CONCORDIA CONCORDIA - Brock University

UTNERAN THEOLOGVolume TV FallIWinter 1991 di Spring/Surnmer 1992 Numbers 1 & 2EditorialsForeword ................................................................................................... 5Albin 3. Stanfel: an Appreciation ............................................................. 7Pastoral and Theological Reflectionson the Rolcs of Husband and Wife ........................................................ 9Briar? A DulllopThe Psychdogy ol Christian EducationAccord~ng to Johann Mlchael Reu ......................................................... 23Puul I .Tohns/onReal Life Ministry: Defin~t~on and Appraijal ........................................ 45Howu~l W. K/ atrlerLutheran and Anglican Repristinationisru. and the Means of Grace ..... 59Jonathan C. NaumanrlMattcrs of Life and Death:Bioethical Issues in Christian Pcrcspcctive .......................................... 69Daniel Ch. OllerduirzThe Erlru Usrrm Rule and Formula of Concord Article V11 ................. 95Uuvid P. SaarA Closes Look at Tndividual Communion Cups .................................. 111Timothy Teusrhrr"We are all Priests": a contextual Study of the Priesthood in Luther . 129Thonzas M. Wingel-Book Rcvicws ..................................................................................... 157

Dr. Albin J. Stanfel

FOREWORDThis double issue of Luthcr.ar.1 T~~~~oloyicc~l Rellitwj is dedicated to Dr.Albin J. Stanfel, a distinguished pastor of Lutheran Church-Canada whorerved as President of the Ontario (11ow East) Dislrict from 1970 to 1991. Along-time colleague of Dr. Staiifel remarks below that his friend has alwaysbeen and yet remains first and foremost a shepherd of souls. It is, therefose,fitting that the essays included in LTR IV: l & 2 all belong under the headingof pastoral theology.Pr. Brim Dunlop combines a sl~rdy of rclcvant New Tcstament texts withan awareness of historical-theological and conteinporary sociological dalain his "Pastoral and Theological Reflections on the Role of T-Tushancl andWife."Dr. Paul Johnston, who completed part of his M.Div. studies a1 the St.Catharines seminary, has by now established himself' as a leading authorityin our circles oil old ALC theologian J. M. Reu. Dr. Johnston here writes on"Thc Psychology of Christian Education According to Johann Michael Reu."Dr. Howard Kramer, president emeritus of the St. Catl~arineseminary,delivered a paper some years ago in the area of practical theology to a jointmeeting of the LC-C Council of Presidents, the religion faculty of ConcordiaCollege, Edmonton, and the facullies of our Canadian seminaries. Laterpublishcd in the Festschrift celebrating the hundred and fiftieth anaiver.sarpof Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, we herc rcproduce with permission andoffer for the first time to a Canadian readership Dr. Kranler's "Real LifeMinistry: Definition and Appraisal."Dr. Jonathan Naumann, an American-born pastor of our sister churchthe Evangelical Lutheran Church of England, compares and contrasts theearly Missouri Synod and the Anglican Oxford Movement in "Lutheran andAnglican Repsistinationisrn and the Means of Grace."Dr. Uanicl Overduin was the 1992 Lutheran Life Lecturer at the St.Catharines seminary. A native of the Nclherlands trained and ordained as apastor of the Hervnrmde Kerk, Dr. Overduin became a convert to Lutheranismand moved to Australia under the encouragement of the sainted Dr.Hermann Sasse. A long-serving parish pastor who for a quarter of a centurypreached weekly in English, Dutch, and German, Daniel Overduin earnedhis theological doctorate in the area of ethics. Active in the internationalpro-life movement for many years and the author of several books onbioethics, Dr. Overduin was perhaps the major confessional Lutheran

hLUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWspokesman on abortion-related subjects on the world sccne. Respecled alsooutside Lutheran circles, Dr. Overduin was thc only protestant member or the(Roman Catholic) Society of Thcological Ethicists. Dr. Ovet-duin was calledto his eternal rest by thc Lord of the Church on July 23 orthis year. The lecturenotes from which he spoke at the St. Calharines seminasy on April 5-6, 1992are here printed as Dr. Overcluin's testament to his North American co-religionistsunder the heading "Matters of Life and Death: Bioethical Iss~ics inChristian Perspective."Pr. David Saar gathers together recent rescarch on the Lutheran understandingof the Sacrament of the Altar in thc sixteenth century in "The ExtraUsuin Rule and Formula of Concord Article W."Pr. Timothy Teuscher offers a perspective on a matter of contemporarypastoral practice in "A Closer Look at Individual Communion Cups."Candidate Thomas Winger, a St. Catharines graduate now completingdoctoral studies at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, dclves into the developingtheology of the Reformer in "'We are all Priests': a Contextual Study of thePriesthood in Luther."The editors wish our readers a blessed New Church Year with much joyin the celcbration of Advent and Christmas which hold before us the majestyand grace of Him in whose name pastoral theology turns into the serving ofHis people with the spoken and sacramental Gospel.JRSMonday in the firht week of Advent 1992

ALBIN J. STANFEL, D.1).AN APPRECIATIONIn Septcmbcr of 1955, a young candidate, Albin J. Stanfel, fresh fromConcordia Seminary in St. Louis, with his bride Dorothy, began the work of5tarting a new mission congregation in Toronto. The Lord blessed the workand by 1957 Our Saviour congregation in Thistlctown was organized andwithin a couple of yeats a church building was dedicated. A new missioncongregation, Hope in Kitchener, called him as their new pastor in 1964.His duties changed when in 1969 he became the Associate ExecutivcDircctor of the District responsible for missions and Church Extension. Hislife changed even more when he was elected president of the Ontario Dlstrictat its next convention in 1970. He scrved faithfully in that office until 1991,a period 0121 years. He was honoured during his term of office by ConcordiaTheological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, with a Doctor of Divinity Degree.As a strong defender of the Lutheran hith, his influencc was fclt notonly in the District, but also in the church in Canada and the U.S. Whcnthere was a determined effort within the Lutheran church in Canada todcclarc thcrnselves to be in full fellowship with the other Lutheran churchbodics and therefore to strive for the formation of one Canadian Lutheranchurch, Albin J. Stanfel was the lonc voice on the entire Committee onRelations with Other Ch~trch Bodies to voice objection because he wasconvinced there was not agreemen1 in doctrine. That voice ultimately prevailedand the church in Canada ([he LC-MS) recognized the validity of hisstance.There was no stronger supporter of the establishment of a seminary forthe training of pastors in Ontario than Albin. He was president of the Districtwhen the resolution to cstablish seminary training in Canada was introducedto the Hoard oSDirectors. He supported the rcsolution most enthusiastically.He wa5 a member of all Ihe study comrnittccs that led to the establishmentof the institution. He was a member of the original Board of Directors andthen of the first Board of Regents. His support changed the minds of manyin the District to enthusiastic support of our beloved seminary.Hc was a supporter of the establishment of Lutheran Church-Canada asan autonomous church body and, again. his influence was felt. His supportcaused many to change thcir minds regarding LC-C. We must take note ofthe fact that on ~ wo previous occasions the congregations of the District hadnot given the necessary approval in referenda. His influcncc n7as instrumen-

8 LUr1'HERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWtal in avoiding a division wilh the district over the forination of LC-C.Albin J. Stank1 above all is a pastor with a pastor's heart. IIis preachingrcflected and still reflects that his conduct in whatever office he occupieddemonstsated it. But that which counts thc most is that he is a sincere manof God whose delight is to servc his Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ. Hislove of his work, his love of his wife Durolhy, and his love of his family, isbut an exprcssion of his faith that he is a heloved child of God who has beenredcemcd by the blood of Jesus Christ and justified by His resurrection.JK.

PASTORAL AND THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ONTHE ROLES OF HUSBAND AND WIFEBnan A. DunlopUnderstanding and iinpleinenting roles for husband and wife which areboth Scriptural and practical is a challenging task for thc pcrsonal piety ofmodern-day Christians. hlore or less vague notions about headship, love,and submission in Christian publications and specifically in Lutheran writingshave opcncd he door to a varicty of models for marriage. Particularlyalarming in this contemporary situation is the tendency among laymen andclergy alike to forsake the witness of Scripture and the testirnony of twothousand ycars of Christian tradition and to build a working definition ofmarriage from the resources of modern sciences and ideologies. Feminism,psychology, and sociology all make thenisclvcs lclt in the marriages ofChristians through the subtle leavening effect of modern media. The informationexplosion in whicb we live exposes us to a host of attitudes whichmay or may not harrnonizc with Lhc witness of Scripture. It is important tobecome aware of the various attitudes towards husband and wife that arecurrent in our time and of the teachings which lie behind them. Even morcurgent, howevcr, is the need for a clcarcr and deeper understanding of theScriptural roles of husband and wife in the face of applying the Word of Godto specific pastoral situations, and of simply living the Christian lire in aworld of confusion.I. The Structure of Marital Roles Instituted at CreationOur examination of the roles of husband and wife begins at the beginning,the creation of all things. We have not set out in this direclion on ourown, but rather in thc footsteps of St. Paul. In laying the groundwork for hisexposition of the roles of husband and wife, St. Paul writes:For man does not originate from woman, but woman from 11ian; forindeed Inan was not created for woman's sake, but wornan Sor man'ssaltc. (I Cos. 1 1:X-9)St. Paul begins his development of tlic orclcr ol men and women inrnarriagc and in the church by appealing to structures which were put in placeby God from the very inoinent of creation. Man was created first, followedby woman, who was taken out olirian (Gcn. 2:7,22; I Tim. 2:13). By God'sinstitution, the husband is to act as the head, lcepllalP7 of his wife, the one towhom she is to submit (e. g., I Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). Under the inspirationof the Holy Spiril, §l. Paid inSorms LLS that nicli and women were given

10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICA l. REVIEWdistinct roles when God in His wisdom had declared all that He had createdto be "very good" (Gen.l:31). Therefore, marriage assumed its structure atcreation and was not the result of the Fall into sin. Those who view the rolesof husband and wife as a necessary concession made in view of the consequencesof sin are in fact questioning the wisdom of God who created manand wvman with their own distinct roles to pursue from the beginning. 1Even though the roles of husband and wife have been established byGod from the start of history, the Fall into sin has marred the properrelationship which ought to exist. The corrupting influence of sin, evenamong Christians, has caused two general reaclions to the marital bond. Thefirst is that to which Adam fell prey in the first temptation, namely, a totaldisregard and sejection of the roles of husband and wife. As Eve's head,Adam rnalces no effort to enforce the injunction of God "you shall not cat ..."(Gen. 2:17, 3:3) when his wife offers him the fruit of the forbidden tree.Instead, Adam submits to the leading of his wife, allowing her to assume therole of his head by delault. For this reason, God curses Adain, not primarilyfor eating the fruit, but for listening to (i. e., obeying) the voice of his wife(Gen. 3:17). Likewise, in our day, the temptation is also simply to ignore orreject any notion of structure or headship within marriage.When the God-given roles of husband and wife are not rejected outright,the influence of sin shows itself within the structure of marriage itself. Again,the curse that God pronounces against Eve foreshadows this corruption: "Yetyour desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen.3:16c). The submission ol a wile to her husband for the proper reasons andmotivations will lead to perverse cxtremes of submission in response to thisdesire. This intense desire will extinguish her own desire for self-expressionand creativity and will inhibit her ability to make choices and think forherself. The roles that were originally created for the good of both husbandand wile will be ~~nderstood only in terms of power, as avenues of hatefuland abusive manipulation.Even though the roles of husband and wife, like a11 aspects of this earthlyWe, bear thc scars of sin, neverlheless, they have been instituted by Godbefore sin existed and they will continue to exist for the blessing of marriedcouples and the family unit until thc final day. However, apart from theseiminutable roles associated with the order of creation, Almighty God hasIPete~ Brunner, The Minisfr-v irnd the Miinsti-)l of Woineli (St. 1.onic. Concord~n Publishing H~)LISZ, 1971)23-27; Frirz Zcrhrr, Tlir 0ffiii.r ofWomen iiz rlw C~UI.C/I: A Study in PI(IC~~LU/ Thhgg. Lianb., Albel-tMerkenu (St. 1.ouir. Concordia Publishing Huuw. 1955) 41, 64.

Brim A. Dunlop: ROLES OF IIUSBAND AND WIFE 11also given His people a unique standing before Him and each olher throughthe order of redemption. The equality described in Galatians 328 irrespectiveof race, social status or sex refers to the believer's state "in Christ," tliatis: as a result of the shed blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Thctrcnd in modern scholarship is to placc the order of crcation at odds with theorder of redemption. The new creation we have become through faith inChrist, it is argued, makes the roles of husband and wife obsolck, no longcrapplicable or binding for the Christian. Thc clear teaching of St. Paul inI Corinthians 1 1 , Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 gives just the opposite 71ew. 'The order of redemption does not negate the roles of husband and wife, butreaffirms them and provides the basis by which the pristine harmony enjoyedby husband and wife before the Fall into sin may be attained, if only in part,during this lire.11. Two Models of MarriageConfusion of the order of creation with the order of redemption has leadto false ~uiderstandings of what constitutes marriage. Those within this groupexcludc either one or the other from their understanding of the roles ofhusband and wife: resulting in a view of marriage which is off balance,emphasizing one order to the detriment of the other. The general error in thisschool of intcrprctation is the view of marriage as a struggle for power. Thoseemphasizing the order of creation center the balance of power in the husbandas head. Those emphasizing the order of redemption tcach an utter equalityin marriage in all things, rejecting the roles associated with the order ofcreation as unjust and contrary to the spirit of the Gospel.The first model of marriage is a simplistic, literalistic reading of Ephesians5:21-33, Colossians 3:lX-19 and 1 Peter 3:l-7, where the husband is2seen as the master and lord of his wife. This brings George Stoeckhardt tohis conclusion:And just so in wedlock the man is lord and head, he decidcs, hcdetermines, hc commands. Naturally, then, it is the duty of the wifeto hearken, to follow, and to submit to the man's demands. 3This interpretation cannot be maintained from Scripture. In order to beconsistent, according to I Corinthians 11:3, the superiority of the husbandover his wife as her head would also necessarily lead to thc conclusion that2 WLiltel- Rnucr, A G~~eek-En,qlisI? Le.ticorz ofthe New' Tertanrent and Orhei- Ear!, Chl-~stia~l Literutiwe. 4thetl., tuns., Williarn Arndr and F. Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957) 431; Joseyh'hayer. A G~.rrk-Fw,qli~l~ I.F~.~(.oII oftlie IV~M., Testmnent (Kew York: American Book Company, 1889) 345.3 George SLueckliarilt, Ephcsia~~s (St. Tmis: Conrordia Publishing Housc, 1987) 241.

12 LUTIIBRAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWGod the Father is superior to His Son of whom He is also the Head. Thisleads directly to the heresy of subordinationism. As well, this interpretationhas contributed to definite abuses in the past, often with thc sanction of theChurch. In the name of submission, wives havc bccn subject to physical andemotional abuse, and havc been trcatcd as possessions, rather than persons. 4While such an interpretation places the roles of husband and wife in simpleterms which can be readily ~~nderstood by all people, it is a facile explanationwhich is inconlpalible with the principles laid down by Christ for Hisfollowers in Matlhew 20:25-25. A Christian understanding of marriage mustgo beyond a simple exercise of authority and power in order to harrnonizcwith Scripture.In response to the authoritarian vicw of marriage, the majority of peoplein the moclcrn day, including many within the Church have sought oi11 anesscntially cgalitarian view of marriage. In order to ernply the role of thehusband of any and all nolions of power and superiority, some Evangelicalsadvocate the translation "source" for the word liephrrlc?, rather than head."^Besides the fact that there is virtually no Biblical or extra-Biblical warrantto translate ItephalZ as "source," such an alternate translation docs not reallyavoid the problem of misinterpretation. All of thc negative and erroneouspower structurcs that have bccn read into the word "head" can easily betransfcrred to the word "source."Another trend which is current within this school is the idea of mutuality.Drawing on the theories and language of psychology, the goal of marriageis seen as "oneness." Both husband and wife are said to be tending towardsthis goal. Thus, the roles of husband and wife (i. e., Ephesians 522, 23) arcdownplayed so that mutuality (v. 21) might bc emphasized. The differencesbetween husband and wife are ignored in order to concentrate on what theyhavc in common. 6Mutuality has set the stage for another development of the egalitarianview of marriage which is quickly gaining supporters both within and outsidethe Church: the model of androgyny. In order to achieve the greatest degreeof equality between the marital partners, the differences bctwccn them mustbe minimalized. Androgyny offcrs an anthropological basis for j~~st such a4 Zrlbsc 66.5 I'hrsr mclude Manfred Ilrauch, Ilnr-il Suyi17~~ of Pod (DOW~CI'S Grove: IntelVarsity Press, 1989) 134-140;Llavid I'ark, "'i'hc S~I.LIC~II~C and Authority In Pvlarr~agc: An Examination of Hzil~otussZ and Kcphul? inEphcsians 5:21-33," 7'hc Evungclicai Quur.ro.ly 59 (1987) 118-119; Berkeley Mickelsen and AlreraMickelsen, "The 'Head' of the Epistles," Clz~~istiu~~it~ Toiiily 25 (1981) 20-23.6 James Beck, "Mutuality in Marriage." Jownal of Psvchology a& Theolofiy 6 (1978) 141-148.

