Ministry in Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism

Ministry in Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism

Yoking Lutheran Orthodoxy and Lutheran Pietism together in the same chapter will seem unusual, if not dangerous and impossible, to students of the history of the Lutheran churches. 1 Lutheran Orthodoxy marked a level of new maturation for the Lutheran churches. Serious and industrious Lutheran scholars expended their creative energies in studying, analyzing, applying, and structuring the theological heritage of Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and the Lutheran Confessors so that the heritage might be protected and preserved in the dangerous decades of theological conflict and war following the Reformation century. The Lutheran Orthodox mentality was shaped by many factors, not the least of which was the series of religious wars that ravaged Europe during the late sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century. Germany, in particular, experienced the horror of the Thirty Years War; exhaustion led to the acceptance of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), and the dividing lines between Catholic and Lutheran and Calvinist solidified as part of the theological landscape. The Lutheran Orthodox theologians rendered a positive service to their contemporaries as they pored over the theological tradition begun by Martin Luther and then passed it on to their successors. They buttressed, defended, and explicated that tradition so that the evangelical verities of the past could remain the living reality of another generation.

Toward the end of the seventeenth century, however, some theologians and pastors were beginning to notice that the spirit of the evangelical churches was formal and arid, that Christianity in those churches seemed to be ritualistic and formal, organized but not personal. A reaction developed, and that reaction is Lutheran Pietism. The theologians of this movement did not intend to challenge the central truths espoused by the Lutheran Orthodox theologians, but they did want to revitalize the spirit of the churches as well as the personal Christianity of the churches’ members. The Pietists did not believe that they were doing anything but continuing Martin Luther’s reformation. The Pietists believed that

the churches were losing their grasp of the true spirit of Christianity and that revitalization was needed within the churches. These views, of course, seemed to challenge and criticize the Lutheran Orthodox theologians; consequently, the relationship between the Orthodox and the Pietists was often neither positive nor happy. While the Orthodox focused on the correct presentation and apprehension of the Christian faith in all of its articles, the Pietists focused on the personal application of the truths of Christianity in the lives of God’s people: the focus was shifting from the “head” to the “heart,” and some were fearful that such a focus would lead to the destruction of the truth of the gospel.

Yet, nevertheless, both movements within the evangelical churches saw the church’s ministry as essential for the well-being of the churches. In the Lutheran theological tradition, the ministry is the divine institution in the church by which the Word of God is preached and proclaimed and the holy sacraments are administered. We turn now to review the thought of both the Lutheran Orthodox theologians and Lutheran Pietism on the office of the public ministry.

THE ORTHODOX VISION OF THE CHURCH’S MINISTRY

The Orthodox period in the history of the Lutheran churches begins in the last quarter of the sixteenth century and continues into the first quarter of the eighteenth century. During that period of time, Luther’s theology and the theology of the Lutheran Confessions was explored in great detail by exacting scholars. While that intellectual effort is part of the creative heritage of the Lutheran churches today, evaluations of that effort vary from theologian to theologian. Some see that period as a very helpful, necessary, and productive part of the Lutheran heritage; others characterize the period as one of a dead, pedestrian approach to the church’s theological task. Be that as it may, those theologians who spoke of the church’s ministry were precise in their understanding of that “locus” in their monumental tomes.

John Gerhard (1582-1637) spoke for many of his colleagues when he set forth this definition of the church’s ministry:

We conclude that the ministry of the church is a sacred and public office, divinely instituted and committed to certain men through a legitimate calling that they, equipped as they are with special power, teach the Word of God, administer the sacraments and preserve discipline in the church to promote the conversion and salvation of men and to spread the glory of God. 2

This definition is similar to the definitions offered by many Orthodox theologians who preceded and followed Gerhard. The definition reflects wide unanimity in the way the Orthodox theologians understood the ministry. There is a clear understanding that the ministry of the church is an office that is divinely instituted. The office is not a human arrangement, but a divine one given to the church to accomplish some explicit results: teaching the Word of God, administering the sacraments, and preserving discipline in the church. And, of course,

all of those functions are to be carried forward by the public office of the ministry so that human beings can be saved and God can be glorified.

