Clericalism is often the charge of those who do not like to see clerical collars at church conventions or pastors having something to say at church meetings. So often this is the call of those who resent the idea that there are pastors at all, that faith needs the Church, or that the Church is the gathered people of God around His Word and Sacraments. This is also the domain of those who enjoy so much talking about the indivisibility of the Church and who barely admit that the Church can be seen or recognized anywhere. It is the delight of those who dislike chanting and vestments and the historic church usages or ceremonies that those who sing, wear something other than black, bow, genuflect, and the like are clericalists -- pastors who lord it over the lay.
Missouri has been forever traumatized by her beginnings. We seem forever destined to frame ourselves in contrast to Bishop Stephan and usually this means organizing ourselves as some sort of grand democracy in which the voice and vote of our clergy must be balanced and offset (should I say diluted?) by the laity. As often as this happens in the larger gatherings of districts and the Synod as a whole, it more regularly shows itself in way we order the congregation. It would seem that some insist upon reminding pastors that they do not own the church -- with the presumption that the laity do.
This shows itself in the oddest things. While some congregations would insist that the congregation must vote on how often Holy Communion is to be observed among them or whether or not the pastor may chant or any of the many other things that are rightly the domain of the pastoral office alone, they would also insist that the pastor should have little input into or opinion on how the daily affairs of the congregation are administered. How foolish we have become and how fearful! Pastors are foolishly afraid of telling God's people that certain things belong to them and were conferred upon them in the call and the people are foolishly fearful of allowing their pastors too much authority (although they are more than happy to add onto his responsibilities!).
The congregation and the Church are not a democracy. For my part I think we do far too much voting in the typical congregation and not enough listening. But at the heart and core of it, the fear of and the charge of clericalism is less about pastors growing too big for their britches than it is a deeply individualized relationship to God that presumes faith to be more obedience than listening and keeping. Take, for example, the question of whether believers and church members should go to church on Sunday morning. When did this become controversial? When did worship and faith become opposites or competitors? When did it become okay to vote against a pastor by staying home on Sunday morning or withholding your tithes and offerings from the Lord's work (precisely because they might be used to pay the man you do not like or respect?).
Sacerdotalism' sounds worse but it is the better word. It means simply the belief that certain men are given by God certain priestly powers and responsibilities to act on His behalf for the sake of His Church -- gifts, authority, and responsibility not given to others. I recall when Everyone a Minister raised up the specter of pastors who merely equipped people to do the work of ministry and did not so much minister to the people the gifts of God. Very quickly we got the idea that you were not serving God unless you were in the chancel and you were not serving God unless you were doing what the pastor did. But the reality is that Lutherans have always believed that not everyone was called or ordained to preach, teach, baptize, administer the keys, and preside. In fact, we said as much when we insisted that it was taught among us that no one should publicly preach or teach or administer the sacraments without being called according to the ordinary rite of the Church.
It is not being clericalist to presume that those on whom this responsibility is given and with it the authority conferred should do what they are to do and it is not being clericalist to presume then that those on whom this responsibility is not given and no authority conferred are to listen with faith and receive with faith the gifts given them by their ministers. In fact, one ought to be suspicious and wary of those who presume to do what is not given them to do. Sacerdotalism sounds worse and it is generally used in its negative sense but it is not a negative word. It simply means what Augustana XIV says. It is high time that pastors stepped up to the plate and the people of God rejoiced to receive the gifts of God bestowed upon them in His Word and Sacraments.
The priesthood of all believers has little to do with the pastoral office -- except that those who have this general priesthood exercise it best when they call and ordain a man to fulfill that office in their midst. Luther did nothing to eliminate the pastoral office or to minimize its importance or narrow its domain but he did everything to elevate that office precisely because of the importance God has attached to preaching and the Sacraments. The pastoral office does not proceed out of the priesthood of all believers but was established by Christ to serve the royal priesthood that they might fulfill their baptismal vocations where God has placed them. It is a measure of our great confusion that we still think that Luther somehow denigrated the pastoral office or made it merely a functional office that could and probably should be exercised by laity. When we get this wrong, we automatically get so many other things wrong and end up perpetuating error after error. What is so bad about admitting that we are sacerdotalists -- we believe that God has ordered some (pastors) in His Church to do certain things and not ordered others to do those things?
2 comments:
Sacerdotalism has an interesting history in the Lutheran Church. On the surface, it seems rather unobjectionable, that is, of or relating to priests. The Scandinavian Lutherans to this day refer to their ministers as “priests.” Lutherans believe that God orders the Church to have specific chosen men to publicly preach and administer the sacraments, or means of grace. In this sense, the Lutheran priest serves as an intermediary between God and his grace and the laity. So what’s so scary about sacerdotalism for Lutherans?
The problem is Luther’s “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” one of the three great founding tracts of the Reformation. German Lutherans did not refer to their ministers as priests, but followed the more biblically precise terms preacher and pastor for those men called to the office of public ministry. The pastor is not so much an intermediary based on his person or indelible ordination, but rather more of an ambassador who announces a message that carries authority from the one represented, that is, God himself. When a Lutheran pastor would ask the penitent, “Do you believe my absolution is God’s absolution?” he is asking if they believe the Gospel announcement of God’s grace of the forgiveness of sins through Christ alone and received personally through faith alone. He is not stating that Christ has given to a certain class or order of clergy the unique power to authorize the forgiveness of sins.
This distinction brought early controversies to the Lutheran churches. The Formula notes a dissension about the consecration, and whether the priest effects the sacramental union with the chanted Verba. Some said yes, the priest says words that the Holy Spirit works through to do what he says. Simple as that. Others said no, the pastor is repeating the words of institution in obedience to Christ’s institution and command, but that God alone unites the body and blood of Christ to the elements according to his own power, promise, and time. There are two views not only of the priesthood here, but also of the nature of the means of grace. The Formula affirmed the latter view, which the Calvinist churches took even further to propose that the means of grace are simply empty signs of God’s will that are independent of God’s actual work of election and preservation in grace. “To God alone be the glory,” which Calvinists use to summarize their theology, in reference to sacerdotalism indicates this opposite extreme.
LCMS Lutherans sometimes are perplexed by Walther’s location of the institution of the pastoral office in the Great Commission, which is also used to identify the institution of the general ministry to the entire Church. Where one places the emphasis determines one’s answers to a host of practical issues of authority in the church. Roman Catholics avoid this by emphasizing the power of the priesthood. Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Methodists emphasize an externally ordered ministry and the Holy Spirit’s power in working when and where he will. Lutherans fall somewhere in the middle, as usual, with various camps attempting to move the needle in one direction or another. High church Lutherans will long for the simple ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church. Waltherians, who don’t really exist anymore, would instead rather have the pastor sit outside in the hallway drinking coffee while the voter’s assembly meets.
Not being a cradle Lutheran, I missed seeing or learning much of the history of how we see our pastors (or Fathers, or priests). I am just so thankful to know that we are at least somewhat removed from the autonomous congregationalism of the Baptist church. I only have the experience of Father Peters, and now Pastor Ulrich’s shepherding. I have never felt put upon, or misused/disabused. It is a relief for the sheep to know that the under-shepherd is steward of Christ’s sheep. I don’t have to argue about things that aren’t important; they are there to allow me to be fed. It is hard work they do. They have to make decisions for the flock, they have to administer the daily workings of a complex organism, and at the pinnacle of that, they have the cure of souls and delivery of Word and Sacrament. I am one sheep thankful I am “limited.”
Post a Comment