Brim A. Dunlop: ROLES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE 13move. Accordin to Jarnes Nelson, androgyny "is neither hermaphroditismnor bisexuality."5Androgyny refers to the existence of male and femalecharacteristics within the same person. Proponents of androgyny teach thatthe differences between the sexes are a product ol' patriarchal domination,and that each pcrson is already essentially androgynous. Apparent differencesbetween the sexes (besides physiological differences, which are onlyminor anyway) are difficulties in one's atli~ude which need to be overcome8in order to understand oneself fully and properly. More than in mutuality,androgyny makes the question of the proper roles of husband and wilc inmarriage entirely irrelevant. No variation exists between the two, but marriagebecomes an association of two equal human beings with the same rightsand responsibilities. 9On the outsidc ol the spectrum of definitions within the pale of egalitarianmarriage is the acceptance of a wide variety of sexual expressions, bothwithin: before, and outside ol lawful maniagc. Nelson admits thc possibilityof prcmarital sex, adultery, and homosexual relationships as valid expressionsof loving relationsl~ips, according to Scripture. These are includedunder the heading ol sexual variations, rather than sexual deviations. "~hesedeviations would not have much to do with this study except that theaffirmation of each as a valid and Biblically sanctioned lifestyle serves todenigrak and deny the institution of marriage as the hasic family unit andarena of human relationships as instituted by God.Ill. False Models of Marriage Lead to Theological ErrorIn seeking to avoid the errors implicit in the authoritarian view ofmarriage, those who espouse an egalitarian model find themselves committingother errors, particularly in the areas of the doctrine of lnan and thedoctrine of the Trinity.A kcy concept in the teaching of St. Paul which is ignored is the idea ofthe hushand as the ikon, the icon or image of God for his wife, accordingto I Corinthians 11 :7. The Christian husband is to provide a living, incarnalionalexample of God for his wife, employing both Law ailcl Gospel indealing with her. He is to be her spiritual head, as well, leading her and anychildren with which the union might bc blcssed into a decpcr rclationsliip7 Janies Nelso~i, Bmbodinrerzt (Minneapolij: Aug\hurg Puhlkhing House, 1978) 97.S Nelson. 97.103; Williaiii Odd~a, CVII'II W111 Huppcn to God7 Femini.rn? and thr Rrcon.wrrrtin~~ i)j'Chl.r.rtinilBeilef(San rrancisco. Ignalui Press, 1988) 33-43.9 Mqarct Gary. "Beating the Wedd~iig-Sei-moll Blues: A New Look at Int~rnacy," Cull-erzts in Thcolngy andW~.TP~OII 13.2 11986) 106-107.10 Selsoii 152-179.

14 LUTHERAN TI IEOLOGICAL REVIEWwith their Lord. Again, the hushand as eihn for his wife? being an aspect ofthe husband's position as head, was established at creation, not after redemption,indicating the purpose and order for which God created man. l1The aspect of the husband's headship as icon for his wifc, as well asmany other of the Biblical directivcs concerning marriage, are aptly ignoredin the egalitarian view of marriage. In order 10 justify the clesirecl goal ofsuch a view of marriage, Scripture is not taken as the rind authority, but isintcrpretecl through the lenses or tnoclern thought. Especially where mai-riageis concerned, an appeal to the "advances of feminist thought" is made. Thedeceptive quality of feminism, however, is that what is presented as truthbased on experience is quite often just the opposite. Too often feminism issimply an ideology which has no basis in fact or cxpcrience. As an cxample,the oppression of women by men in a patriarchal society is u basic startingpoint for radical feminism. However, many women lead fulfilling liveswithin thc present system and do not experience such oppression. Theresponse is given that such women are so deeply indoctrinated by a maleworld that they do not realize how much they are oppressed. Often, feminismcreates the problem in order to offer the solution. In its most radical forms,ferninisin denies the objective truth offered in Christianity, ignores theexperience of the majority, and asks its followers to cmbrace a philosophywhich is bascd on neithcr of the above. 12The feminist ideology not only seeks to redefine marriage, hut the veryPerson of God is also at stake. One of two approaches is taken in redefiningGod: first, He is made into an impersonal Being which is in Its essenceandrogynous, that is, transcending male and female characteristics, and sois to be addressed as such.13 The second approach is to crnphasize thefeminine aspects of God in order to offset thc overemphasis on thc masculinewhich has been thc main problcm in the past. l' Some writers go so Par as tostatc that all rcligious elements bearing the slightest qualities of patriarchalstructure are man-made impositions which have nothing to do with truereligious experience. For this reason, the feminine is stressed to the exclusionof all masculine elements in order that a true knowledge of the divine mightresult. 1511 ZerbaL 41, 42.12 Oddit. 6-11, 132-136.13 Oddie 77-124.14 Nelron 238-246.15 Matthew }.ox, 7 / 1 Cnnmg ~ of thr Cnswir Ch~lrt: The Heolmg of Mothci. Earth and thc Biuh of a GlobalXerzuissai?cc (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers. 1988) 1-71.

Brim A. Durilop: ROLES OF HUSBAND AND WlFEl5These various approaches to theology might seem far removed Sromone's view or marriage. However, it is irnportanl to realize hat the basicattitudes and theology which lie behind the modern egalitarian view ofmarriage are part and parcel of that same viewpoint. One cannot espousesuch a view of marriage without opening the way to more innovativedoctrines of man and the Trinity. In such an approach, the individual is thefinal authority, rathcr than thc objcctivc truth of thc Word of God. In themodern sense, truth is seen as relative, leaving the individual the option todevelop his or her own lifestyle. In this way, theological sanction is givento practically any relationship. The cultural situation of our time is examinedand the theology is adjusted in order to accommodate it. While this may keeppeople happy in the short term and provide relief of conscience to pastorshaving to deal with these situations, thc end rcsult will inevitably belong-tcrm moral and spiritual bankruptcy. Modern theologies seek to establishthe autonomy of the individual - the ability of the individual to decidefor liimsel f what is best [or hirn. Yet nowhere in Scripture has God givenautonomy to man, not even to Christians - He has reserved the right to beautonomous for Himself alone. Man as His creation is bound to conform tothe standards of objective truth as Almighty God has revealed it in Scripture.Man does not have the option to create or vary the roles of husband and wifeas thcy havc been rcvealcd from the beginning in Scripture.IV. Headship and Submission Beyond PowerHaving looked at some erroneous views of marriage, let us now examinesome aspects of the paradigm for husbands and wives laid out in HolyScripture.The starting point for understanding the roles of husband and wife isJcsus' words to His disciples in Matthew 20:25-28. Although this speech isaddrcsscd to the disciples, all Christians are meant here, since Christ isspeaking of the servant role that all who believe in Him are to assume, or'which the New Testament speaks in many other places 0. This passage iskey, since it eliminates the notion of power from the institution of marriage.In this one broad sweep, both the authoritarian view of marriage, with itsemphasis on the superiority of the husband. and the egalitarian view ofmarriage, with its powcr-sharing arrangcincnt, are eliminated.Olher examples analogous to the marital relationship are evident in HolyScripture. God the P'alher is the Head of Christ wilhoul being His ontologicalsuperior, just as the husband is the head of his wife witliout being herontological superior (I Cos. 11:3). A striliing example occurs in the Gospel

l6LUTIIERAN TIIEOLOGICAL REVIEWaccording to St. Luke. Following their separation in Jerusalem, the boy Jesuswas reunited with His earthly parents on their return to Nazareth. At thattime, Christ is spoken of as submitting to I-Iis parents. Even though He wasthe very Son of Cod, Jesus observed the divine order within the family unitand obeyed His parcnts. Clearly such obedience in no way signifies inferiorityor a rcduction of pcrsonal worth.Flying completely in the lace of personal autonomy and self-governmentis the portrait of mutual \~tbmission given in I Corinthians 7:4.The wife does not have authority over her own body, but thehusband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authorityover his own body, but the wife does.Again, Almighty God has provided an incarnational example in theservant role that He has assumed towards the Church. In their sexualrelations, husband and wife have no means to demand certain rights of thcother; they have no way to bring power to bear on the othcr. For the authorityover and the right to one's body has been transferred to the other. Such atransfer of rights signifies that each is willing to trust the other with one'sdearest earthly possession - one's body. In such an arrangement of trust, thethreat of exploiting one's personal power for gain to the detriment of theother becomes meaningless.Ephesians 5:21 supplies a vital dimension to the Christian doctrine ofmarriage. The mutual submission advocated there does not dispense withthe separate roles of husband and wifc. It does, however, place the nlaritalrclationship in a new light. Marriage is not simply a work performed by aman and a woman, a contract of two parties. Marriage involves three parties:husband and wife are each accountable to God. Their submission to eachother is to he done "in the fear of Christ" (Eph. 5:21), that is, out of worshipfulreverence for Christ, and in fear of His wrath over sin. Yet, this mutualsubmission is not to be carried out in a general way only. Each submits tothe Lord through thcir rcspcctive roles. The husband submits to his wifcbefore God by bcing her hcad (v. 23), while the wife submits before God bysubmitting to her husband as her head. Christian marriage is never portrayedas simply a two way street. Tn Christ, marriage is always a love triangle.V. The Sacramental Union of One FleshAlthough marriage belongs to the civil affairs of this world16 and doesI h bamdy L~fe ('ornm~ttee of the 1,utheran ('hurch-Mlc?our~ Synod, Frigngmirnt miilLfnr rqr (St Lou~sConcordia P~tbl~vhmg Houqc, 1959) 70

Brian A. Dunlop: ROLES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE 17not convey the grace of the forgiveness of sins as the Sacraments of Baptism,Absolulion, and the Lord's Supper do, it is still possible to speak of marriageas bearing certain characteristics of a sacrament, that is, as sacramenlal.Focussing on the tcrnporal, earthly nature of marriage has led to an understandingof marriage as simply a contract bctween two persons which maybe dissolved by mutual consent. The tragedy of such a view is that thc verticaldimension of accountabilily before God is virtually absent. The Apology ofthe Augsburg Confession speaks in much grander lerms of marriage:In the flrsl place, it is neccssary for the adversaries to acknowledgethis, namely, that in behevers mxriage is purc because it has beensanctified by the Word of God, i. e., it is a lnattel that is permittedand approved by the Wo~d of God, aa Scripture abundantly testifie~.For Chrlst called marrlage adivirze union, when He says, Matt. 19:6:What God hath jnzned togclllev let not mnnput asunder. Here Chri~tsays that marricd pcople are joined to get he^ by God. Accordingly,it is a pure, holy, noble, praiseworlhy work of God. 17Thus, marriage is much more than a conlract betwccn two people. Whereit joins two Christians, marriage can be spoken of as Christian in that Godis the one who brings them together. 18Speaking of marriage as sacramental helps to bring out the holy naturcof the marriage of Christians who have been joincd by God in the "mystery"of "one flesh" (Eph. 5:32, 31).19 St. Augustine described a sacrament as "avisible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, apictuse of the Word, signifying the same thing as the So also inmarriage, a visible sign expresses an invisible reality. Before the altar,husband and wife iniliatc their union by the exchange of vows. However,God is thc one who effects the unity of the one flcsh bctween them. Thisunio nzystira between husband and wife is not identical, hut analogoi~s to theunio mystica which obtains between the believer and thc Triune God throughthe indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Whether or not husband and wile recognizeL7 Cwrcordia Triglortu, trans., F Hente (St. Louis: Concordm Publishing House, 1921) Thc Apology of theAugsburg Cnnfcssion, Art. XXIII 371; cl. The Large Catechism.18 fi?~ogurne~rl urr~IMui-r-iage, 48, 165-166.19 DiiSerent definitions of thc tcm "sacrament" are acceytabk according to the Book of Corzroi.d, so long as itis clear which definition of sacrament is being used. "Matrimony was not firs1 instituted in the NewTcstament, but 111 the beginning, immcdiatcly on the creation ot the Ilumaii race. It has, moreover, God'scommand; it also has promises, not indeed prope~ly pzrldiiijng to the New Testament, hut pertaining ratherto the bodily life. Wherefore, 11 anyone should wish to call it a sacrarncnt, he ought still to disti~ipuish ilfro111 thosc preceding one& [the two formcr ones], which are properly signs ol the New Tealament, andtcsl~rnonies of glace and thc remission of sms." (Apology XIII, 311)20 Apology XtII, 309.

1 X LCJTHEKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWthis unin mystica through lheir feelings for each other, it is a bond createdby God which exists between them until death. "What thercfore God hasjoined together, let no man separate" (Matt. 19:6).This one-flesh union is made manifest in the marriage of believersthrongh the God-given roles of headship and submission. As the husbandlovingly acts in the best intercsl of' his wife in a posture of sacrificialheadship, and as his wife submits lo his leading, the uiiseen I-eality createdby God becomes apparenl. Husband and wife become more aware of thegrace of God in their lives as they serve each other in their respective roles"in the lcar of Christ" (Eph. 5:21). In addition, they serve as a "figure" or aliving, incarnational example to the unbelieving world of thc love of God10s His Church in Jesus Christ. Not that Christians arc able to pursue theseroles perfectly on their own, but faith in Chrisl supplies the power to live asthey ought under Him in His kingdom.The sacramental naturc of the unio mys/ica is likewise evident in theway in which husband and wife deal with the times when each of them Failsto live up to the high demands of these roles. Just as confession andAbsolution are necessary between Christ and His Church, so also husbandand wile need to confess their faults to each other and to forgive each other.The sacramental nature of the one-flesh union provides thc ncccssary structurefor such foi-giveness to be given and rcccivcd. Husband and wife mustrely on the forgiveness of sins which they have through the true Sacraments:the water of Baptism, Holy Absolution, and the Body and Blood of Christ.The daily rcturn to thc initial Grace ol Baptism through repentance and theregular nourishment of the Sacrament of the Altar give both husband andwife Ihc strcnglh ancl rationale to build up the marriage bond as thosc whostand belore God and each other cleansed, forgiven, and rcncwed.V1. Uimensions of Headship and SubmissionNow that we have examined some characteristics of the marital bond ingeneral, let us loolc more closely at the specific roles which exprcss thatone-flesh union.Briefly stated, the husband as kephale is the wifc's leader. Again, wemust immediately add some qualifications to this statement, lesl lalse notiorlsof power and authority infcct the husband's position as head. Such leadingis always to be conduclcd sacrificially, that is, being willing to sacrificeeverything for the wile's sale. St. Jolln Chrysostorn notes that if the husbandwere to give his life for the sale of his wife, this would still fall short of the

Briail A. Dunlop. RO1,ES OF HIJSBAND AND WIFE 19sacrifice which Christ made for the sake of the Chusch. 2 1The husband as head of the wifc is also to be her provider. He i~ toprovide for the wife's wants of body and soul, even as God provides lor allof creation.As we havc seen abovc, the husband is also the eilGn, the icon or imageof God, for his wife. He is to provide her with spiritual nourishment andleadership, as the appointed rcpresentative of God. This does not mean thatthe wifc does not have access to Alniighty God except through her husband.All have access to the Father through Jcsus Christ, regardless of their maritalstatus. It docs mean, however, that as they relate to God as husband and wife,the husband represents Christ to his wile and is responsible to God for her.In this sarne way, Lhe husband can bc seen as the "acting subject" within themarital union. This is not to say that the wife has no identity, or that it is upto the husband to make all the decisions or to perform all of the importantand csscntial tasks. Yct, this aspect of his headship indicates that the wife isto respect and support those decisions and actions which he makes for theircommon benelil as the appointed representative of their ~tnio nzystirn.The husband as head of the wife is not to seek her obedience bp a showof force, proof of superiority or any othcr means of cocrcion. Instead, ChristHimself is to be the example. Christ is Head of the Church, and of all cre, 'i 1' ion(Col. 1 :l 8; Eph. 1 :20-23). But this Head bowed Hirnsclf low for our sakes.He who was perfect became the Scrvant of unrighteous people, and sufferedall, even death on the cross for our sakes. It is this sacrificial role of servant22wbich husbands are to assume as the hcad of their wives (Eph. 5:25).In the final analysis, it makes no sense for the husband to exploit hiswife, or for the wife to rebel against her husband's headship, sincc the twoare one flesh. A husband should love his wife because they are one hody,says St. John Chrysostom, indeed, "two halves of the sarneThehusband who seeks the respect of his wifc must makc himself worthy of herobcdiencc; he must love her. 24The role of the wife in submitting to her husband can bc sulnmcd up bydescribing her as the onc who supports him as her head. However, thissupport and obedience is not identical with the obedience of a slave. The21 St. John Chrysoctoin, 017 hfo~,~Yo,q~ o~idI:o~nily Life, tlans., Dav~d Alldelson and Cahrinr Ruth(C'restwood: St. Vlad~mir's S ~II~II~~I~Plebs, 1986) 46. Epheainns 5:25.22 Cl. Geu~ge Kraua. "Subjection: A Kew Testament Study in Obcdicncc and Scrvanthood," Co~icor.ilrnJou~.rzal 8 (1982) 23.23 Chsysosmtn 52, h2,75.24 Chry~ostom 56.67.