There is, however, no emphasis on a particular structure for the public office of the ministry, that is, on the need to structure ministry according to the pattern of bishop/presbyter/deacon. That focus is absent from the discussions of the Orthodox theologians‑nor should we expect them to set forth such a view. The seventeenth century was a century of strident theological and religious polemics. The difference between the Lutheran churches and the church at Rome was clearly delineated.

The Orthodox theologians insisted that the office of the public ministry is necessary in the church because God had instituted that office. However, that office is not absolutely necessary because the Lord of the church could accomplish the purposes of the ministry in other ways. Nevertheless, since God had instituted the office of the public ministry, the church must have it.

The divine call is the means by which the ministry is established in the church. The Orthodox theologians analyzed the component parts of that call with great thoroughness. One of the emphases of their approach was to insist that individuals could not put themselves forward to serve in the church’s ministry unless the church had acted through the calling process to place them in that office. Occasionally, because of unique circumstances, a layman might step forward to function as a minister in the church, but such an emergency did not establish a general principle for the exercise of the ministry in a local congregation.

The Orthodox theologians distinguished between mediate and immediate calls. The immediate call is one in which God directly and “immediately” called an individual such as Paul or Isaiah to exercise a ministry among the people of God. The mediate call is a call in which God works through a third party (for example, a congregation) to bring an individual into the church’s ministry. While these calls can be distinguished from each other, they possess the same authority and can have the same results. Thus, contemporary pastors in the church can speak with the same confidence that St. Peter demonstrated when he spoke the Word to the people who heard his sermons.

The Orthodox theologians also insisted that the whole church, that is, the magistrates, the church authorities, and the laity (the Ordo Politicus, the Ordo Ecclesiasticus, and the Ordo Oeconomicus, respectively) must be actively involved in the calling of pastors and ministers in the church because God has given the whole church‑not just selected parts of the church-the authority to call and fill the office of the public ministry.

In general, the Orthodox theologians wanted contemporary practice in their churches to conform to apostolic practice, particularly as that practice could be known on the basis of the New Testament. Of course, those theologians recognized that the New Testament did not provide an exact “procedures manual” or “blueprint” for the calling process. For example, the members of the Ordo

Politicus in the first century A.D. were usually not members of the Christian church. Consequently, the insistence that this ordo must function as a full participant in the calling process could not be demonstrated conclusively as an essential part of apostolic practice. Nevertheless, the Orthodox theologians insisted that the principle, that is, that all members and parts of the church must participate in the calling of pastors, still applied: the overriding principle that all things must be done decently and in order assumed that all members of the church participated fully in the calling of a pastor.

The Orthodox theologians set high standards for those who would serve in the church as its pastors and teachers. St. Paul’s comments in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, along with other sections of Scripture, were thoroughly studied and analyzed by the Orthodox theologians. It was also clear to them that all pastors and teachers in the church must be male: in the views of these theologians St. Paul’s statements in I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2 absolutely forbade the service of women as pastors in the church.

A man who is properly qualified for the office of the public ministry and who has been called to fill that office must be ordained before the call can be exercised. But what is the meaning or the necessity of ordination? The Orthodox theologians assumed that ordination to the pastoral office was necessary if for no other reason than that all things must be done decently and in order in the church. Many of the Orthodox theologians taught that ordination related to the capacity of the one called to assume the responsibilities and duties of the pastoral ministry, but not to the essence of the ministry or the call to the ministry. Thus, ordination is ecclesiastical attestation of the ability of the candidate to accept and exercise the call extended by the church. Some of the theologians taught simply that ordination is public testimony that the call being extended to the pastoral candidate was legitimate and that the one called possessed the necessary aptitude for the office.

Of course, the Orthodox theologians roundly rejected any notion that ordination conferred some sort of “indelible character” on the ordained. Nevertheless, no one could be ordained without being examined to determine his fitness for the office and the thoroughness of his theological preparation for ministry. Ordination is “necessary” in the church, but its necessity is not absolute. Furthermore, ordination should not be conferred if an individual does not possess a legitimate call to function in the church as the pastor of a specific congregation.

