Christ Gave No Law Concerning Church Governance (He Didn’t Even Mention a Voter’s Assembly)
Yet another reason why Lutheranism flummoxes the Reformed, on the one hand, and the Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox on the other, is because we absolutely insist that nowhere does Christ institute a certain form of church governance.
Sasse puts matters, as always, not only succinctly, but clearly and briefly! We Missouri Synod Lutherans must be very careful we never assume that the Voter’s Assembly method of organizing a congregation has any more legitimate “Biblical” command or order than any other method or system of organizing a congregation, or a larger church body. Every form is feasible, and no form can claim to be the “more Biblical” form. Christ gave no law concerning the Church’s constitution or how it is to to be organized and governed. None.
Let’s hear Sasse:
“One should stop and realize just what that means. Of every other church one may say with the familiar words of Calvin that it professes an ordo, quo Dominus ecclesiam gubernari voluit [“ an order by which the Lord wills His church to be governed”]. That is true of the Catholic Churches of the East and West, as well as of the Reformed denominations. Opinions differ only as to what this ordo may be: the universal monarchy of the popes or the episcopo-synodical administration of the Eastern and Anglican Churches; the governing of a church by a senate of presbyters, among whom there may be no difference of rank, or the autonomy of the individual Congregational or Baptist congregations (to name but a few of the church polities for which it is claimed that they are prescribed in the New Testament). The true greatness of Luther and the boldness of his basic theological principle of strict separation of Law and Gospel becomes clear when one observes how, apart from all these other possibilities, he travels his lonely way: Christ has given His church no law de constituenda ecclesia [concerning the constitution of the church]. Every form of church government is feasible which leaves room for a proper administration of the means of grace, which imposes no restrictions upon their administration.
“One thing, indeed, the Lord has given His church, something that does not pertain to its bene esse but to its esse [not to its well-being but to its very being]: “Ut hanc fidem consequamur, institutum est ministerium docendi evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta” [“ That this faith may be obtained, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted”], as the Augustana states, Article V. In order that we may attain this justifying faith of which the preceding article speaks, the Gospel must be preached and the Sacraments must be administered, and for this purpose God has established the ministry, the service [Dienst] by which this is done. But wherever the means of grace are properly administered, there, according to the divine promise that the Word shall not return to Him void, is also the ecclesia, the congregatio sanctorum, the congregation of saints, of sinners justified.
“The manner in which the congregation shall organize itself is prescribed just as little as the form which is taken on by the ministerium ecclesiasticum [the church's ministry]. The apostles came to realize that they would be better able to fulfill the duties of their spiritual office if they would be relieved of the obligation of ministering to the poor and administering financial affairs. That is how the supplementary office of deacons originated. But the church was church even without this office. That is how the church of all the ages may, because of the needs of the times, create certain auxiliary offices, e.g., the office of the episcopate, superintendency, or whatever else one may mention. But the existence of all these “offices” is justified only insofar as they serve the one great ministry of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments. A bishop may have the function of administering the affairs of a large diocese. The underlying purpose, however, can only be to create opportunity for the ministerium ecclesiasticum. His true office is that of a pastor, even though he be pastor pastorum. Iure humano [“ by human arrangement”] he may have the duties of a superintendency. Only the office of the preaching of reconciliation [das Amt, das die Versöhnung predigt] is iure divino [“ by divine right”].”
Herman, Sasse. Letters to Lutheran Pastors. Volume 1: “Letter 8: On The Problem of the Relation Between the Office of the Ministry and the Congregation,” (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2013), p. 121.
As a Free Lutheran, I like this very much. I shall now duck and run.
This subject always fascinates me. You are quite right that Jesus never mandates a particular form of church governance. Nor did Paul so far I can see. Nevertheless, the clear example—example, not mandate—is a plurality eldership model for the local congregation. This is the only NT form we are given though I concur that it is not mandated. But with what other area of doctrine or practice do we so freely set aside the clear Biblical example for our own way?
Several years ago I read a book by a Baptist on this topic. He began by acknowledging that the model given in Scripture is the plurality elder model at the local congregation level. However, he went on to advocate the senior pastor model because 1) it is pragmatisc i.e., it works better, and 2) the plurality model is not mandated.
Why do we feel so free to discard the example of Scripture even though it is not mandated?
I think it is far from clear that a Presbyterian model is in fact located in the NT, you have to make a number of assumptions to assume that.
Anglican here. And I actually don’t disagree with the proposition that “nowhere does Christ institute a certain form of church governance.”
But I also wholeheartedly affirm that certain forms of church governance are wiser than others (like, e.g., episcopo-synodical administration or presbyterianism). It’s no mistake to my mind that by, e.g., the time of 1Jn we see something akin to synodical, er, oversight.
Also, you’re rolling out the tired (supposed) antithesis between Scripture and tradition, no? Nowhere does Christ or his apostles say that he is ek duo physeon, but we nevertheless confess it, precisely because this tradition comports with Scripture, as does, e.g., the tradition of episcopo-synodical administration (I’m certainly not suggesting the latter is equal in dogmatic status to the former; I’m just showing one example of how we affirm at least one thing in part because of how tradition supports it).
Thanks too for quoting Sasse—one of my favorite Lutherans!
There is no particular ecclesiastical polity that will safeguard pure doctrine, that much is certain.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this, Rev. McCain. It was a good summary and review of the Sasse’s work on church governance I had previously read in The Lonely Way.
Sadly, I think many conservative Lutherans have made a golden calf out of the congregational voters’ assembly, as if it were divinely appointed to supreme infallibility. We need to recognize that any intitution of men, no matter how well intentioned, is capable of error.
And for LCMS we need to remember that Walther’s work on the form of a Christian congregation apart from the state is essentially a proposal of one possibility. It was never intended to be presented as a divine mandate.
Very well said!