20 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWsubmission of wives to their husbands in Ephesians 5:21 and Colossians 3: 1 Xis indicated by the use of potussZ, whilc St. Paul employs huyalcou5 todescribe the obedience of children to their parents and of slaves to theirmasters in Ephesians 6:1, 5 and Colossians 3:20, 28. Zerbst distinguishesbetween the former as an act of the will, that is, voluntary, and the latter asan act of obedience which is the result of pressure or d~rcss.~' Thus,subjection does not mean that a woman must obey her husband when heissues commands and orders her around - such absolute authority has riotbeen given to him.26 Submission does not ask the wife to sublimate or denherself to the point where she is simply a doorrnal for an abusive husband. 27"Obediencc toward human beings cannot he unconditional, because sinlulhuman beings can err and can abuse the power given toJust as Christ provides an example for the sacril-icial posture of thehusband as head of Lhe wife, so also does He provide an esanlplc for the wifeto emulate. Jesus did not come to carth to be served, to be equal, or to beindependent. He came to serve and to give His life as a ransom [or inany(Mark 10:42-44).~~ Again, the exa~nple of Christ's passion is also evidenceof the kind of submission that thc wilc is to give her husband. Christ'ssuffering in no way meant that He was somehow weak or inlcrior. Instead,it displayed His strength, patience and modesty.Subn~ission can even bc asource of communion with the one to whom one is submitting. Hence thecommunion of Christ with His Father, of the Church with Christ, and of thewife with her husband, rccisely thro~~gh the act of submitting to the one%lordered above. the head.Within lhc marriage relationship, the wife is described as the secondauthority after the husband. St. John Chrysostom uses the analogy of a shipa1 sea. The husband in his role is like the captain and the wife is like the pilotof the ship.31 Boh are in positions of authority, and are equally rcsponsiblcfor the welfare of the ship and her crew. The dialectic of superiority andinleriority is entirely absent from this analogy. Chrysos~om expands thisanalogy further:The wile is a second authority. She should not demand cquality, Ior25 Zcrbst 47.26 Zel bst 79.27 Kraus 20.28 Zmbst 76.29 Cf. Krms 21.30 Rnlph Sockmm. TIv Pai-dxe.s uj JCWA (Plilsl~vrlle: Abjngdon Press, 1936) 108-1217 1 Chl.yso\tom 28.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONACCORDING TO JOHANN MICHAEL REUPaul l. JohnstonAmerican Lutheranism's most prominent educator in the first half of thetwentieth-century was undoubtedly Johann Michael Reu of the Iowa Synod.The author of a complete Sunday school curriculum, professor of theologyat Warlburg Seminary in Dubuquc, and world renowned expert in the historyand use of Luther's Small Catechism in sixteenth-century Germany, Keu wasoften the guest at church educational conferenccs and spcaker before churchboards and conventions on the topic of Christian education. Reu's recornniendationsfor good teaching, for curriculu~n selection and use, and for thegeneral aim oS education contain a number of insights which suggest elementsof the metaphysical assumptions upon which his psychology ofeducation is founded.In light of Rcu's standing in Lutheran educational history, this relrospectivestudy will attempt to sketch his psychology ol'education for today'sreaders. How the lesson should be presented and how much influe~ice theChristian educator really has in the formation of the life of Sailh andintellection in the pupil are topics which occupicd Reu tliroughout his life,and which are drawn ultimately from his understanding of the nature ofhuman beings. The vital personality factors inherent in the teacher-pupilrelationship also are crucially important for Reu as he discusses the trainingand practice of good Christian education. Although Reu certainly has apsychology of education, in his elaboration of this psychology he neverseparates psychological from theological factors inherent in his ideology.Thus this examination of selected elements of Reu's hermeneutical paradigmfor his educational psychology will be presented in the manner in which Reuhimsclf presents these elements; i.e., by means of description of Reu'sunderstanding of the structure of the human psyche, and by mans of whatinlpacl the pamdigm has upon the interactive personal relationship obtainingbetween teacher and studeilt which Reu considered vital. Part of this focuson the personal factor in material delivcry may be tied to Reu's corresponding"high view" of human nature and itc place as mirror of divine creativetruth as the individual's idiosyncratic expression of that truth, which is theE~~la~~gemchule's cornerstone and its understanding of how one goes abouttu establish axiological methodology. Reu was trained not as a psychologistnor even as a professional scholarly theologian in the German academic

24 1,UTHERAX THEOLOGICAL KEVIEWtradition? but rather as aparish pastor at the independent Lutheran missionaryinstitute and seminary founded at Neucndettelsau, Bavaria, by WilhelinLoehe. It is to his stature as self-taught scholar in the arena of history of boththe development of church tcaching and of the development of catecheticalmethod and content ovcr time that one must turn for a full understanding ofhis educational psychulogy.Drawing on the work of German psychologists and of such Americansas G. Stanley Hall, Reu attempts to demonstrate that education at its bestwill follow the stages of the gradual unfolding of the pupil's inner capacitiesof intuition, fantasy, and imitation in younger children, and such capacitiesas memory, intellectual activity, and individuality in older students. Basedupon these assumptions, Rcu then offers his proposal for a Lower Course, aMiddle Course, and an Upper Course of religious instruction for churchschools, complete wilh recommended curricula from his own exposition(1904) of Luther's Smcrll Catechism, and methods and content from theWrrrtbul-g Lclsson Helps series Reu himself authored.Elements of Reu9s Pedagogical TheoryAcquisition of new knowledge and translorrnatiori of the old require theteacher's utmost efforts to understand the grouping and the contents of hisstudents' "conccpt masses" as well as the active application of interest bythe students themselves upon the subject matter to be learned, Reu belicvcd.His picture of the Leacher'? duty in gauging the content and arrangement ofthe pupil's apperceiving masses is thus highly individual-specific and exhaustive.In the Catechetics he tells tcachcrs that they will be required toobserve their pupils constantly--in their play, in one-on-one contact withthem, as well as by visiting them in their homes, reading their written work,noticing what literature cach reads, "and by paying incessant and carefulattention to the ucstions and the answess which they offer during thc proccssof instruction."4Such careful observation is to be only half thc teacher'seffort, Reu believes, because he still will need to choose the specific lessonformat ancl content that in each case will scrve as the expertly-constructedbridge between each individual student's coricepl world and the domain ofnew concepts the teacher wishes to introduce. The goal is a step-by-stepprogression of his pupils to complete understanding of the material, bymeans of both the additive and the tr-ansformational aspects of instruction.1 Joha1111 R/Iichacl RPII, ('nt( IIC~IC.T, or Theo~v al~il P~wcticc uf'R~li,~ioris liisri-i~crioii, 3d ell. (Chicago:Wartburg Publishing Flouc, 1931) 212. Cf. J.M. Reu. How ro T e ~ III h llie SLIIILI~I~ Scl~ool, A 7 earlir~?>-o~riirrg ('nr~nr(Col~~mhus:I.u~he~.nn Book Concern. 1939) 95.

Paul T. Johnqton: PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONWithout this carcful obscrvation and selection of concepts to be placedbefore studcnts, Rcu bclicves learncrs have no capacity to make sense ofwhat is presented to them. Attention to the thoughts and undcrstandingswhich already exist in students' minds and letting thcir content guidecurl-iculum and method of instruction employed is the only way, to Keu, thatthe pupil's attention and his interest can be brought to bear in the learningprocess. And without attention and interest to focus the soul's apperceivingpowers, all cducational effort is in vain: Reu believes.2 It is his position thatlearning will automatically take place when the right combination of diagnosis/desci-iptionof the individual's previously-formed expcricnces andconcepts is met with the words and concepts of the new matcrial which linknew to old, former to latter in a way that engages student interest andmotivates student application. Reu expresses this belier in the followingmanner:Conversely, the teacher who interprets the new in the light of theold, arouses his pupils' attention, i.e., he focuses their mentalactivity on thc one point from which he would lead them to thecomprehension of the new, and now inaugurates a process ofobservation and comparison between old and ncw, of joint explorationancl investigation. Every discovery, i.e., every step of progressupon the way to coruplete mastery, inspires thern with new.joy and courage for further effort, he has aroused a vital interest inthe task: his pupils gladly occupy themselves with it, love it, arecngagcd in it with all their soul, arid never desist until they havesolved the problem and mastcry has crowncd thcir cffort~.~Secondary m educative importancc to Reu, but by no means an insignificantlicto~ in his psychology of education, is thc capacity of thc soulImown collectively as the emotions. l'he emotions place a valuc on theconcepts manipulated and stored by the soul, to Reu; emotion\ 'ire presentas part of every act of thinking and every lislng or s~nlmg of a coricepl ~nlo--2 Reo co~itinricd to insiyt on the wtal tactor ofstudrnt InlesesL to be taken rnto account 111 cul-~iculu~iidevelopment throuehout h ~s cal.ccr. In a IC)Sh rcporl I

26 LUTHERAN THEOLOGTCAL IiEVIEWconsciou~ness.~ Emotions can he classified either according to their content(pleasurable or unpleasurable), or according to their source of origin (sensoryor mental), according to Rcu's view. Although Reu does not limit thenumbcr of emotions he believes the soul possesses or is able to experience, 5he discusses only six emotions in his educational writings--the intellectual,esthetic, moral, religious, social, and what Reu terms the "self-fcc~ings."~ Abrief summary of Reu's understanding ol each of these emotions is in orderhere.As the most important of all the emotions, Reu places the intellectualfeelings at the top of his lisl. When one experiences pleasure through theintellect, one realizes that he has achieved a solution to a difficult or hithertoperplexing problem, or that he has discovered some important truth. It is theintellectual feelings that spur learners on to make progress in their studies,and which do not leave them content until they have achicvcd success ingaining insight into the material and I'orming new concepts and judgmentsconcerning it. tinder this heading Reu advises teachers never to reject pupilanswers when are only partially correct, but rathcl- for them to seize uponthe portions that arc right and to use those portions to encourage students tocontinue their work toward the correct answer.' It is significant that Reumakes the following revealing statemcnt concerning both educational contentand method under the heading of his dcscription of the intellectualfeelings:[The teacher] will never transmit to the pupils religious or moraltruth as a hished product? but will rather enable them to feel thejoy of sceing and finding and succeeding, and for that reason willengage jointly with them in the quest for truth whether the materialat hand be Biblical EIistory or anything else. S'Thc esthctic emotions Reu understands to be thosc brought Iorth in thesoul by presentations of what is beautiful and ugly. He believes it important4 Uot not in thc sense that all emotions are of equal value, 01 ok eqnal intemity. Rcu ranarks that "It is true,Lthe emotions] arc not nhsolute and objective criteria inamuch as the conception, and thc value, of the~nolal good are by no mcans commensurate with the deg~ee of pleaau~e aroused by the good In thc soul; andxuilt ~emains gullt whether onc fcels ~t as such or not." Reu. Caretlieti~s 229. Cl. in addition Keo, Ilow toTeach 111 the S~lri~luy Sclruol 100-1075 Reu explains that "...we may speak of intellectual, csthctic, religious, and other feelings. An yel, what 1srcnlly experiericed by the suul, is invariably either pleasure or disp1caso1-e. everything else desciibingmercly the condition or sphere upon ~ hich the soul reacts in such a way a? to hling nhout either joy 01gs~ef." Iceu, C'at~rhrtim 228-2211; id., How 10 Teach in the Sirfdov Scllool 101-107.G An extended discussion of thesc can he found in Reu, Caechetics 220-228.7 CS. Reo, Cutr~lrr~icr 463-464.S Reu, Catechetica. 220.

Paul I. Johnston: PSYCHO1,OGY OF CIHRISTIAN EDUCATION 27for a person to cultivate these emotions, both as a protection against crudenessand imniorality, and also for thc elevation and the richness they bringto the soul's inner life. A well-developed sense of the beautiful in the naturalworld, no less than in human creations or art, literaturc, and song, are forReu ways in which thc teacher can help students distance theinselves fromthe immoral and vile thoughts and actions that also male up the sensory andmental concept~lal framework to which each is necessarily exposed. As aseparate category from the esthetic emotions, the moral feelings are thosewhich Reu delines as providing the soul pleasure when contemplating themorally good, and loathing when contemplating the morally evil. Reubelieves the soul is capable of a degree of understanding ol moral good andmoral evil before instruction commcnccs. But he also holds that onlyinstruction from a source outside the learner himself can reveal what is goodand what is evil in the absolute sense which Reu terms "in the sight of ~ od."~It is not enough for the instructor to try to teach the moral feelings todistinguish right from wrong on a superficial or merely descriptive level,Rcu believes. Instead, what is requircd is for the teacher to... train the pupil to penetrate from the overt act to the motive behindit and to recognize that here the worth or worthlessness of any actis determined. He will untiringly emphasize that nothing is trulygood save that which spontaneously grows forth from fear and loveof God or, to name the ultimate cause, from faith. l0The best means by which the moral emotions should be trained are forReu, first, the examples of the lives of great persons from the Biblicalnarrative or from church history; and secondly, the cxpansivencss andfreedom produced by the moral feelings which are present in the teacher'sown personality.11 The goal in moral education always must be to bring thestudents to a living, personal, and sympathetic appreciation of the movingforces behind the words and actions of other people, so that the soul of eachpupil may be attracted to the morally good and at the samc time learn toabhor what is morally evil.The soul's conscience 1s the product of the combination ol' the moraland the religious emotions, according to Rcu. It enables a person to judge9 Reu, Cnt~rlreiirs 223.10 Rcu, Cnteclretics 223.I I "The more i~ilirnately religious truths are rclated with living personalities and the more vividly the pupil ismade Lu see these truths incarnate in such pc~wnalitics, Ihc hcttcr, for then thc onc wlll recall the other, anclthe moment thc conccpt of a truth enters consciousness, also the concept of the person will be recalled a dhelp make the abstlact truth stand lbrllr in l~ving reality." Reu, Huw tu Teuclr in the S1111riuy School 78.

28 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWlnor-a1 acts as valuable or as harmful, and also allows the soul to visualizethe worth oS the contemplated act. The religious emotions themsclvcs aredefined simply as "those emotions which result from the thought of God andour relation to him1'12 Thoughts of God's holiness and wrath over sin, andof His fatherly love for sinncrs for the sake of Christ Jesus automatically setthe emotional powers of the soul to working, to Keu's way of thinking. Thesecan ally themselves with thc moral feelings to increase moral valuation andalso to intcnsily it.13 Here again it is necessary, Reu believes, for the tcacherto teach what true religion iq through living examples of narrated history andthrough thc example of his own life and disposition. Even in sketching hiseducational theoretical construct of the religious emotions: Reu gives priorityto the sensc and awareness of the kindness of God over any sense of dutyowed Him or of reward promised as result of obedience.The final two groups of emotions Reu labels the social feelings and theleelings of self-worth. Most of his attention in describing the former kindrevolves around the feeling of sympathy which Reu believes should permcalehuman interrelations. It is only by cultivation ol thc sympathetic feelingsthat one is enabled to participate in the joys and troubles of others, he holds.Although according to him "the family is the primary nursery of the socialfeelings,"14 thc tcacher's own example in making time to be with his pupilsand to show appreciation for their feelings is the best way to develop theseparticular feelings in them. Reu also classes love, respect, confidence, andgratitude among the social feelings which need to be cultivated by theeducator, but he docs not elaborate upon them. The teacher's chief task is tostinlulate and support these emotions through his actions ancl by the materialshe chooses for curriculum ralher than to induce them or to waken them toactivity, in Reu's view. He believes three feclings to comprise the feelingsof self-worth: self-estec~n, the sense of honor, and shame. All three arenecessary to develop in pupils to fit them to do moral battle and to give themboth thc courage to venture to accon~plish moral acts, and also to check12 Reu. Gtcechclics 224.13 'Herz we ubse~ve the so11 in wh~ch the moral feelings must lake root if they we to armin to greatel vignr;[or- 11 d ~no~i~lly good ~Iisp~s~tion or a good deed in itself elicits a fccling of plc:isi~~~c and proves its~~lllact~vemss mil value. how ~nucli more delightful will This plcasurc hecomc whcn the \oul rr,~li/.c\ [ha1the tliapusiLro~r 01 deed IS good also when measured by God's critcrion and lhar it will ctnnd the test ofjudgement rliv~~ic! Feelmg such genuine joy over moral n~otivcs and acts. thc so111 plnccs a higher value onLllem: appeciates their abiding and exclusive value, dcsirahlc abovc nil clsc; lets the divine approvalinspire coumge and hope to attarn it; and thus sets the will in motion m cngngc in 1ti uo~,thy que5r. It i\claal that IN ailollgzl rncentlvei, no more efficienl levers for the will cxist than thc rchginus feeling\." Reu,Catrr.hr/~cs 225.l4 KZLI, Cutr~.hd~cs 227.