When the Orthodox theologians discussed the various duties and responsibilities of the pastoral office, a clear picture of the pastor’s work emerged. The pastor must preach the Word of God. The second duty, according to one reckoning, is the administration of the sacraments. Third, the pastor should pray for those committed to his spiritual care and keeping. The next duty was that the pastor provide a proper example for the living of the Christian life. The

fifth duty is the exercise of church discipline among the members of the flock. The sixth duty is the maintenance of the church’s rites. And, finally, the pastor must care for the poor and visit the sick. 3

While other theologians might alter the listing and perhaps arrange these duties in a different order or priority, all of them demonstrated a clear grasp of what a pastor in the church should do in response to the call he received as a pastor in the church. Furthermore, these theologians shared a common assumption: the pastor is the minister in the church. The office of the public ministry is the pastoral office. The pastoral office is the legitimate heir to all the forms of ministry noted in the New Testament’s record of apostolic practice.

Nevertheless, the Orthodox theologians also recognized that pastors and ministers in the church could be distinguished from one another and ranked variously. Moreover, their study of the Scriptures demonstrated that the ministers in the church of the apostolic age exercised different aspects of the one office of the public ministry. Thus, the New Testament spoke of bishops and deacons, of presbyters and teachers, of evangelists and prophets. At the same time, the Orthodox theologians concluded that the biblical material did not provide a clear picture of the structural and/or subordinate relationships among ministers bearing different names or titles. Even if a more or less clear pattern of the relationship between various ministers in the early church (pastor, prophet, evangelist, teacher, presbyter, bishop, deacon, and so on) could be determined, the Orthodox theologians did not believe that the church must adhere strictly to such a pattern in successive ages of the church. In other words, as the church assesses its needs and requirements from time to time, the church has the freedom to arrange its ministry in response to those needs and requirements. These conclusions were reached only after extensive and exhaustive studies of the material in I Cor. 12:28-31 and Eph. 4:11-13. As a matter of fact, the Orthodox theologians displayed some ingenuity in their efforts to distinguish, for example, a prophet from an evangelist and an apostle from a pastor.

While various titles and offices could be distinguished from one another on various grounds, the Orthodox theologians nevertheless insisted that the church possesses only one ministry, performed by various ministers with differing titles and responsibilities and ranks. These theologians recognized that the various ministers of the church had been blessed with different gifts for ministry: some could teach while others were more suited as “table waiters.” The evidence of different gifts had led to the establishment of different positions in the one office of the public ministry. Thus, the Orthodox theologians did not accept the notion that a “bishop,” for example, had a different ministry than did a “pastor” or “presbyter” in the church because Christ gave the church only one ministry and authorized the church to fill that one ministry with qualified men who were capable of preaching the Word and administering the sacraments for the eternal salvation of people and for the glory of God.

Because the church has been granted one ministry and the power for the exercise of that one ministry, it is absurd for those who occupy the one office of the public ministry to struggle among themselves for authority or the privileges of rank. Both the church and the ministry-in all of its forms-belong to God alone! The center of both the church and its ministry is the gospel proclaimed in the church’s ministry. Everything in the understanding of the church and its ministry focuses on that center: the gospel of God’s righteousness in Christ which justifies by faith alone.

THE PIETIST VISION OF THE CHURCH’S MINISTRY

In the late seventeenth century, as the theologians of Lutheran Orthodoxy rehearsed their systems of theology, other theologians were beginning to look in different directions for the church’s renewal. Philip Jacob Spener, a student of the Orthodox theologian John Conrad Dannhauer, was asked to write a preface for a new printing of John Arndt’s True Christianity. That preface, later printed as a separate volume, marked the birth of Pietism in Lutheran circles. Pia Desideria 4 eloquently expresses the frustration Pastor Spener knew so well as he attempted to exercise his ministry as a Lutheran pastor as well as his determination to inject new life into the Lutheran churches. Spener’s Pia Desideria analyzed the situation he discovered in the churches and also set forth a series of proposals to rectify the situation.

Spener believed that the church was suffering because the Word of God was not receiving the use God intended it to receive in the church. He also believed the church was suffering because the focus for ministry in the church had been narrowly set on the public ministry of the church and the universal priesthood of believers had been ignored. Furthermore, Spener insisted that the essence of true Christianity consisted in practice, not in a rather intellectual knowledge of the truth. He lamented the polemical character of theological discourse in the church: pastor and professor argued over doctrinal minutiae in most unedifying ways. Spener believed also that theological education, particularly the preparation of pastors at German universities, needed radical reform. Theological preparation at the universities had become in general a series of intellectual exercises. The spiritual formation of future pastors was being neglected in the quest for theological orthodoxy and reine Lehre at the universities. And Spener considered the pastors’ style of preaching to be a continuing problem. The church needed preachers who could preach truly edifying sermons, full of proper content delivered in a positive style. Preaching in the church had become irrelevant to the life of the people.

