable. I was thinking that maybe, using your metaphor, the pastor is like the front tire, that tries to grab the road and keep things moving in the right direction, even when slipping on mud and ice. But, there is always the risk that the front tire goes pops and the bike crashes. Pretty weak, huh?

      More important, read Sasse, ride the bike.

  7. Jonathan Schroeder January 15, 2013

    Thank you for your refresing words.

    I have always have had a problem with the Office of the Ministry ever since I took “The Office of the Ministry” class at the St. Louis, Seminary during the 98-99 (the year I graduated.)

    In this class, it seemed like everyday we would cover the words of the Great Commission and it was drilled into our heads, “This is for the 11 apostles!” “This is for the 11 apostles!” “Grammatically the command is given to the 11 apostles!” In fact, the final in that class was to translate the Greek text of Matthew 28 into English.

    Anway, on the final day, the instructor, let us write down any questions we had. And I asked, “Can laypeople be involved with the Evangelism Committee?” And he said, “Of Course!”

    And I was thinking what?! The whole quarter you’ve pushed the command is given to the apostles and now it’s for everybody? I don’t understand!

    I personally talked to him in his office later. And he told me, “Well, of course, the command is also given to the entire church.” But he had never said that to the class the entire semester!

    I’m afraid that he personally thought that too many parishioners were trying to be pastors and this huge emphasis on the 11 was him trying to make sure we understood that there is a difference between pastor and parishioner. However, I think he went too far the other way and his influence has mixed up many pastors from my generation (the late 90’s).

    However, I must admit, that I have been told that I “just didn’t get my professor.” And that his, “Way of teaching was so different from any other professor that I missed what he was really saying.”

    That could be.

    Thanks for you article.

Leave a comment