Paul 1. Johnston: PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 29unhealthy excrescences of ovcrwccning sensitivity in their character, Reubelieves. Although he holds that any type of emotion may develop abnorniallyinto strong and directed affections--or into their morc permancntcounterpart, moods15--the emotions are lkr him the seat of interest, fromwhence the motivation and directions of the will to right thought and rightaction must proceed. Without inlerest being aroused and directed, Reu doesnot believe education to be possible. I6Reu ends his threefold division of the life of the soul with a discussionof its volitional life, which hc also lerms its striving toward what it judgesto have value. Me sees volition, considered as a quality of the soul in thebroad sense, as the logical outcome of both its ability to Iorm concepts, andof its ability to place a value on the rncntal conccptions it has developed. ToReu, the soul's quality or faculty of striving has a uniquely future-orientedfunction which ties together present and past conceptualizations. Hc notesthatWhile the intellccl and thc crnotions deal with thc objccts of thepresent moment, the soul, in its volitional life, turns to the futurewith the purpose of effecting a change in the circumstances obtainingin the present, either as rcgards its own state or that of the outerworld as conceived by it. 17This striving activity has three levels, according to Reu's view: the levelof impulse, the level of desire, and the level of volition (considered in thenarrow sensc).18 Always Ior Reu, volition (or, in narration, the goal ofapplication of the story) is to he "a practical rather than an intellectualprocess" whose goal is concrete external action carried out in the daily lifeof thc pupil. 19I~Iumankind's impulses are for Reu almost exactly what instincts are inanimals--a blind, directionless, ~~nconscious striving after certain things inLhe sensory and thc mental spheres. The striving after food, warmth, propagation,etc., on the sensory level, and after such things as social contact and1.5 Ne~the~ at1ecLions nor nioods have pualhve n~ul-a1 01 educalional valut, Lu Keu: "ANecuuns as well abmoods can and should always remaill under conL1o1. Reu, C'crteclretr~s 230.16 In all of his \vritmgs Reu d~splays the conblctlon that enl~stmg the interest and the pe~sonal invol\~e~uent ofthc cmotions is thc bcst way to affect the will. And al least for those emotions wlnch are de~~ved fiommental ~tirnuli, it is his bclicf that 'the cmotions are moved most readily through vivid presentation." J.M.Keu. "Grund?net7e m1 Heritellung vnn Sonnrags-schi~l-T~itc~'nt~~r,'' Ki~chiiche Zritsclrrift 35 (April-Map1911) 205.17 Keu. Cuie~.lzen~.s 232.18 These la~ela are ,llx dlb~uswd in Reu. How ro TFU~I ill rhr ,S~lfldny Srhonl 108-109.19 Reu, HOM~ 10 Y P L ~ L 293. ~ I CI. 1115 e~itue ~1i;lpIer III Lhib uuluiiie 011 Lhs bubjt~L ul applicaLiur~ 292-305.

3 0 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWthe acquisitions of knowledge on the mental level, is a permanent feature ofhuman life, to Reu9s understanding. He specifically states in the Catecheticsthat he believes im ulse to be "morally neutral" and only "an essential partol humm niiture."' But impdse tor Reu is idso a feature of the soul lifewhich neeclr to be controlled ancl directed due to ils tendency to overstep itsboundaries and to interfere with the lives of others as well as with the higherstages of the individual's own volitional life. The soul develops desires whencertain of its impulses are gratified again and again, thus allowing it to fixccrtain mcans to which it always turns for gratification of specific impulses.The striving activity present in dcsircs is also more directed for Reu that itis in the case of mere impulses, and they involve also the activity ofthc soul'sintellect and etnotions. Ancl volition (or will) as llle highest level of thefaculty of striving, Reu understands to call upon the activities of Lhe soul'sintellect and emotions to an even greater degree than is the case in theformation of desires. Reu delineates LWO types of volition, i.e., the intellectualand the rational:... the distinction is made between intellectual and rational volitionof the soul. The former has for its object the uscful and expedient,the latter the moral good and divinely acccptablc. The former isdetermined, in its choices anti resolutions, by advantages that maypossibly be gained or losses to be avoided, the latter- by the considerationof the mutual duties and rights of men and by the referenceto thc divine will, i.e. bp moral and religious values. 21Once volition exists full-blown in the soul, Reu believes that it leadsnaturally to the soul's willing to strive after an object or condition. Such awill cannot occur in the soul until thc mcans by which the dcsired quality orobject to be attained become clear, not without a ccrtain confidcncc of thesoul in its powers to obtain it, he holds. He also believes that the will is freein the sense that it can decide upon actions which it knows lire contrary toits criteria of intellectual evaluation of what is beneficial to its self-interest;or contrary to the fcclings of disgust or reprehension it manifests toward theobject or condition contemplated; or contrary to the volition or choice itmakes toward the contemplated idea. Answers to moral problems that areconsistently adhered to, Keu labels as maxims; and when the soul adheresrepeatedly to certain maxims, it develops the impress OS a definite character.For Reu, the will always involves both a choosing between different ideas20 Reu, Cateclietics 231.21 Reu. Carcchetics 236.

Paul I. Johnston: PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONor courses US action, as well as the resolve and the attempt to carry ou~thedecision in definite action. Evcn though he bclicves the will to bc fundamcntallyfree in the sphere of overt action and the decisions to do or not to docertain acts, Rcu realistically cautions that right willing and righl actions arenot to be expected automatically from the development of clear concepts orfrom their evaluation as worthwhile or worthless hy the emotions, due to theblunting and misdirecting cffccts on thc volitional life of the soul caused by22original sin.Keu occupies himself with the special concerns of adolescent and adulteducational psychology only infrequently in his writings. Each level hasdiflerent needs for iristruction based on their different physiological andpsychological realities, he bclicvcs. No matter what the individual soul'sreceptivity to spisitual truths during the period of adolescence, lieu stillshows a confidence in the power OS concepts, once forrned, to persist and tobe raised to activity out of the unconscious with words:And unless thcrc arc any obstacles in the way, the educator will beable to awaken their interests--we use the word in the true pedagogicalsense--for these topics and the images and thoughts evoked hythem, i.e., a spiritual interest in thcm, so that thcir souls are drawntowards them, make themselves at home in them, and clearly preferthese to any other topics or thoughts. In this way a personalrelationship between the souls and these ideas is established. Theybecome their property and rest well-anchored at the hottoin of theirconsciousnesses to bc rcady whcncver the Spirit touches and revivesthe soul, or when the Spirit allows them to enter the level ofconsciousness, allows lheir inherent divine power to take action,and thereby leads the soul creatively to a conscious life of faith and23:I voluntary participation in the life of the mature congregation.22 Rcu, Crttrchetics 239. 1Ie obsc~vcs in tlus rcgad, that "l11 thc st:~tc of rin it is liy no nicans always pm~ihlceven Lu alousi. Lhe kelrngs in behalt ot the good. in pal t because the drrectlon of the w111 reacts upon thclteliilgs and even upon the intcllzct, in part bec;use LIII.ULI~I~ urigil~al s111 Ll~cae urgdns Iiwe betn se~iul~alyenfccblcd I'or thc pzrformancc of that which is good. In the state oI' sin, ne must remember, the 'propcrtsiti~smli~~oituit' 1~1s replaccd thc sccqmvity of inrcllcct, fcclings, kind wll fn~that which is Ir11Iy grind andpleasun:: to God. An c~ltliougli by regencratlon and jurtlF~c~Lloli a new liie llds bceli established, rt 1s to bekep~ 111 mind that the old lire is no1 esii~piiLad bnl l.i1~11ei IJIU~CC~ ilrelf intu the new and Illat, ~l~e~elo~e, L11cresponse ot rhc intcllccr, rhc fcclings, mtl pxtinLLxly of the w~ll, IS by nu means so spontnneous orcomplete as may be tles~retl mtl espectecl ' Reit, Cntecl7ef1rs 238-239. Why Ihc cffccts of or~gi~ial sin wol~ldnot beat jusl as 1re:lvily agai~lst Ll~e actlvlt) ol the mtellect in f(xmin2 correct and clear concept mdsses, orll~e aclivity of rhe emotions to \r.ill thc mor;~lly r~glit. Reu does no1 appear IU cu~isidar irl lria publislled \i urkh.23 J.M. Rcli, " hr F.~agc nacli del. \'achpflcgr tlcr I

32 LUTIIERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWPart oC the effectiveness these ideas achieve in later years is due to"careful observation and adherence to the proper methodology" on the partof the teacher, Reu believes.14 The time of adolesccncc is actually his allyin accomplishing this educational goal, becausc during it the soul of youthis particularly capable of being developed, according to Reu.Thc question of the psychological capacity of adults to learn occupiedRcu to a much more limited extent than was the case for children andadolescents. Reu'r thoughts about adult education appeared late in his careerwhen he was asked to prepare an instruction manual for church schoolteachers, a volume entitled How to Teach in the Sunday School. Chapter 17of this teachers' handbook was reprintcd in the April 1937 KlrchlirhcZeitschrift as the article "Can Adults Still Learn Something New?", and hereRcu informs thc rcader that he has used "the whole psychological subjectliteratureof America" in its preparation. Reu takes the redoubtable WilliamJames to task in this article for James's stance in Principles of Psychologythat the basic stock of important or useful ideas an adult will have, all cometo him before the age of 25. Reu claims that the findings of modernpsychology have completely nullified James's thesis, and to prove it he citesextensively from E. L. Thorndike's 1928 research study Adult Learning tocontend that "the ability to learn with atlults is very close to that of the lateteens."25 Keu also points out the fallacy of overgeneralization of results totoo wide a population in the intelligence testing done by H. L. I-Iollingworth.Not surprisingly, Reu also find (after a survey of the work of Lewis B.Terman and of the U. S. Army's Alpha and Beta mass intelligence tests'results from World War I) that the memory capacity ol' adults for newmaterial is both constant and strong throughout most of adult life.26 Butwhen the possibility 01 assimilation of new material is expressed in terms ofprospects for expanding the adult's volitional life and his capacity forformation of new habits, Reu does not express much optimism in any of hisworks. This remarks may be considered as typical of his position on adulthabit formation: "By the agc of thirty an individual in the majority ol caseshas fashioned thc groove in which his life will run. From this time on most24 Keu, "Zur t'rage" 183.25 J.M. Reu, "(.'an Adults St~ll Txam Something Ncw?", Kt~.chliche Ze~tschi-ift 61 (April 1937) 221: Reu, HOWto T~ai.1~ in the .Tcinduy Scizooi 546-554.26 The studies Reu cites on memory capacity show adolescents superior to adults in short-term or "immediate"retention. and adults superior to adolescents in long-term or "permanent" retention. Reu sums up his owl1position on adult memory and memorization by saying that "adults are as able to learn new facts asadolescents, only ... it takes t11er11 u little longer to Ieam and to recall them[,] especially in the beginnmg."Reu, HOW fu T ~LIC~ill Ihr Sudq School 557.559.

Paul 1. Jobnston: PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONof what hc does is done automatically. ,127Suggested Elements of Reu's OntologyIn his pedagogical thought Reu quite clearly advocates a view of thedichotomous reality of human life. He affirms that people are made up ofboth a purely materialistic, kinesthetic component manifest in both themovement as well as the presence of the body; he also believes in the notionof soul. He devotes no space to any separate treatment of the reality of matter,or of material objects in their various concrete exemplifications as they areapprehended by the senses, preferring instead to lel sland as an a prioriassumption the reality of a material world external to the human soul. In theCntechetics Reu supports his contention for the existence of the soul byrefen-ing to what he calls "the continuity of self-consciousness" and "theunity of consciousness" as evidence that there exists a component of thehuman being which is behind and before materially-generated sensationreceived from the environment, as well as more fundamental than merethought processes. Hc sees... behind the movements of the brain thc existence of a power,invisible and independent, which permeates and determines thebody and is essentially different from the brain and from all rnSattcr.It is the power which wc call soul ... The soul is a real, independent,self-subsisting entity, neither occasioned by matter nor disappearingwith the decay of matter--however little we may be able to assertin detail concerning its ultimate nature. 28Reu refuses to divide the human soul into parts, referring to ~t insteadas a umty. But he doe? sharply divide different modes of appearance that thesoul assumes, and by which he believes it can be studied, understood, andeducated. For Reu, every soul can be said to have an intellectual life, anemotional life, and a volitional life--each of which can be examined separately,but only after a manner of speaking, as he holds that all three aspects"conslantly interact" and require specialized information each proper to itsown development and growth, in order for the soul to gain health and unityof purpose which are inherent in the definition of what it means to bc27 J.M. Reu, "How to Teach Beginncrs," 1.11rhelm Heviild, 12 (January 1929) 21.28 Keu, Curcchcticr 201,240.017 p. 203 of thic snmc work RCLI cautions that thc soul "must be carefullydistingu~shed korn the brain." In another place Reu remarks that thc soul is "not identical with, but [is]closely counected with the brain," and that stimuli from the external environment "hy mcans of the nervesare Lransni~tted to the b~ain and by lhe b~nin in turn tn the soul." Reu, How to T~nch [it? the Soridfry School]69.

34 LU'I'HbKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWRe11 unt1erst;inds the 1hi.ee aspects to he predicates of each singlesoul. not as properties of ideas or mental concepts that fill the mind or thatare present somehow in the eilvironment external to the person.Reu's ~nost extensive theoretical constructs are reserved for his dcscriptionof the soul's intellectual aspect, He undcrstands sensation, concept, andthinking to be thc gradcd series of ascent of the intellectual powers of thesoul through which a pcrson must pass to achieve a full functioning of hismental capabilities. Concerning sensat ion, Reu maintains that, strictlyspeaking, it is possible only when the soul receives a stimulus from eitherthe external envil.on~rrent or from within the body proper.30 ~ uhe t also viewsthe neurological transnlission of the stimulus which produccs the sensation,as well as the sense-impression produced by physical impact upon a senseorgan, as being part of what he terms ~ensation.~' Although he believes itpossible to spcak of a "soul-life" prior to the reception of sensations, Reucategorizes such life as unconscious. For sensation to take place, all that isnecessary is for the soul to be aware of a stimulus, according to Reu.A grade higher than that of sensation for Reu is the soul level ofperception, by which he means the ability of the soul to recognizc thc agencywhich caused the stimulus to be produced in thc first place. As the soul turnsits powers of investigation toward the source of the stimulus, it engages ina process of clarification and discrimination of' the mental picture it carriesof the inner or outer cause of the stimulus, Reu believes. When the power toexamine sensory data is refined to the extent that the soul "gains a clear andcomplete image of the object," then the soul can be said to engage in the nexthigher lever of functioning, which Reu labels as intuition. Intuition for Reuis nothing more than the soul's ability to form an image of an object; thislevel of mental ability is supcrscdcd by what he terms "concepl," by whichthe soul continues to apprehend "the image of' an object even after the object29 lku. ('oterhrtris 202.40 Kcu docs not atldrcss ths questton of whcther n stimulus could arise from the mind's thought processesalonc, i~rtlcpcndent of a bodily referent: he says only tliat such envii-onment-independellt sensations as bccount? as leeitim,~te origins of sens:ltions "proceed from some rtate of thc body." R~LI. Crrrc.cirztic.~ 203.Most often he presumes that sti~nuli leach the sot11 Ih~o~~~lrhe vehicle or I~npuape. As Ire rlolrs in thelioi~rilerits, there is in his viw a "...psychological law ac~ol-cli~ig lo wlliclr tlre weld is, above all else, themedium LIT inkrcourse between soul . II~ SULII, wlre~eby knowledge is commin~icat?d In Ilie intellect, andCeelin a d will are set in notion." Reu, Ilonrilrrrc.~ 119.31 "flow do sensatioiis, pccption~, ~ntu~t~ons, thcsc hst and Ir~ntlamrntal t~~nct~onr of Ihc wul litc, comeabout'! Only in this way thal an olqcct 01. ;I condition cxtl-ancous to thc soul is ]m before it. The objectprotluccs an cwtation nliich is cninrnunicatcd by thc iicr\8ni~s system to the brain. It is then that the soulgets irito action. experlence., n sensation, orients itself in this sensation m1 males the objects in question amatter of perception. nhich asail1 becomes the basis for further activity of the sonl with the objec~." Reu,I-Ion, to fiwch [in thc Srr~ln) Scl~ool] 173- 174.

Paul I. Johnston: PSYCIIOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION ?Sitself has beenConcepts are less vivid to Reu than the originalsensations which produced them, becausc thc causative cxtcrnal object hasbeen removed from impacting the senses.33 The images prod~~ced in themind fl~ro~lgli the patten1 of stiinulus/perception/int~iition/concep as their~iatural next-higher-state development will have exactly the same degree ofclearness and distinctness as the intuition had which preceded the developmcnt ul the concept, R ~LL bclicvcs. So whilc the idca of mental image is thehighest level in Reu's schenia oP intellection, il is clear that his doctrine ofthe concept as the foundation of mental life subs~lmes both the categories ofintuition and image. That this is in fact the case can also be seen from theFact that lieu describes the world of conscious and of unconsciouc tl~oughtsusing the model of concepts (not intuitions) in motion, and in his descriptionof the way concepts are reproduced. 34Every soul has the capacity to movc, to associate, and to reproduce theconcepts it receives, Reu believes. To describe thcir motion he uses theHerbartian terminology of the threshold of consciousrless arid OS the risingand sinking of concepts into and out of consciousness. He also states hiabelief that the strength concepts possess of inhering in consciousness is afunction both of the strength of the sense stimulus which produced them,and OS the place in time they originated (i.e., the conccpts formed mostrecently are always the stronger ones). Reu attributes the ncccssity of therealm of the human uncotlscious to "the divinely appointed limits of thcwhich make it impossible for all concepts to be retained above thethreshold of consciousness simultaneously. Perhaps most striking in Reu'sdescription ol the soul is his predication of clearness and strength to thecoricepls Lhernselves rather than to thc qualities of motion or association32 Reu, L'orecl!etics 205. Further mfolmation aboul Keu's urr~lersl:~nding of sellaalwrr. perceplion, ;+lidconception can be found in HOW fo Tmch [in thc Suizdoy Srhnol] 69-9 L .13 Reu does not d~scoss uht effect i~rlerndlr~rent~d atates have ill thc [UI-lrlillion of images, or how they affecttheir clx~ty as conccpts. although wch a position follows 10gcally from his descl-iption of the ieality ofwhat hc telms "olgaul~ aensaliod' thal aribe liorr~ inlerndl bodily stimuli produced h). states or nhject?wliich do not impact rhc sctiscs of sight and hearing. But he does observe: "Unl) 111 one respect doer Iheconcept llial is ielaitlecl in 1111: sou1 differ fr-orn the original sensation (in the wide ueme of the tcl-m). ricconccpr docs not afford the same degree of pleasme or of pdin as did the sensaliod Keu. Hun, lu Te~ich [illthe S~o~luy SCIZUOI] 79-80.31 Rcr~, Cirrecherics 207-207 Evidence for 1111s poritloi~ 1s also prov~cied in Reu's 1924 ubsalvation that ".A isquebliorlable to me whether it can he m:~iiirnined that thc hc:ii.t and not rhc brain is thc $car of hfc and of thesolll." J.M. Reu. revlew of An Elewieii~cir~ C'kristim Psy~l~vlvgy, by Old Molgan liorlie, in KircklichcLeil.scI21ifr 48 (Decenihe~. 1924) 717. Rci~ calls scnsations. pcrccption5, inturtrons, and concepts the"fnndamental pelequislles LIT llle lu~ilw dcveloplnenl oi the whole inner life ...'l Reu, Ccircchetics 439.35 lieu. Catci1i~tir.r 206. He also rcfcrs ro this limltatmn as thc "narrowness of consciousness."