These assessments of the church’s life at the end of the seventeenth century include the germ of Spener’s proposals for change. A close study of Spener’s analysis reveals that he viewed the public ministry of the church as the key to the achievement of the reform he wanted for the church. However, Spener was

unwilling to accept the notion that only the ordained clergy of the church was the key to reforming the spirituality of the church. He believed that the ministry is a gift to the whole church and that all the members of the church as spiritual priests before God must exercise the ministry they had received.

Spener, and those who worked with him in developing the Pietist movement, wanted to revitalize the church by revitalizing its members as well as its clergy. One of the devices Spener advocated was the collegia pietatis, gatherings of lay people for the purpose of Bible study, prayer, and hymn singing. These gatherings took place apart from the direction of the clergy, although pastors were seen as a resource for the study and prayer taking place in those gatherings. The collegia were not to be in opposition to the clergy: they were intended to extend the ministry of preaching carried on by the clergy. Spener’s critics, however, saw this emphasis on the ministry of the laity as a threat to the privileged office of the ministry in the church. Pietism, however, did emphasize the role of the laity in ministry, and that is one of the distinguishing marks of the Lutheran Pietist movement.

These observations, however, should not be interpreted to mean that Lutheran Pietists rejected the unique role of the public ministry in the life of the church. The Pietists insisted that the church’s pastoral office had been divinely established and instituted and that it was necessary for the church’s fife and being. This office was essential for the edification of the people of God.

The Pietists also emphasized the unique qualifications and characteristics of the church’s public ministers. Focusing on St. Paul’s discussion of qualifications in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, Spener expressed the fond hope that pastors in the church would exemplify those qualifications more and more. Furthermore, echoing the Lutheran Orthodox theologians, Spener insisted that only men could occupy the pastoral office in the church.

The Pietists believed that better pastors would produce better Christians: that philosophy animated their critique of the contemporary church at the beginning of the eighteenth century. A full-scale reformation of theological education was an integral part of the Pietist approach to ministry. The heart and core of a proper theological curriculum for pastors was the study of God’s Word: an exegetical, rather than a philosophical/systematic, approach to pastoral ministry exemplified the Pietist position. The Pietists wanted their pastors to be pious, God-fearing, converted individuals who loved the Lord above all things even as they served the laity of the church. Pietists did not understand how people could be godly if the clergy was not godly.

The Pietists, much like the Lutheran Orthodox theologians, insisted that no one could serve as a pastor in the church without having received and accepted a legitimate call to serve as a pastor. Moreover, all parts of the church -the magistracy, the clergy, and the laity -must participate in the calling of pastors. But, in character with the direction of the movement, Spener also developed

practical guidelines to help pastors evaluate the calls they might receive to serve in the church’s ministry. The focus on decency and good order in the structure of the pastoral ministry which we saw among the Orthodox theologians also characterized the Pietists. The call bound all parties —the pastor, the congregation, and society— together in a holy relationship.

Ordination is a part of the call to the pastoral ministry, and the Pietists placed a value on ordination. Ordination was ratification and confirmation of the call that a pastor had received. Spener insisted that ordination is public testimony or ratification of the pastoral call. At the same time, then, ordination confers no special gift or grace on the ordinand, even though ordination must be observed for the sake of good order in the church. When Pietist Lutheran preachers arrived in North America in the eighteenth century, they soon came to recognize the need for additional clergy and the need to provide ordination for them. Some Pietists, in a kind of emergency situation, would not insist on ordination, but the general practice of the church, that is, ordination of candidates for the pastoral ministry of the church, was for them the normal rule.

The Pietists discussed the tasks of the public ministry in the church with great thoroughness. The role of the sermon in building up the church’s members was underscored heavily in Pietist writings. The sermon was a means for edifying the congregation. And sermons should speak directly from the pastor’s heart to the human condition. Moreover, pastors were urged to make use of the collegia pietatis as a help in edifying the people of God. Then, after a pastor had preached on a Sunday, members of a collegium could gather on Monday or Thursday to review the sermon and make direct application of the sermon’s lessons to the Christian’s life.

