This last Monday, I was honored to present a paper on this topic at the Kansas District Fall Pastors’ Conference. I wanted to share it with you. Here is the first and last paragraph from the paper:
First Paragraph: It was a common question in Jesus day. Could one divorce their wife “for any reason?†This question of course was posed to Jesus on one occasion. There is becoming a similar question all the more common in our churches these days. Can a congregation dismiss their pastor “for any reason?†Especially since in our current polity nearly all pastors are called to the ministry as a result of congregational action, the question has been asked: can’t the same congregations dismiss their pastor whenever they feel that it is best? This question has been posed in our own district publically. I will argue in this paper that the answer is unquestionably no.
Last Paragraph: In summary, it is not only the question of whether a dismissal can happen “for any reason†that is similar to marriage. In marriage one has the right to marry and also the right to divorce if there is just cause. However as Jesus made clear, the married person has no right to just dismiss their spouse “for any reason†they see fit. So it is also with the relationship between congregations and pastors. Congregations by virtue of being Church have the right to call pastors. Also, if there is just cause (as outlined in the scriptures), they have the right to depose the pastor from the Office of the Ministry on behalf of the entire Church. However, they do not have the right to dismiss their pastor “for any reason.†A clear understanding of the nature of the Office of the Public Ministry makes this clear. Time spent reading the passages collected in the Table of Duties confirms this belief. And conviction that God is able to make his called ones stand makes one firm in this understanding. This is the testimony of the Scriptures and is also the historic practice of the Church. We do well to listen to the Scriptures and follow in the footsteps of the faithful who lived before us in Christ’s Church. Pastors cannot be dismissed “for any reason.â€
To read the entire paper, click here to download it in PDF format. If you do not already have a PDF reader, the free version from Adobe can be downloaded here.
It’s good to talk about these things! Check out the November issue of The Lutheran Witness. We have an article that speaks to this topic as well.
Will do.
Phil,
I read your article carefully before I decided to respond. Keep in mind that I have no horse in this race as I am fine to let Lutheran congregations call/dismiss pastors to their liking. However, here are some problems with your paper:
1) First, you really need to get a proof reader. Phil, there are so many examples of poor spelling and poor grammar and just really weird, awkward and muddled sentences. I would be happy to lend my services in that department for future papers.
2) I do like your argument that the pastor should be likened to the spouse of the church (i.e. congregation). I think you can take it further that the pastor/priest is the icon of Christ the archpriest. The pastor acts in the role of Christ and is the icon of Christ when serving the Divine Liturgy.
3) As far as dismissing pastors, you cite a number of Scriptural passages, but the problem is that you fail to identify any time in the life of the church (aside from what you quote from Acts; a few of which are rather tenuous to your overall thesis) where this standard was applied. If Sola Scriptura is the norma normans by which all doctrine and the praxis of the church is measured, then is there any time, historically, where the church applied this standard to her priests or bishops or deacons? Until you can actually provide actual historical instances in the Western or Eastern churches, then you are faced with two dilemmas. The first is that the standard you argue for has no basis in historical practice and second, that the concept of Sola Scriptura has never been the lone standard for judging doctrine or praxis.
4) Your argument that the Latin and the German version of the confessions can be read as “The Church is more than the ministers” rather than “The Church is above the ministers” cannot be maintained. The Latin word supra always means above or superior it never means “more than” as if the church and the ministers are not being compared in some hierarchical order. Remember, I know a great deal about Latin and Greek. If you’re going to quote Latin sources, please make sure you have a firm footing.
5) The elephant in the room that you are refusing to deal with, for one reason or another is the polity of the LCMS. You insist on a democratic structure with term limits, elected officials, essentially desacramentalizing the entire polity and then complain when the democratic element is being used to dismiss a pastor. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t know why the LCMS insists on using a democratic polity especially when the very progenitor of the Lutheran church, Luther himself, derided democracy as a polity of mob rule and mediocrity. Until the LCMS either allows its presidents to act as bishops and pastors to act as priests, then you’re only going to have more of these occurrences, whether justified or not.
Such are my thoughts. Take them or leave them as you please.
Chris,
Thanks for your thoughtful review. Let me answer the five points.
1) I did have someone proofread as I know my fingers are prone to mistakes. I will take you up on your offer in the future. If you have time to ink this paper still I would love to have it in the best shape possible.
2) While your language could be misapplied, I agree with what you say here in principle.
3) I linked to another paper which does more of that work. I specifically did not cover the historical practice outside of scripture because other work exists and also because such areas are not my strong suit. I tried to offer what I can do.
4) I admittedly do not know a lot of Latin or German. I relied on friends who do and their resources. I think the context, the ultimate judge of meaning, sustains my point.
5) I agree with you so long as you agree that polity is not prescribed but free to the church. I think some sort of bishop arrangement would be best for the church. Some of us are working towards this slowly. No doubt, we often have given ourselves over to mob rule. God help us.
Chris,
Oh thanks a lot! Currently I am writing a treatise on constitutional monarchy and woman-suffrage in the civil / political realm from a viewpoint of a Biblical worldview. Today, the biggest and staunchest champion of Congregationalist Voter Supremacy (the voter’s assembly is the supreme and final authority in the local congregation in all things not contrary to the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, and that all congregations are autonomous and independent) in the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod), and the CLC (Concordia Lutheran Conference / Church of the Lutheran Confession), is the Rev. Pastor Jack Cascione.
In your article you said: “To imply that our Confessions suggest that every congregation or individual member has authority over its pastor is to suggest the Confessions speak in error against the clear teaching [yea, the SPECIFIC and punctilious SEDES DOCTRINAE] of the Scriptures about the relationship of each pastor [AND ELDERS] to the people of the congregation. 1 Thessalonians 5:13 speaks of pastors as those who “are over†the people using Greek phrase [24 PROISTAMENOUS HYMON EN KYRIO] that speaks of headship and authority. Hebrews 7 speaks of pastors as the “rulers of you.†[25 TON HEGOUMENON HYMON!] And therefore, in Hebrews 13:7 the people are called to be persuaded by (most translations use the word obey) them and submit to them. [26 PEITHESTHE TOIS HEGOUMENOIS HYMON KAI HYPEIKETE!]”
I am glad how you remarked that the teaching that the system of Voter Supremacy – namely that every adult MALE layman in the congregation just by virtue of his essential maleness has ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction (exercised in practice in the LCMS, WELS, CLC, through the Voter’s Assembly) even over his own PASTOR is in DIRECT CONFLICT with the SPECIFIC, EXPRESS, and PUNCTILIOUS teachings of the New-Testament in 1 Thessalonians 5:13, Hebrews 13:7! You also pointed out “The whole idea of a congregation dismissing a man from his specific call according to their desires flies in the face of the Table of Duties laid out in the Scriptures and collected in Luther’s Small Catechism.” I agree with you 100%! Also, the entire idea of giving every mere male layman in the congregation supreme jurisdiction over their pastor is also contrary to the SPECIFIC parts of the Table of Duties which SPECIFICALLY address the relationship between Pastors and their Congregation. Therefore Cascione’s doctrine of Congregational Voter Supremacism is a flat out HERESY, and therefore can NEVER be the _Reine Lehre_ (= Pure Doctrine) of the New Testament (nor of any truly confessional Lutheran Church) concerning the relative duties of the so-called “Clergy” (i.e. the Ordained Ministers of the Word and Sacrament) and the so-called “Laity” (i.e. those who have NOT been duly ordained to such offices in church)!
DELENDA EST CARTHAGO!