3 6 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWwhich he understands to be possession of the soul itself.Concerning the method by which mental concepts associate themselveswith one anothcr, Rcu sces three possibilities of combination which hediscusscs in some detail. The most obvious situation is where thc ncwlyformedconcept contans the same information as a concept previouslyformed in the in~nd.~~Tn this case, Reu believes the two concepts fuse andform a single concept more clear and more distinct than either of itspredecessors. Fusion also takes place between concepts which are dissimilar,he maintains, with those elements in each concept that are opposed to eachother simply neutralizing themselves in the fusion, and leaving a newassimilatcd concept whose contents are consistcnt and similar. Fusion cannottake place in the last category of possible concept combination, that ofcomplete opposition or dissimilarity, according to Reu. When concepts arecompletely dissim~lar, the mind keeps them separate--but it does tend togroup even opposing concepts into greater wholes which in themselvestranscend the opposition between or among simple concepts, or it tends toarrange them logically. "For the soul tends to link together and to connectclosely all its conccpts, and the more intimate such conncction is, the moreeasily and tenaciously it retains them" 17It IS Reu's belie1 that most concepls are reproduced in the mlnd by meansof the assistance of other concepts already above the threshold of consciousness.Immediately-reproduced concepts rise into one's consciousness spontaneously,Reu believes, if "the concept when originall formed deeplyaroused our interest and strongly affected our em~tions."~'In his CarecheticsReu gives four quitc spccific rules that govern thc mediate reproductionof concepts (he evcn dcscribcs thcm as "laws," apparently meant to beunderstood as universal and immutable). Briefly stated, these laws are: (l)the soul uses only one concept that has remained above the threshold ofconsciousness to recall a whole host of concepts originally formed at thesame time it was formed; (2) concepts are reproduced into consciousness inthe same order in which they were originally formed; (3) similar conceptsrecall each other; and (4) concepts that are opposites rccall one anothcr into36 Nowhere discussed in Rcu's writings is thc question of how all the contcnts of a conccpt or of anappcrccptivc mass could hc tcrmcd ~dcntical, nor ho~,--~vcn on the level of elementary concepts--theconcepts' contcnt could bc vicwcd as identical, since their contents were formed at different times bystimuli which were themselves in fact different.37 Reu, Catechetics 207.38 Reu, Catechetics 208.

Paul I. Johnston: PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTTAN EDUCATTON 37consciou~ness.~~ Reu remarks that the fact of the activity of this mechanismof concept reproduction ought to make the teacher aware of the i~npor~anccof the clarity with which he presents concepts to his pupils' minds, and ofthe vital importance of the choice of which concepts the teacher introducesto students' consciousne~s.~~ Concepts once formed are never lost, andharmful concepts theoretically as wcll as actually could bc rccalled from thestudents' unconscious at any time to do damage to their beliefs or morality,he believes. 41Reu treats memory as a formalized type of concept reproduction, andone that must be included in any program of education. He notes thatSuch memorizing is logical or judicious when the individual conceptsto be learned are viewed from the standpoint of order and innerconnection; logical memorizing facilitates appropriation, retention,and recall, and in general enhances one's mental powers. If, however,the purpose is unaltered, verbatim, reproduction and absolutemastery of the material, ~ncchanical memory must bc combinedwith the former. 42Reu does not say whether the "mental powers" he understands memoryto devclop arc inhcrcnt faculties in thc soul which are different from thesoul's essence, or if they are differcnt from lhc natural motion of the conceptshei ins elves in and upon the soul. It is obvious from this quotation, howcvcr,and from many others like it scattered among Reu's educational writings,that he does not consider mere rote memorization to have beneficial ormaximal educational value. The phrase "inner connection," like the words"gradual unfolding" and "gradual development" he employs elsewhere, loomlarge in their role as descriptors of Rcu's understanding of what educationshould be and how it should take place for optimum benefit. Hc consistentlyargues, for example, for the inner connection of the thought content of thecurriculum material to be the determining factor in how Luther's SmallCalechism is to be understood and taught. Achieving an awareness of theorganic connection that unifies the isolated facts of the lesson is what itmeans to learn, to Reu. He specifically commends this type of "logical39 Reu, Carrthetrcs Cf. also Reu. IIow to Teach [m the Szlrrclay School/ 86-87.4) Reu notes "Under the teacher's guidance the class must so Lhiuk Lliruug11 the sto~y that they gam a clearconceptlo~i ui the Lruth 11 contains, that they are ahle to put this rl.ur11 in wnrds, and turn it up and formularcit in adeal- ilefmition." Reu. How to Tcoch [irr the S U I ~ S~hoolj O ~ 97.41 Reu say\ that '...concepts may for a rimc bc crowdcd oul of the consciousness. But that does not mean thattile) arc lost. 'They are retamed in the soul." Reu, How 10 ?'each 82.42 Reu, Cutechet~cs 209.

38 1,UTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWmemorizing" over mechanical memorization, and states that pupils need tosee the connection between the lesson material and the concepts they alreadypossess in order for memorization to be valuable to them. 43The second general stage ofthe soul's intellectual life Reu terms simply"thinking." By this he means the ability to thinlilogically, or the soul's abilityto differentiate and associate its varied single concepts and conccpt masscsand to combine them in many different ways simultaneously, as the needarises. Logical thinking is for Reu an activity of the soul, and it is indispensableas one of the most important goals of teaching and learning. Notlmowledge of mcre content will produce an educated mind equipped to makesense of the world; for Keu it takes the careful classification of the relationshipobkaining among concepts. The teacher... will not be satisfied to treat unconnectedly the individual storiesOS the Bible, or to enumerate inecl~anically the several features ofany one story; he will rather induce the children to inquire after thcinner connection and impelling motives, after ground and consequencesor causc and effect ... In catechetical instruction he will notprocccd to the discussion oS a new section without previous logicalanalysis; and he will no1 allow specific cognitions to remain isolated,but will determine their connection with previously gainedcognitio~ls and thus aim to weave all mental possessions into aunity.. . 44Reu understands three forms of logical thinking to be thosc whichcharacterize an educated mind. The first of these, conccption, he believestakes place whcn the soul cngages in a four-step method of reprocluction,reflcction, abstraction, and combination lo produce a single unity of thoughtout of all the essential attributes belonging to separate individual items orconcepts in the mind. Once this has been done, the soul proceeds to make ajudgment--the next higher stage of logical thinking in Reu's classification.A judgement occurs when the soul makes a propositional statcmcnt out ofthe extension and the contcnt of its individual conceptions.45 For Keu, a41 "Now [thc tcachcr] will certainly exercise the pupils especially in logical memorizing, but hz will nutovcrlook the value of mechanical memorizing in connection with the former. By all rneans, lioweve~, liewill guard against the error of having his children n~en~ori~t. anything upon which 110 light has been shed asto contents and connection; otherwiar nlz~nuiizinp will bcculne a bu~deii and the WOI-k of memorizing wh~chmight have been of value lo Llit: pupil, brill~s hinl no paiii--~io IiiaLtel how signihcant the memory materialmay be in itaelruud prove to be in the fi~tuse." Keo, ('criachetrcs 209210.4.4 Rei~, Culeclidics 215.45 Reu defines "extensron" and 'contcnt" oia conccptlon in the fnllowing manncr: "The total~ty of all objectscovered by one and the samc conccptlon i~ cnllcd 11s cxtcnsion. while the sum total of essential marks is

Paul I. Johnston: PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRTSTIAN EDIJCATION 39judgement merely expresses a relation between concepts. When the soulcompares two or more juclgments to each other and indicates the logicalrelation between thcm, this can be said to be the formation of a conclusion,the highest possible degree of sophistication in Reu's conception of mentalabilily. In the Catechetics he mcntions that conclusions are drawn by thesoul in three ways--inductively. deductively, and by analogy.46 The abilityto function at all three levels of intellection Reu sees as the "innate faculty"common to all persons, not as a product to be found "nnly at the end of along process of cultural development" of the individual or of the race.47 11is the business of every teacher in Rcu's conception of intellection to helphis students form distinct conceptions, correct judgments, and logical conclusions.At no time is the teacher to do this by means of spoon Seeding hisown predetermined conccptions or judgements to the students. Reu believesthatHe must guard against passing on to the pupils ready-made conceptions;instead he will have them, on basis of vivid intuitions (fromBiblical History as wcll as from daily lifc), gather the materialthemselves and discover all the marks of distinction; ... One of hismain objects will be to unfold the truth by means of the questionmethod and thereby to train the pupils for independent mentalactivity. 48called its content. B) observing the extension we obtain lhc genus, and hy nh~crving thc contcnt we nhtalnthc distingn~shing ~na~ks; cnmh~ning the two and expressing the result 111 terms, the soul rende~s adefinition: the tree 1s a plant (genus) consisung or loot, Lru~ik, and brancliea (conlent of the conception,ilibLinguistiing marks).'' Reu, Caredietic 215-216.46 Reu, Catcchct~cs 216,47 Rcu, Cot~rkmcs 21 7.48 lieu. Criteclietrcs 217-218. It was Reu's opinion tha~ llle aiidilivn ol analytital qucstiur~ing Lo pedagogical~r~elllod in post-Refurmation times was a definile improvement in catechetical praxis. He pays: "Tt may hcgranted that some pedagogical impl~ovcmcnts, such as thc introduct~on of the Socratlc method, took place inthis pcriod [ic.. the age of Rationalism], buL even th~s only ran to seed as it was united to the ~alrol~alis~icsystem." J.M. Ken and John C. i\?alles, Lulher'~ Srnuil Catechism: A New English Tr~nslatio~~ Prcparcil byiiil Iiileisynodicc~l Curm?itree, With historical introduction, A Jubilee Offering 1529-1929 (Minncapolis:Augsbui-g Publishing House, 1929j 41. He spccrfically endorses the Socmtlc method OF conversatioilalqucstionmg as a commendable pedagog~cal tool, and c~ed~ts the Lime of Ral~oilalisin will1 Lhis lo~wai-dhrelopnien~ in relig~uus education. J.M. Reu, Dr. Mu?-tin Liirizer.'~ Snzall Catecllisnt 4 Hisrory of ItsOrigin, Its Distrib~irio?z cm/ Its C'sc, A jubilee offering, with e~ghteen plates (Chicago: Warthurg PublishingHouse, 1923) 218-246. Cf. in addition RCLI'S definition of Socratic qucstionlng on pp. 266.269, 392, But Inthe Cntrchetics Keu states his understandinp more exactly as to what actually comprises "Soc~alic" ndiod(i C., the nlcthod ol develup~uent of the nialelial, no1 its source). "The catechetical m:~terial has for its sourcethe dlvine revelation; it is not a sum of truths and experiences gathered by man thrnugh his own cffnrtsThis being true, the Socratic mcthod which wol~ld draw forth from the child's mmd ~.elig~ous truth that wasnot fir71 put into il, IS precluded at the outset.'' Keu, Culeciielic~ 438-439. SW in addition liis judgemenl ol"the cducdtional aigni11cance uf Lhe Socratic method fo~religious instruction on pp. 505-509 of this samebook, and his criticism of the "analyzing method" of dcvcloping the qucstion used hy Spcncr and Franckc

40 LUTHERAN THEOLOGSCAT, REVIEWReu prefers the inductive method as the means of helping students gainfacility in thinking; questioning students is to him the best way for the teacherto procced to develop distinct conceptions and clear moral judgments, aswell as the bcst way for him to arouse student interest and cooperalion in thelesson. 49Reu again talks about the powers inherent in the soul when he discussesthe capacity of "phantasy" or imagination which he also believes to be anattribute of the soul. Here it is the sou1;s ability to invent new combinationsof concepts which are reproduced into consciousness; to abstract sensuallynonexistent qualities from masses of conccpts and to usc thcse to make senscof the world in new and novel ways (i.e., formation of' the concepts "soft,""round," etc.). The operation of the imagination is not automalic with Lhesoul, Reu believes (unless perhaps directed toward the category of "uncontrolledimagination," which he believes produces delusions and hallucinations),and therefore it needs to be cultivated by the teacher. To Reu, thereis nothing within or without the soul to hinder it in its ability to recombineor to abstract existing concepts and apperceiving masses of conccpts toachieve more clear, more vivid mental images through the exercise of' theimagination. The great personal as well as pedagogical advantages to aneducational nurturing of the student's imagination, Reu states in these words:Phantasy makes the inner life rich and varied; it familiarizes the soulwith the past and it permits glimpses into the future; it renders thesoul sympathetic with the weal and the woe of others, participantin the activities of their life, willing to help. For, as the phantasystirs the emotions through vivid images, so it also arouses the willto action. There is every rcason, then, that the teacher of religionshould quicken and nurture the phantasy 01 his pupils by supplyingmany details and by cultivating clear intuitions. Failing to do so, hewould leave unused the key to the einotions and to the will of hispupil; he would neglect the opportunity of leading him to thrillingjoy, to sincere grief, to noble aspirations, to ardent enthusiasm forall that is good, true, and beautiful; hc would certainly have failedto learn from Holy Scripture which, fairly brimming with pedagogicon pp. 502-505.49 Reu, Hou' to Teach [in the S~lndrfj School] 242-261. Reu distingui?hes between the "defining question"(which requires a ''yes" or "no") and favours gleates use of the defining question in religious instructionbecause it requiies students to do indepenileul ll~iukirlg. Cf. Reu, CLIIL'CIIL'I~CS 445, esprciiilly hi:, dibli~icliu~~between acioamiilic (lhelical) erd eio~ernulic (inlz~i-ogato~y) quealio~is (pp. 450-,452). ancl his cliacussiou 01pe~apicuily aml approp~iatenesa as (he two dl~ib~iles uT 'I guo~l ~ L I ~ U(pp. I I 455-458).

Paul I. Johr~hton. PSYCHOI.OGY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 41wisdom, never wearies, e.g.. to paint the glory of eternal lifc in evernew and ever changing images. 50Behind and beneath Reu's doctrine of the soul and of the concept is hisdoctrine of apperception, which perhaps is thc most frequcntly mentionedbut also the most psychologically unsupported concepl in his schema oftheoretical constructs in the area of education. Absoluiely every conceptionor recognition or assimilation of new inipressions or facts comes about inReu's vicw through apperception, which he defines in the classical Herbartiansense of old conccpts already above or below the threshold of consciousnesshclping ncw concepts to bc understood and assimilated, or as Reu putsit, "this illuminating associalion of thc ncw concepts with the oldThe soul uses the new information it apperceivcs either to add to its store ofknowledge, or to correct, purify, or reclassify its present fund of conccpts,Reu believes. It is in regard to the change brought about in the already knownby the newly known through the agency of apperception that Reu talks abouteducation as the "transformation of knowledge." This phrase occurs onlyrarely in his works, but the idea it represents is an often-repeated one in Keu'seducational corpus. Why it is that apperception exists as the sole andnecessary route to learning new material, Reu does not attempt to answer.Thc concept of apperception appears as an axiomatic and invariable giventhroughout his pedagogical writings.Suggested Elements of Reu's AxiologyThe values upon which Reu wishes to establish his educational psychologyare unashamedly Christian and Lutheran oncs. When considered asbehavioral outcomes, they include s~rch moral qualities as even-tcmperedness,sociability, reliability of character, love of the truth, and the willingnessto persevere in one's duty in the face of opposition or indifference. But Reumakes it quite plain in his pedagogical writings that he wishes the behavioraloutcomes of instruction--valuable though he believes them to be--to besubordinated to the grcat controlling idea of salvation by grace through faithin Jes~ls Christ. For Rcu, all extcrnal right actions, even those commanded50 Kcu, Cnteihrfrcr 21 1.51 Reu, Cnrechcrics 212. Elsewhere he descrihcs rhk samc mcntal p~.occ?s as it applics to rnstrilcllon InDibllcal histoly: "Alid how due5 11 iac111hk the wwk uT the teacher when these Biblical stories are lmo~nby lhe pupils, whcn thcy hcfnrc again and again hace been treated 111 Biblical IIistol-y ~nstruction! Illink 01thc great impo~lan~e uT the aswialiun or lhe same concepts; how they become deepencd :rlid forrificcl!"J.M. Reu, "Thc Placc of Biblrcal H~sotq 111 the Curl-~culum of Luthem Schools" 34, J .I~. Keu Cullec~ion.Dubuque. Cl. Reu, How to T(wh [in rhc Si,iiiiloy Sr.hool] 97-95.215, and cspccially hrs comnicnt on p. 94:"All right learnlag 1s appercelclily. IL does 1101 col~~sl In rneiely ~nachanically idding new concepts to theold, but ill ~lenrly 1recogni7ing and I-ightly clirssifying nca. concepts with those already plesent in the soul.''