Spener and the other Pietists also stressed the importance of confirmation and the confessional as aids in the pastor’s ministry. Confirmation had to be more than a “coming of age” rite: confirmation must assist in deepening and strengthening the spiritual life of the church. Furthermore, the confessional can be used to help Christians prepare for the reception of the Lord’s Supper so that they receive it worthily. The pastor must work diligently to build up the members of the church so that they grow and develop in their life of faith.

The Pietists recognized that ministers in the church could be and were ranked. They studied the rankings in I Cor. 12:28-31 and Eph. 4:11-13 and recognized the distinctions between an apostle and an evangelist and a pastor/teacher. Nevertheless, the Pietists in general also concluded that all pastors and teachers are also bishops in the church. Thus, bishops are pastors and preachers; they are Seel-sorger and Seel-hirten in the church. But such titles and identities are secondary to the real issue of ministry. That issue is the doing of it: ministry is the building up of the people of God-that is, edification-and other elements are clearly secondary. Furthermore, Spener and other Pietists recognized that the exercise of ministry in the practical existence of the church does not conform

easily to rigid distinctions of rank and title. The Pietists focused on the goal and outcome of ministry, rather than on ranking or on structure for ministry. The practical outcome of edification must be the primary goal for the conduct of the church’s ministry.

ORTHODOXY AND PIETISM: THE CONNECTION

Although Orthodoxy and Pietism are often perceived as antagonistic movements, both share a common heritage. Both movements focus on the preaching of the Word of God and on the administration of the sacraments as the essence of the office of the public ministry. In other words, the church has been given the ministry of pastors and teachers and other ministers in the church so that the Word of God can be preached and the sacraments administered.

Nevertheless, both groups view the public ministry differently from each other. For the Orthodox theologians, the ministry is the divine institution entrusted with the preservation and continuity of divine truth in the church. The Word is the treasure that must be protected and preserved in fidelity to the tradition handed down from the fathers to the present generation; it is the ministry’s solitary and wonderful burden, and faithfulness to it is the mark of the church’s ministry.

For the Pietists, the Word is the great treasure of the church, but it must be shared and ministered in such a way that the laity is transformed and edified and the Reformation is continued. Moreover, the Pietists tended to dissolve the clear distinction between the clergy and the laity: the clergy works to develop the spirituality of the laity, and the laity is capable of exercising spiritual responsibility for itself. And yet the Pietists did not intend in any way to suggest that the public ministry of the church was unimportant or unnecessary: the public ministry is God’s institution and gift to the church.

In spite of these differences and others, both the Orthodox theologians and the Pietists seem to be unimpressed with the need to conform their views on ministry to the traditional patterns of the pre‑Reformation church. The titles given to ministers in the church‑for example, Pfaffer, Superintendent, Rector, Pastor‑were secondary. However, the Pietists did inaugurate the use of the title “Pastor” for those who filled the office of the public ministry. In their view, the ministers of the church are shepherds of the flock who pastor the people of God and edify them in the faith. For the Orthodox theologians, the ministers of the church are guardians, defenders, and proclaimers who set forth the truth of God for the people’s welfare in response to the call and commission of Almighty God. Each movement, in its own way, focused on the ministry of Word and sacrament in such a way that the inherent connection between church and Word and ministry was maintained.

NOTES

1. A much more extensive review of the Orthodox and Pietist understandings of the office of the public ministry is available in my Traditions of Ministry: A History of the Doctrine of the Ministry in Lutheran Theology (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1983), 58-126; notes, 191-99. The interested reader is referred to that resource for additional explication and bibliographical information.

2. John Gerhard, Loci Theologici cum Pro Adstruenda Veritate tum Pro Destruenda Quorumvis Contradicentium Falsitate per Theses Nervose Solide et Copiose Explicati, ed. Fr. Frank (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1885), 6:10 (Locus 23, par. 24, p. 10). The translation was made by Richard Dinda; his translation is available on microfiche from Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri.

3. Ibid., 6:177-96 (Locus 23, par. 265-89, pp. 177-96).

4. Philip Jacob Spener, Pia Desideria, trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964).