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL, REVIEWin the Bible in obedience to the will of God, arc worthless and even harmfulto the cause of religious eduction if they do not flow from thc hcart whichfirst knows God by faith and trusts His pronlise of forgiveness for the sakeof Christ's propitiatory atonement for thc sinner. Whcn vicwed as cognitiveoutcomes, Reu's pedagogical goals show a marked preference for understandingthe educated person in terms of the educated mind--one which isable to proceed gradually up the scale of ascending difficulty from sensationto conccption all the way to judgment and conclusion with their attendantabstraction of the material of instruction and its application by the studentto his own life. Reu insisted that the learner's self-activity and interest werevital ingrcdients in the pedagogical interaction among teacher, curriculutn,and student. His goal was for religious cducation lo produce a person ofbroad sensibilities, well-versed in many subject fields, who at thc same timehad learned to know his God Lhrough Bible history and through an understandingof the history of salvation of which his own lik was an importantpart. Reu sees no contradiction between the behavioral and the cognitive orthe theological and thc pedagogical portions of his axiology. He employselements of both his theological and pedagogical axiology consistentlythroughout his career, in every setting in which he writes about secular orreligious education. For the spiritual component of faith to be missing fromintellectual mastery of technical or social science fields, or for the sludcntsecularly cducatcd to be lacking the moral input from church and Word ofGod which Reu believed to cngcnder faith and to curb the outbursts of thecorrupt moral nature he held to be mankind's natural lot, is unthinkablc inhis conception of what an education should be.52 Education of the pupil'sintellectual life, his moral life, and the lire of his will all involve a commitmenton Reu's part to distinguish higher from lower levels of activity of themind or soul. His postulate that instruction should lead the learner froin lowerto higher levels of mastery and growth, as wcll as his painstaking specificationof what these levels are and how they may be reached, are value-ladcnassumptions implicit in his pcdagogy at a deeper level which also suggestfeatures of his axiology.Reu's treatn~ent of the aim of religious instruction, which he developsout of his pedagogical axiology, occupies a scant ten pages in the middle ofhis Catcchctics. One might be tempted to conclude from this that the52 ''If it is true that actual, complcrc control of the world of concepts is no1 achieved except by logicalthinking, how co111d thc teacher of religion powihly fail lo cullivale it'!'' lieu, Cutechellcs 214-215. Keu heldthat also thc studcnt'c emotions and his will needed the berielits provided by education, and did notcmphnsize development of the iniellec~ tu (he exclusiun or Llie other two.

Px~l I. Sohnsion: PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRlSTlAN EDUCATION 43theoretical framework of values underlying his historical sketches anddiscussions of educarional methods is rather weak. Nothing could bc moreinaccurate, however, because Reu himself confesses that "A precise definitionof the aim auto~natically determines the material and the inelllod to beuscd and placcs upon all our cducational and training efforts thc stamp ofsystem, comprehensiveness, and purpose.''3 It is to inform the whole innerlife of man--"his inlellectual, emotional, and volitional lifen--that Keu sccsas the aim of all education and especially of religious instruction. Hisextended definition of the aim of religious education is as follows:The aim is (1)faithfully to imbed and anchor in the INTELLECT ofthe rising generation all the holy trutlis upon which the life 01 themature congregation fundamentally is based, and by which alone itis constantly renewed, and without a knowledge of wliich one cat1not possibly participate in its cntirc lifc; (2)to stir thc EMOTIONSto a vital interest in those truths: (3)to bend the WILL so that it mayrun in the paths in which the Holy Spirit, turning to account thosetruths, in His own season, leads to personal faith and to participationin the life of the mature congregation. 54It is to be noticed here that Reu does not set up either the formation ofan ethical or Christian character, nor even the goal of leading students tosaving faith, as the aim of religious education. He rather, in line with thcprinciple of divine monergism, aims at the impartation of those vital, basictruths of the Christian faith without which Reu believes there can be noentrance of the Holy Spirit into the soul of man to begin His work of calling,enlightening, and sanctifying. The transniission of these truths in such a wayas takcs into account the threefold anthropological division Reu posits ofintellect, einotions, and will, is to be the aim of religious education, in hisview. Anything more than this would be sheer presumption, to Reu's wayof thinking." Reu gives a summary of his understanding of the proper aimof all specifically religious education with these words:53 Reu. Ci-ir~clr~iics 273. Reu goes on tn suniina~.ize the valucs hc hclicvcs sho~~ld hc prescnt in religiouseducation when he observes: 'Any kind of traming that does not aim at thoroughgoing influence upon theheart, upon llre whole innel- r/ro~l--hls ~ntellectual, e~notional, vol~l~onal Me, and dues not stme to eslablrslrapelxo~ial relation between the young and Christ, the Saviour and King, hns no right of existence in theEwngclical Church." Rcu, Catrc1rrtir.v 275-276. Onc can scc fiom this how broad thc axiological bascredly is m Ken's philosophy of education54 Keu. Cutec.heiic.s 280. He ,ilnpliIies this aim tu "We a1.e 10 leveal God t our pupils" in his 1939 pupulaltredtmenr of education theory and practice written for Christian lqpeople. Cf. Reu. HOW to TCUC~ [m theSziizclirj Srhnd] 159.55 Cf. J.M. Keu, "Luther und dre Erziehung," Kirchlr~lre Zrits~hr-ifr 57 (October- 1933) 591.592.

44 I .IJTHER AN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWFriends, whatever part of the Catechism you may treat, never forgetthat the aim of all your tcaching is this and this alone: You mustdraw back the veil so that your children may see God. You certainlywill observe all the rules which psychology can teach you about theapproach to the soul, you certainly will present your material so thatit can influence the threefold life of the soul of your children, theirintellectual, emotional, and volitional life, and you never growweary in studying and praying to find the best way of influcncingthem; but all will be useless as long as it is not a mcans to revealGod before the wondcring eyes of your class. 5 6Elcmcnts of the pedagogical axiology adopted by Keu as defined aboveare suggcstcd by or stated explicitly in the sketches or his epistemology andanthropology presented above.This study of Reu's educational psychology reveals some remarkablecontemporary concerns such as the critical importance of teacher-pupilinteraction, sequential structuring of curriculum, and developing of criticalthinking skills rather than simply imparting knowledge as thc aim of Christianeducation. Reu's carcfully structured hypothesized divisions of thepcrson according to thought and will seem overly pedantic arid narrow to ustoday, based as they are upon older pedagogic tsadions rather than empiricalinvestigation. But his enduring contribution to Lutheran education in NorthAmerica was his pioneering attempt to wed the new science of educationalpsychology to the best of Christian theology to dcvclop what Keu envisioncdas a truly scientific catechetics. Such a system would in turn, Reu believed,lead to grcatcr understanding of the believer's task as educator and propagatorof thc faith. His ideas are still worthy of perusal and discussion becauseof the comprehensive scope of his system, and also because of Reu'sunwavering colnrnitment to the Holy Scriptures as the inspired Word of Godand as the source for every conception of humanity and for all Biblical andcatechetical instruction in the church.Paul I. Johnston, Ph.D., is pastor of Grace Lutheran Church, Libc.rcxl,Kansas (LC-MS).56 J.M. Reu, "Revealing the Hea~t of God: The Final Aim of Our Keligious Instsuction." 1.1rtlrrr.on Ileinld, 22March 1930 100-101.

"Real-life ministry" is a term being heard more frequently in seminarycircles and throughout the church. The term is oftcn used in conversationswhich stress the need for major changes in the training programs of prospectivepastors. The conclusion reached in niany discussions is that currentseminary students are not being adequately prepared for "real-life ministry."In Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod circles, the term "real-life ministry"surfaced quite prominently in a February, 1986 Planning Conlerenceheld in St. Louis. Present at the meeting were representatives of all thedistricts of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, normally the presidentand full-time executives; the presidents of the colleges and seminaries of theSynod; a generous sampling of elected officials and exccutivcs of the Synod;and a variety of other guests. Although a number of topics werc treated byvarious units of the conference, it was Planning Unit I11 (Higher Education)which summed up its recommendations under the title: "Training Clergy forReal-Life Ministry." We will refer to the recommendations of this unit later;the point is that the term "real-life ministry" assumed meaning for manyLutheran Church-Missouri Synod leaders on the occasion of this conference,especially in the report of the Higher Education Unit.I. Defining TermsThe report of the unit which produced the statement on "real-lifeministry" gives only indirect information on the meaning of the term. Thus,the first purpose of this study is to define the term as precisely as possible.We begin with the word "ministry" and lace the first problem, the factthat "ministry" means different things to different people. It is not ompurpose to debate the relative merits of the several popular views of theministry. Because the Planning Council Unit entitled its report "TrainingClergy for Real-Life Ministry," we will assume that "ministry" means theOffice of the Holy Ministry and not some other or broader definition of theterm. This, then, is "ministry" in the traditional Lutheran sense, a ministryordained by God and with authority in spiritual matters only. The ministerin this case is a pastor or shepherd in the spirit of the term "Scelsorger." His1 This essay, which was delivcrcd to a cambmed meeting of the Council of Presidents, seminary faculties,and college 1rlig1011 department ul Lutheran Church-Canada in Septcmhcr 1989, was printed in Lqht I'o?011,' Wodd; Essys Coniinemor-oting the 150th Arwi~ er-sar:, of Concor-tliu Seminary, St. Louis, Mirsowi,John W. Klutz, ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary 1989) 194-208, and is here reproduced by pe~mlssio~i.

46 LUTHERAN TIIEOLOGICAL REVIEWprimary purpose is to lead people to the Chief Shepherd and keep them inthe fold by the use of the means of grace.The practical implications of this definition of "ministry" arc significantin view of the wrong impressions of ministry in socicty. T11c media are nothelpful. In many movies, television programs, books and magazines thepastor is depicled as a bumbling fool who Lries 10 act impnrlant and orricious,but who really looks quite silly as he attempts to make ancient rituals andl~eliefs applicable to twentieth century life. There is obviously no concept of"shepherd" in this image of the ministry.There is also a general tendency to scc the pastor as one who ignorcsprinciplcs and bclicfs in the interest of gaining and liccping a following.Oswald Hoffmann, long-time speaker on "The Lutheran Hour," stated in oneof his sermons that [here may be a crisis in theology Loday becausetoo many people expect a minister to be a carbon copy of thesweet-talking, unctuous, confidence man-a sort of corporate vicepresidentin charge of public relations, whose job it is to linow whatpeople want to hear, and then offer it to then1 in the most attractivepackage possible. The idea is to please as manj7 people as possibleand thc worst possible thing is to rock thc boat.'This mistaken idea of "ministry" also omits thc meaningful quality ofspiritual service dcvotcd to the use of our Lord's means of gracc.Next comes the real challenge of this study, 1 hat is, a clehnition of theterm "real--liTe." The use of the term in reference to pastoral educationsuggests that there is training for something less, or other than, "real -life."If this is the case, then there is also a suggestion that either: 1) the churchnever really trained pastors for "real-life"; or that 2) "real-life" has changedand the church has failcd to adjust its pastoral training to the changes.Assuming that no one would try to prove that the church has always failedto prepare pastors for "real-life," we assume thal the real accusation in urgingpsepasation for "real-life" ministry is that the church has failed to adapt itspastoral training to fit the changes in the world over recent decades orcenturies.As we list examples of change in the world, we are not suggesting thatanyone claims that the Holy Spirit is powerless to do His work under thcchanged conditions; there is simply a recognition that the devil has somepowerrul and different tools with which to work. These indisputable changes2 Oswald Hoffinan, "On Being a Ministe~," in a Lutheran Hour se~mon delivered August 3, 1969

How a1 d W. Krarne~ : KEAL LIFE MINISTRY 47will influence thc manner in which the Christian message is prcachcd andperceived.Compared with the period of one hundred and fifty years ago, we nowhave the matcrialisrn, secularism, hedonism and violence of the worldintroduced into our family rooms through color television. Average childrenand adults spend long hours daily digesting what is offered there. Materialism,secularism, hedonism and violence were evident one hundred and fiftyyears ago as well, but they can hardly be said to have been so graphicallyand attractively packaged and so continuously presented.The skyrocketing divorcc rate, thc number of single parent families, andthe increasing acceptance of unmarried mothers are symptoms of somesignificant changes in society. When teachel-s in parochial schools andSunday Schools can no longcr assume that the majority of the children inclasses are living with their natural father andlor mother we have obviouslyundergone some kind of environmental change in our cliur-cl2 and society.Thc situation may call for new and innovative approaches to such segmentsfor our audience. Symptonls of the change in the make-up and attitude of theyounger generation include the great increase in the use of drugs amongyoung people. While alcohol has been around for a long timc and has beenabused just as long as it has been around, the wide use of drugs likemarijuana, heroin and cocaine in Western cultur-e is a new pheno~iienon.Apparently, too, young pcoplc become sexually aclive a1 younger andyounger ages and illicit sex is almost taken for granted among many. Withcontraceptives easily available and abortion not difficult to obtain, we arefacing a ncw challenge in even discussing moral issucs with the members ofthe younger generation.An additional change in society, one which no pastor may ignore, is thechanging rolc of women in our society. Women, who make up over fiftypercent of congregational membership, properly are enjoying a new senseof independence and confidence in recent years; women have also been givennew opportunities for scrvicc in our C~LLI-ch. Fui-ther, many inolhers workoutside the home and more and more have careers of their own. If a pastorministers as if he is still dealing with the role of women as it was in Walther9sday, he may find limsclf ineffective in that area of Lhe minislry.Another change in the make-up of present-day congrcgations is the factthat a larger percentage of the mernl9er.s are as well educated as or bettereciucnteil than the pastor. This sil~~ation is very different S1o1n lhal ol' onehundred and fifty years ago when the pastor was often the most highly-cclucaredperson in the parish. The pastor. will recognize that his parishioners

48 LIJTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWmay be influenced in their view of life by the philosophy of the art, music,drama and literature which is part of their education and lifc. The pastor mayalso recognize that such educated individuals may be "turned off" bytraditional jargon and presentations, especially if accompanied by Lhe pastor's"Sunday only" voice. The point is simply that the educational level ofthe audience has changed and the pastor needs to be aware of it.The complexion of the audience has change in other ways. In the age ofWalther, non-Caucasians were extrcmcly rare in congregations. Today,minorities, for example blacks and Hispanics, are a significant fcature ofNorth American society. They live in the community of the church building,and they may be part of the audience on any given Sunday. "Real-life"ministry will not think only in terms of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, butit will include constituencies which are not necessarily comfortable withWcstern European culture and thinking. The church has become aware ofunique cultures in foreign mission ficlds and has adapted to them; it mustrecognize and adapt to the new and unique cultures represcnted in NorthAmerican audiences. The point is that the change in the audience which thechurch seeks to reach constitutes a change in the "real-life" situation.The audience has changed in other perceptible ways. More people areliving longer and the average age of many congregations is significantlyhigher than it was. Add the fact that the birth rate is down significantly fromwhat it was one hundred and fifty years ago and this "higher average age"becomes even more important.The number of single adults of all ages is another consideration. Unmarriedsingles, divorced singles and bereaved singles are said to constitute avery significant portion of our society and of our churches. A pastor whospeaks and preaches as if everyone lives in a family setting in which a father,mother and four childrcn live happily together will eventually alienate thesingles in his audience.Surnrr~ur-y: The term "real-life ministry" is the subject of this study.One's definition of "ministry" may affect one's approach to the discussion.We define "ministry" in the traditional Lutheran sense. The average crilic ofcurrent ministerial training and practice seems to believe that seminariansarc not receiving "real-life" ministerial training because the Church has notadapted to a society which has undcrgone significant changes in the lastcentury or two. "Real-life" is different today in some respects becausc of thechanges in our environment.

Howard W. Kra~ner: REAL LIFE MINISTRY 4911. " Real-Life" Ministry Means "Relevant" MinistryIn analyzing what the members of The Lutheran Church-MissouriSynod Planning Council meant by "real-life" ministry, we find that it meansthat a ministry must be "rclevant." What follows is the earlier-mentionedreport of Planning Unit 111:"Training Clergy for Real-Life Ministry"The Image We See: A clergy model that has increascd awarenessof, sensitivity for and ability to apply Law and Gospel effectivelyto the wide range of human needs found in the parish and communitythrough an inter-personal nlinistry.Recommendations:1. A total program of identifying, cultivating and screening thosewho have the interest and aptitude for pastoral ministry.2. The activation of an even more exhaustive process of ongoingevaluation of the seminarian throughout the seminary experience.3. A comprehensive internship supervised by approved pastors thatwould build on exposure to practical aspects of ministry includinglay involvement in the evaluation process.4. A greater articulation of college/seminary curricula to emphasizeprograms that enhance interpersonal ministry skills (including varioustracks to accommodate background, abilities and interest).S. Required participation in continuing education experience thatemphasizes interpersonal ministry for all clergy, using an ongoingcertification process for recognition and encouragement.6. The selection and employment of evaluation instruments to assiststudent selection, screening, exposure, experience, placement, oricntationand professional support. 3In analyzing portions of this report, we wish to choose three areas ofemphasis to support the thcsis that "real-life" means "relevant" ministry.They are:1. Pastors must be effective in their "interpersonal" activity (Carefulscreening will make certain that pastors without "interpersonal" skills arenot permitted in the ministry);2. The internship (vicarage) experience must be strengthened in its3 Report of Unit 111 (Higher Education), Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod l'lanning C'ouml. St. Louis,Missouri, February 18-20, 1986.

5 0 LUTHERAN TIIHOLOGICAL REVIEWpractical aspects;3. Sem~nary curricula must be adjusted to enhance "interpersonal"ministry skills.Treating these emphases individually, it becomcs cvident that each isconcerned with some aspcct of thc "rclcvant" ministry concept.l. Irzterperso~zal Ministry NeededThe term "interpersonal" occurs three times in the report of the planningunit. In the general ir~troductory statement we read that the ideal clergy modelenvisioned for the future is to be achieved "through an interpersonal ministry."The references to "interpersonal ministry" in thc recommendationswhich follow include one at thc seminary lcvel to encourage ci~rrici~laemphasizing programs that enhance interpersonal ministry skills, and , at thepastoral lcvcl, continuing education programs which accomplish the samepurpose.What is this "interpersonal" ministry? As one reads the pages of rawdata from the questionnaires of the hundreds who attended the sessions, it isevident that "interpersonal" ministry refers to a caring "Scclsorger" kind ofministry which treats individuals with compassion and Christian love nomattcr who and where they are. Since that is what is meant, we discover thatwe are not filcing a new concept at all. We often speak about our Lord'sministry as being one of compassion and true love. We note His concern forthe lost sheep, the prodigal son, the woman taken in adultery and theSamaritan woman. The Gospels often reveal Jesus in a "one-on-onc" situation.Today, too, most pcoplc will agree that a good pastor shoulcl be acaring, concerned individual who can speak meaningfully to a despairingtcenagcr, a lonely widow, a bereaved mother, or an unerr~ployed adult. Thepastor who lits this concept of the ministry is one who knows where hispeople live and has seen their homes. He reasonably well understands theirworking and living environments. To be a "relevant" pastor, hc must oftcndeal with people on a personal basis as an understanding, warm, caringindividual. "Real-life" ministry will ccrtainly be made difficult if' the pastoris deficicnt in this quality.Apparently, there are those who see their pastors as ill-suited to aninterperscmal ministry. A warn1 smile and a firm handshake do not inthemselves make a good pastor, but people believe that they symbolizcsomething necessary. Parishioners may expect the pastor to spend a fairamount of time reading thc Biblc in the original languages, preparing hisscrmons carefully, writing monthly newsletters, attending meeting^ in the

Hownrd W. TZ~mier: REAL IJFE MINISTRY 5 1congregation and in thc community, ruilning the office, etc., but they wantthe pastor to rclatc cffcclivcly to the s~~cccsscs and failures thcy cxpcricnceas human beings in a sinl'ul world. In their view, he must not be so engrossedin his studies anti other activities that he cannot relate to the situation of ajunior executive who has just lost his job, an alcoholic struggling to controlhis habit, a woman considering an abortion, or the host of individuals beingswallowed up in a materialistic philosophy. He must be able to convey theniessagc of thc Law and Gospcl in all such situations and do it in ameaningful way. He must be thoroughly hu~nan.The recommendalion is not to "while away" countless hours in idleconversation in order to get cloce to people. Quality rather- than quantity isrequired. Neither are we speaking of those who are very effective in theirinterpersonal relationships but who actually have an insincere motive. Interpersonalrelationships of the type which affect "real-life" ministry will notbe mere attempts to win friends and influence people. They will not be mereattcmpts to bring personal success to the congregation in which a pastor hasbeen placed. Winning people to the pastor of the organization is quite adifPerence malter from helping people by winning and keeping them Cor theSavior.While present-day seminarians may have an inadequate concept ofinterpersonal ministry, and while the church may be concerned that it takestoo long for them to be educated to "real-life ministry," a study conductedtwenty-fivc ycars ago suggcstcd that pastors at that timc ratcd as moresatisfying "those activities which involve the minister existentially withpeople ... than those which are relatively routine, atlministrative, and regardedas peripheral to ... [their] main function as mediator of Word and~acraments."~ The specific activities which rated highest in satisfactionamong those polled were adult confirmation classes, preaching, personalstudy and private prayer, communion, sick calls, Baptisms, and calls forcomfort or co~~nseling.~ This study also found that "clergymen ... tend tovalue professional adeptness in a iellow minister, but think that laymenwould value personality ckllls Lutheran pastors in the ctudy recognizedthe importance of personality skills and interpersonal ministry, andthey received great satisfaction from those activities which permitted themto deal with people directly. even if not on a "one-on-one" basis.4 Kofs P. Sche~er, "The Lutheran Mmistry: Origins, Careels, Sell-Appra~sal," Zlre C'I-essel, Janoary 1Y63 135 Scherer 13.6 Schcw 13.

52 LUTHEKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWA more recent study by Dr. David Schuller of the Association ofTheological Schools, llsted significant weaknesses which have been identifiedamong some clergy of various denominations. Among the top tenweaknesses identified were: 1) The pastor blames others; 2) he cannotdelegate properly; 3) he cannot develop commitments and loyalties; 4) he isdivisive; 5) he does not support others emotionally while disagreeing withthem intcllcctually; 6) he necds constant approval and support from others;and 7) he treats differentness as a Lhreat. President Karl Barth of ConcordiaSeminary, St. Loui\, who quoted the results of this study in a recentConcordia .Journal article, notes that "six of the ten clergy weaknesses haveto do with interpersonal relationships, including relationships with thosewho, like the pastor, have been divinely called into the service of the ~ ord."~While there may be somewhat different cmphases on studics of the typereferrcd to above, it appears that the Missouri Synod Planning Council'semphasis on "interpersonal" ministry echoes a theme of many articles andstudies over the years. Not everyone will agree with Lyle Schaller's claimthat in ministry "people skills are more important than technical skills,"' butit is clear that the point about the importance of interpersonal relationshipsis a way of emphasizing that a pastor who does not relate well to people ona personal basis may not have a "relevant" ministry even if he is wcll-versedin thcology.The Planning Council Unit also recommends that "careful vxeeningmust be done to make certain that pastors without 'interpersonal' skills arenot permitted in the ministry." This emphasis puts teeth into that which thestatement on "interpersonal" ministry introduces. If the church takes theargument for "interpersonal" ministry seriously, it is asked to scrccn outthose who do not show promise in this area. This may mean that an applicantfor seminary study never begins his study at all or that the admitted studentwho later shows lack of promise will be asked to discontinue.Screening is simply a euphemism for "denial of enrollment" or for"disenrollment." That is aprocess with which we have not been comfortable.Because one cannot predict with absolute certainty how effective a pastorwill be, seminary faculties are generally torn bctwccn: 1) the desire to treatprospective students charitably; and 2) the desire to produce the most ablecandidates for the ofke of the ministry. Pastors and laypersons asked to7 David Schullcr in an article by Karl Barth, "The Doctrine of the Ministry: Somc Practical Dimensions,"Concordia Journal, vol. 14, no. 3 (July 1988) 240.8 Lyle Schaller as quoted by H. Armin hloellering, "Some New Testament Aspects of the Ministry Identifiedand Applied," Concordia Jownal, vol. 14. no. 3 (July 1988) 240.

IIoward W. Kramer: REAL LIFE MINISTRY 53write letters of reference for prospective seminary students are troubled withthc samc tension. Thc icar of dealing uncharitably with someone whom theLord may be able to usc in the ministry definitely deters admissions council$,screening comnittees and othcrs from doing thcir duty at times.The Planning Unit's treatment of the scrccning function is, then, essentiallya statement to the effect that the church has failed to be firm cnoughin its screening of prospective pastors. It must now face the fact that, withoutadequate and firm screening programs, additional unsuitable candidates wdlbe placed into the ministry and will be permitted to remain in the ministryunlcss the church also improves its method of counseling ineffective pastorsout of the ministry after they havc been ordained. The masor flaw of theseunsuitable candidates and pastors, according to the report, is their inabilityto deal with people on an "lnlerpersonal" basis, that is, in a "rclcvant"manner.2. Srvengtherl the Vicuruge ExperienceThe second emphasis to consider states that "the intcrnship (vicarage)experience must be strengthened in its practical aspects."The inclusion of this point in reconmendations urging concern for"relevant" ministry training may surprise some. If there is any period oftraining on which the church and the seminary depend to complete thestudent's education in practical ministry, it is the vicarage period. What hashappened? If the vicaragc is not doing an adequate job of training, where isthe problem? Three possibilities suggcst themselves. Eithcr:1. The church is so ineffective in "real-llfe" or "relevant" ministry thata student vicar will not presently be able to learn it in a vicarage; or2. The church is not carefully choosing the locations for vicarageassignments; or3. The seminaries are doing an inadequate job of supel-vi5ing thevicarage expericncc.Assu~nmg that the first point involves the basic question which is beingaddressed throughout thib study and will have to be solved by a gcneralchange in attitude, we turn to the latter two possibilities. We are dealing witha mechanism for: l) choosing vicarage assignments more carefully, makingcertain that the supervising pastor is "approved," namely, a successfulpactitioncr of "real-life" or "relevant" ministry; and 2) improving the systemof seminary supervision during the vicarage experience.On the matter of choosing vicarage assignmcnts more carefully, we facea formidable problem. The church presently dcpcnds on congregations to

54 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWrequest vicars. Thus the Placement Committee is limited in the number andtype of requests. The committee cannot choose a good place for a vicar andoffer the congregation the equivalent of the vicar's salary for a year. If thereis an insufficient number of requests fos vicarages, the Placement Committeeis helpless. How can the committee select only parishes or situations whicharc known to offer "real-life" experiences?This brings up thc qucstion of why congrcgation~ rcqucst vicars in thefirst place. The answer clearly varies. A congregation may want a vicar sothat it may be part of the pastoral education program of the church. In thisideal situation the congregation provides a setting in which the student canexperience ministry as it is practiced today. In such an ideal situation, thecongregation may also participate in an evaluation of the student's progress.Thc pastor of thc congrcgation will clearly scc himself as a part of thescminary faculty.Contrast the preceding with the situation as it is sometimes described.Vicars are requested primarily because they will be a help to the pastor,perhaps in an area which the pastor cannot do well. Congregations andpastors with this view may fail to see the vicarage as an educationalexperience for the vicar. Further, some vicars are placed in charge of parisheswhich are supervised, perhaps distantly and indirectly, by the pastor of thcncighboring or mother congrcgation. Such situations may providc sometraining I'or the vicar, but, unless the supervising pastor is extremely diligent,it is nol likely to be the quality educational experience for which the seminaryhopes. We continue to hear horror stories from former vicars who had hardlyany supervision and basically no constructive learning sessions with supervisingpastors.The seminaries may also bc at fault in their failure to supervise a vicaradequately and aggressively during the vicarage year. While a reasonableamount of such supervision can be done by letter and telephone, it would bedesirable to have the seminary vicarage supervisor drop in on the vicarseveral times during the year for a "face to face" evaluation. Present seminaryfunding budgets do not generally permit the staffing necessary for suchsupervision.The suggestion that the "vicarage experience be strengthened in itspractical aspecls" presents the church with quite a challenge. The PlanningCouncil Unit has hit on a valid concern if we expect to have pastors whominister in "relevant" ways. Even if there were only a very few inferiorvicarage experiences (and we affirm that there are many excellent vicaragecxpericnces and many pcrceptive, patient and able supervising pastors and

Howard W. Kramer: REAL LIFE MTNISTRYcongregations) we should work for improvement.3. Adjuut the Serninuty CurriculumThc third point for us to consider is the recommendation that seininarycurricula be adjusted to enliance "interpersonal tninistry sltills." This recorrirnendationreflects another very important facet of the concern for "reallife"or "relevant" ministry.As seminary curricula are structured in our circles, we generally findfour departments: Exegetical Theology, Systematic Theology, HistoricalTheology and Practical Theology. (The claim that everything in the seminarycurriculum must be "practical" in some sense will provide material foranother article.) Seminaries tend to rcyuire fewer hours in Historical Theologythan in the other areas, and they tend to require more hours in PracticalTheology they in any other single area. Tf the vicarage is counted as PracticalTheology, the portion of pastoral education dcvoted to Practical Theologyis easily twice the total of that in any other field. The increasing emphasison Practical Theology appears to result from an already-accepted bclicf thatpastors need more training in arcas like preaching, pastoral counseling,administration, parish education and evangelisni. Whatever one's definitionof Practical Theology may be, it is apparent thal the subject areas of thcaverage Practical Theology Dcpartrnent include those in which a pastor dealswith people on an interpersonal basis. The recommendation that seminarycurricula be adjusted to enhance "interpersonal ministry skills" mcans thatstuclents should bc taught to be rclcvant in their preaching, counseling,admonishing, teaching and administration. It is in these areas that a pastordeals with others in small groups or on a "one-on-one" basis, and he shouldbe comfortable and rcasonably personable in his interaction with others insuch settings.It is possible to enhance the "interpersonal ministry skills" in a curriculumby spcnding more time on certain subjects and/or by improving thequality of the instruction. We have already stated that there are many waysby which the vicarage experience can be improved; no one has recomrncndedlengthening it. If we add more requirerncnts in the area of Practical Theology,we may have to consider adding a year to the pastoral education program.Another alternative is to substitute "practical" courses h r sumc of thosewhich have been taught in the Excgctical, Systematic and Historical departments.Such suggestions generally bring a violent negative response. Mostpeople say that the four-year program for the pastoral ministry is long enoughalready. Furthcr, many will arguc that we cannot cut back at all on the

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWexegetical, systematic and historical requirements becausc many graduatesare also weak in these areas. If we cannot add a year to the training programof pastors and if we cannot substitute additional Praclical Theology coursesfor courses in other areas, we will have to seek another answer.It should be possible to achieve the goal of preparing students for"real-life" or "relevant" ministry by improving the quality of the educationalcxpcricncc. To accomplish this we need to look at the courses in PracticalTheology and attempt to strengthen them. For cxamplc, take the arca ofpreaching, con\idered by many to be the single most important activity ofthe pastor. Relevant preaching has a decided effect on the church-goinghabits of chusch members. Are our students hearing "relevant" sermons fromtheir pastors and from their seminary professors? Is the problem partly thatthe professors who teach seminary students how to preach fail to help themaddress "real-lifc" situations? The problem which Kierkegaard saw onehundred and fifty years ago is still aproblcm today. Kierkcgaard comrncntedabout the sermon he heard from Bishop Mynster in Copenhagen on May 19,1850: "Today, Whitsunday, Mynster preached against monks and hermits --Good God, to want to play that tune in the 19th century, in order to berewarded with applause. He did not attack a single one of the forms of evilprevalent in our day -- ugh, God forbid, that might easily have become tooserious, no, he preached against the m~nasteries."~Kierkegaard's complaint is one that present-day pastors and seminariesmight well heed. Whal is the point of preaching, perhaps even eloquently,on some sub.ject that concerns no one in the congregation? One parishionersaid about his pastor's sermons, "The trouble with my pastol's sermons isthat he scratches where he itches, not where I itch."1° The parishioner wassimply describing his pastor's failure to address "real-life" issues. There wasa day when the subject of monastcrics was relevant, but it was not relevantin the Denmark OS 1850, and it is not relevant in the North America of 1989.What seminarians need to be taught as br as possible is that whal is saidin the pulpit must bear a relationship to daily living. One parishioner summedup the concept of "relevant" preaching when she said to her pastor, "As Ilistened to your sermon this morning, it seemed as though you had beenpccking through the keyholc of our home this past week."" The womanwho said this felt that the sermon contained a mcssagc for hcr; it was not a9 Snren Kicrkcgaald in Alcxi~ntlct. Lh~i, cd. I'Iv .lorri.r~irls of Kit=,-kegaoi-d (New York. Ilal-per and Row. 1959)192.10 Roland Wiedemenders. A ,Toyjid Ministry (St. Louis: Faith Forward Comniittce, 1962) 4.I I Wiedernenders I.

Howurd W. Kramer: REAI. LIFE MINISTRY 57sermon directed at some nebulous audience from another age.We are not speaking of a "relevancy" which might ignore the basicspiritual needs of people of all agcs. Law and Gospel are always preachedin order to answer those basic spiritual needs of the hearer. An illustrationof such "relevant" preaching is described by the woman who said, "I like asermon that stabs me awake, that prods and pulls mc toward the impossible,and then shows me Christ, with Whom all things are possible."12 Theseminarian who is taught to understand ~neani~igful preaching of this sortwill realize that there is nothing ncw about the basic needs of people today.Sin and forgiveness are the same as ever. He will, however, make it obviousthat he knows he is living in the present rather than in 1839, 1530 or 1054."Rcal-lifc" prcaching means that God's eternal truths arc applied to thecircumstances and environments in which we find ourselves now.We have used preaching as an example. Sermon preparation and delivcryare features of Practical Thcology that cveryone considers important.The need for "relevancy" in preaching is obvious. What we might say aboutthe areas of worship, pastoral practice, pastoral counseling, evangelism andadministration would simply apply the same principle to those areas. It takeslittle imagination to conjure up the interesting topics one might introduce onthe subject of "relevant worship." Someone might ask how, for example,chanting by the pastor is meaningful for a gcncration which in "rcal-life"uses public address systems to make a speaker's words audible? Similarly,lively discussions would result from the introduction of "real-lile" ministrydimensions to the areas of pastoral practice, counseling, evangclism andadministration. All subject areas should include and apply the basic, solidcomponents which are part of our Christian and Lutheran conviclions. Thosewho fail to makc Ihc mcssage of sin and gracc basic and rncaningful in theirwork are ineffective pastors. "Real-life" ministry asks that we make certainthat our message is relevant for the age in which we live.Admittedly, we can never teach cvcrything in thc classroom, and WCcannot anticipate all the challenges which will face a pastor thirty years aftercertification. Nor can we solve the dilernrna of the district presiderit whomust counscl with a pastor whose work is obviously incffcctivc. WC can,however, improve the teaching which is done in seminary classrooms so asto give it a more "relevant" dimension.Summary: The emphasis of Unit I11 of thc Planning Council was on"interpersonal" ministry skills among prospective pastors. "Interpersonal"

5 8 LlJTHER AN THEOIAIGJCAL REVIEWskills are those which makc for a "relevant" ministry. They are the skillswhich assist the pastor in serving as a sincere, understanding, warm, caringindividual who relates to the circumslances and environment, that is the"real-life" situation, of his people. Screening is the device by which imsuitablestudents are prevented from enrolling, or continuing enrollmenl, in thescminary. Vicarage assignments and vicarage supervisors should be carefullychoscn so as to provide the best possible "interpersonal" and "real-lifet'experiences for the student. While seminary curricula probably cannotincrease the number of courses in Practical Thcology, thc scminaries canemphasize the "interpersonal" and "real-life" i'eatures of present courscwork.Preaching, worship, education, evangelism, counseling and administrationshould all be taught with concern for "relevancy."In conclusion, the Planning Council of 1986 did the church a favor byhighlighting a conccrn which has troubled it for a long time, in fact from thevery beginning. Our Lord's prcaching was recognized as different; it hadmeaning for His audiences. The disciples of our Lord had to try hard to be"relevant" in their dealings with Jewish and Gentile audiences. We notc St.Paul's sermon on Mars Hill which was very conscioi~s of'a philosophicallyorientedaudience. By bringing the challenge of relevancy to our attention,the conference brought some leaders, and especially the seminary personnel,to considcr again the basic concern of the church: How does one relate Lawand Gospel in such a way that pcople see them as having meaning for life inthese last years of the twentieth century? To rephrase thc question we mightask: How does one relate Law and Gospel in such a manner that pcople donot automatically tune out the message? Since conversion and strengtheningof faith come through the means of grace and the operation of the Holy Spirit,we will never assume that human beings do what only God can do. However,wc havc been given talcnts to discern that some people are repelled by God'smessage because they do not see it as mcaningful. Since no one wants tostand in God's way, the church and the seminaries will cncouragc the most"relevant" approaches lo ministry. That is what "real-life" ministry was aboutin 1839 and that is what it is about in 1989.Howard W. Kmrner is President Bvneritus of Concordia Luthemn TheologicalSeminary, St. Catharines, Ontario.

LUTHERAN AND ANGLICAN REPRISTINATIONISMAND THE MEANS OF GRACEJonuthmn C. N~umunnOne of the most common human devices used by those who are discuntentedwith their present circu~nslances is a hearkening back to bygonc andpresumably better days. ldcalistic thcologians who would call their waywardcolleagues back to what is believed to be a more pristine position have beendescribed by some as rc.yrisliautionis~s.In thc midst of the dizzying progress which characterised the dawn ofmodern times several attempts at theological repristination were made onboth sides of the Atlantic. Two nineteenth-century repristination movcmentswhich may be fruitfully compared are the Confessional movement withinLutheranism in America and the Oxford Movement within Anglicanistn.The Confessional inovement within Lutheranism was characterised bythe reassertion of thc Luthcran theological writings of the sixteenth century,particularly the Lutheran Confessions. The Oxford Movement was initiallycharacterised by the pilblication oSa diferent kind of confession: tracts. Suchusc of tracts lcd to their being labcllcd 'Tractarians.'Both of these movements shared many ideological goals. Their oftenstriking similarities make something of an historical enigma of the fact thatthcy had little to do with onc another. Among the likely reasons why theOxford Movement and the Lutheran Confessional Movement did not enjoya closer relationship would be language and geographical gaps.The languagc of Confessional Lutherans was not English but German,even when they lived and wrote in an English-speaking country such asAmerica. In addition, with the exceptions of Hugh James Kose and EdwardBouvcric Puscy, none of the major Anglican figures in the area of the OxfordMovement knew the German language.A measure of theological conflicl and ~nisunderstanding also played apart in scparating them. Onc docs not need to read very much of the writingsof certain Oxford Movement figures to discover that contemporary Lutheranismwas regarded with less than admiration. Likewise, from the Lutheranside we are told that F. A. Cracmer, who was later to become president ofConcordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, resigned his positionas tutor of German language ancl literature at Oxford during the early

60 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWdays of Tractarianism out of disdain for thc movement.'It is still possible that Craemer, even though re5itlent al the Un~versity,was unaware of the admiration which Edward B. Pusey had for Luther,whom thal great Tractarian once described as the greatest Christian since St.Paul. Nor might Craemer have known of the affinity with Lutherans whichPusey felt when he was in Germany. Pusey, for his part, wrote:I have found myself at once more united with friends whom Iacquired in Germany, than I ever did in a similar space in England:It sccmcd as if WC at oncc kncw and had long known each other. 2Similarity Without AffinityRegardless of how individuals reacted to one another's Churches andtheologians, the fact remains that while some Tractarians knew soinethingof Lutheranism, any confessional repristination movement in Lutheranismwas largely unknown to those Oxford theologians. The Tractarians did notappreciate the struggle of those Confessional Lutherans to uphold a doctrinalposition similar to,though quite independent of their own, particularly with regard to thefrequently divisive doctrine of the Lord's Supper.The similarity between the goals of the Lutheran and Anglican repristinationiststo restore the orthodoxy of catholic Christianity seems to haveincluded a corresponding similarity in their theological presuppositions.There was a similarity in the way they approachcd thc Bible, creeds, andformularies. In thc face of growing trends of that time within worldwideprutestantism against historic doctrines, the Confessional Lutheran andAnglican repristinalionists both shared a reverence for Holy Scripture, aveneration for the creedal formularies of Christian antiquity, the writings ofthe early Church Fathers and, to a varying extent, their own Reformationformularies.It should bc said that the Confessional Lutherans held to their formularies,the Lutheran Confessions, with relatively greater confidence becausethey were certain thal they enshrined the orthodox teachings of the Christianfaith. Tt was for this reason that the doctrinal literature of the ConfessionalLutherans was often sixteenth-century material, edited and reissued for usein the nineteenth century. The Tractarians, on the other hand, tended to be1 Es~ch H. I-iemtzen, P~-alrir School oj the P~optiets (St. Louis 1989) 43. Ironically ~t was Cl-aemer, theallegcd anti-'lractarian, who was latcr brandcd 'Thc Black I'ricst' by somc local Protestants who accuscdhim of wanting to 'inakc Catholics' of them. Hcint~cn 62.2 Pusey Recliscovered, cditcd by PCITY BuLlcr (Oxford 1983) I: 166.

Jonathan C. Naumann: THE MEANS OF GRACE 61more suspicious of somc of their formularies because of their character aswritten products of the Reformed wing of the Protestant Reformation, amovement many of them were inclined to disown if that were possible. Forthat rcason the Tractarians published much material that was new, or at leastconstituted a creatively presented assertion of ancient catholic teaching.The Tractarians faced a far more difficult task than did thc ConfessionalLutherans. Thc Lutherans could refer their followers to Luther's writings orthe Book of Concord, as a complete statement of their belief. The Tractarianscould not appeal so confidently Lo an authoritative confcssion. To compensatefor this, they had to do a great deal of research into patristic literatureand the writings of those Anglicans whom they considered orthodox and,from the mountain of complex, often contradictory material, present theirideal of catholic doctrine and practice.In C.F.W. Walther's theological writings his confidence that he hadaccess to absolute truth as he explored the Scriptures and the LutheranConfessions is apparcnt. One does not find in Walther unqualified appreciationfor all other orthodox Lutheran writings, even from the 17th century,however. He explained that:... those who call ours the theology of the 17th century do not knowus. Highly as we value the immense work donc by the greatLutheran dogmaticians of this period, still they are not in reality theones to whom we returned; we have returned, above all, to ourprecious Concordia and to Luther, whom we have recognized as theman whom God has chosen to be thc Moses of His Church of theNew Covenant, to lead His Church out of the bondage of theAntichrist, under the pillar of the cloud and the pillar of fire of thesterling and unalloyed Word of God. The dogmatic works of the17th century, though storehouses of incalculably rich treasures ofknowledge and experience, so that with joy and pleasurc we profitfrom them day and night, are neither our Bible nor our confession;rather do we observe in them already a pollution of the stream thatgushed forth in crystal purity in the sixteenth century. 3Repristinating The Word And SacramentsThe one doctrinal system of which the Lutheran repristinationists believedthey were practically the sole orthodox custodians was that of the'means of grace.' It was Walther's view that only the monergistic soteriol-3 Quoted from F. Pieper. Chr-istio17 Dogmatics. fourth edition, 4 Vols. (SL. Louis 1950) I: 166

GOLUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWdays of Tractarianism out of disdain for the movement. lIt is still possible that Craemer, even though resident at the University,was unaware of the admiration which Edward B. Puscy had for Luthcr,whom that grcat Tractarian once described as the greatest Christian since St.Paul. Nor might Craemer have known of the affinity w~th Lulherans whichPusey felt when he was in Germany. Pusey, for his part, wrote:l have found myself at once more united with friends whom 1acquired in Germany, than 1 ever did in a similar space in England:It seemed as if we at once knew and had long known each other. 2Similarity Without AffinityRegardless of how individuals reacted to one another's Churches andtheologians, the fact rcmains that while some Tractarians knew somethingof Lutheranism, any confessional repristination movement in Lutheranismwas largely unknown to those Oxford theologians. The Tractarians did notappreciate the struggle of those Confessional Lutherans to uphold a doctrinalposition similar to,though quite independent of their own, particularly with regard to thefrequently divisive doctrine of the Lord's Suppcr.The similarity betwccn thc goals of the Lutheran and Anglican repristinationiststu restore Lhe orthodoxy of catholic Christianity seems 10 haveincluded a corresponding similarity in their theological presuppositio~is.There was a similarity in the way they approached the Bible, creeds, andformularies. In the face of growing trends of that time within worldwideprotestantism against historic doctrines, the Confessional Lutheran andAnglican repristinationists both shared a reverence for Holy Scripture, avencration for the creedal formularies of Christian antiquity, the writings ofthe early Church Fathers and, to a varying extent, their own Reformationformularies.It should be said that the Confessional Lutherans held to their formularies,the Lutheran Confessions, with relatively greater confidence becausethey were certain that they enshrined the orthodox teachings of the Christianfaith. It was for this reason that the doctrinal litcraturc of thc ConfcssionalLutherans was often sixteenth-century material, edited and reissued for usein the nineteenth century. The Tractarians, on the other hand, tended to be1 Erich H. Heintzen, Pmiw School of the Pf.ophets (St. Louis 1989) 43. Ironically it was Csaenier, thealleged anti-Tractarian, who was later branded 'The Black Priest' by some local Protestants who accusedhim ol wariting to 'make Caiholics' ol 111zm. Heint~en 62.2 Pllsey Re~iiscovrr-ed, ediled by Perry Butler (Oxlord 1983) 1: 166.

Jonathan C. Naumanu. THE MEANS OF CiK AC'F: 63combination of certain contemporary evangelical Anglican thoughls and aSsecond-hand knowledge of Luther.- Lutherans during the TI-actarian periodalso sccm to havc suffered from a corresponding use of caricatures to portraythc doctrine of gracc as taught by their opponents.The study ol' the sacramcnlal thcologics of both Confessional Lutheranismand Tractarianistn reveals the conlplcxily and the pitfalls which canexist. No contradiction or tension need exist. l'or example, betwcen thcLutheran doctrine of forensic justification and the application of justificationthrough the means of grace. 111 the Lutheran view, persons sliould benefitfrom both the imputation and the application of righteousness. The imputationof rightcousness is God's gift to the world through the merits of Christ.The grace of the sacraments makes that imputation personal. Personalassurance that imputcd righleousncss can bc successfully applied to individualsis one of the benefila of the sacramcnls. Nevertheless a contradictionwas perceived to exist. 6In fact, any attempt to portray the Lutheran doctrine ol'justification apartfrom its understanding of the means of grace can only be a caricature. Thefamous solas of the Lutheran Reformation, such as solu grntirx and solo ji'rlemust bc understood in conjunction with the doctrine of the means of grace,or else thcy too bccomc caricatures. Without understanding the doctrine ofthe means of gracc, sola,fide could bc caricatured as teaching salvation as amatter of personal conviction, autonomous l'l-om and without need for thcChurch and her ministry. Likewise solu ymtiu could become a slogan foruniversalism. To be accurately described, the great Lutheran rediscovery oljustification by faith must he seen in the context of its doctrine of the meansof grace.e Grace Of The EucharistLike the Confessional Lutherans, the Tlactarians held that the prmaryquahty of the 'means of grace' is their objectivity. For this reason they spokeof a Real objective Presence of Christ's Body and Rlood 111 the Lord'sSuppcr. In cxpressmg thcir doctrines of the Real Presence, both the Lutherarlsand the Tractarians scttlcd on undcrstandingc of the sublect that were7~ema~kably free from the eritanglemcnts of mccl~cval philosophy. In th~s5 itobe~t D. Bri~~s~iirad, 'Juhlrl~cauo~i by Fail11 and Julm Herl~y Ne~ii~an,' i'eid~c~r 2 (1979) 5 20 (8).6 Rnnsrncnd 9 S.H. Kcwmm lccollcctctl tlcbat~iig ngamst Puseg 111 Llie ewly days ot thei~ r~l~~tionship: '1iwgui~~g I'UI ~ III~LILB~ ~igl~kxx~s~iess, he (Puseji against it, I inclining to sepornrc tqyw:~iion from haptivn,hc doubting its 5eparation.7 The Rook of Common Pr:iycr specifically conilcmns rhc ~ hcoq or Transl~hsti~niatio~~ in ilrtidc XXVTIJ of'thc 39 Al-tiiles 01 Kzl~g~oii' ilrlug lal~guage at least aa hewc ah LIII~LII~II~ ill Lht. LLILIIBI~ Cunfes)iuns.

64 LUTIIERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWrespect they were both repristinating the mind of the early Church.Both repristination movements agrced that [he Body and Blood of Christare eaten orally, and most importantly, that all, even unbelievers (althoughwithout benefit) eat and drink Christ's body and blood. Regrettably, however,the Tractarians tended to regard Lutheranism as receptionistic becauseof certain seventheenth-century Lutheran writings with which some of themwere familiar.Both the Lutherans and Tractar~ans believed that the benefits of HolyCommunion to the faithful were manifold. Among these benefits were theassurance of grace, the remission of sins, an uizio myslzca with Christ, and apossible mysterious benefit to the body as a 'medicine of immortality.'To arrive at this conviction it was presupposed that reality ix conxtitutedby more than the physlcal senses can discern. It was presupposed thatmiracles do happen and that the spiritual dynamics such as sin and redemptionof which the Bible speaks are real factors in the life and eternal destinyof human beings.Most of these presuppositions unintcntionally shared between two isolatedChristian groups were doctrinal in character, a fact that is particularlynoteworthy in view ol the disillusionment which has historically accompaniedthe idea of doctrinal consensus in Anglicanism.Probably the most astonishing docuinent the Tractarians produced interm of expressing agrecrnent with the eucharistic theology of ConfessionalLutheranism was the declaration of lhose who supported ArchdeaconDcnison against the decision at Bath in the summer of 1855. As far as it gocs,it pcrfectly lulfils Lutheran doctrinal requircrnents with re ard to the Real53Presence, the nzanducatio ovnlis, and the ma~zducatio ~mpi~.Some dissimilar teachings were the result of different presuppositions,most acutely in thc rcalm of sacramental Christology. Thcy describeddifferently the mode of presence of which Christ's resurrected Body andBlood were thought to be capable. Yet, although Pusey did not admit it, hisexpressions were occasionally quite close to those of the Lutherans, as whcnhc wrote: 'This follows from thc Incarnation ... Where God's AlmightyWord causes His Body to be, in whatevcr mode of being, there His Godheadis, because it is inseparable; thew is Christ Himself, our Redeemin 5 Lord,the Object of our thankfulness, and reverence, love, and Adoration.8 E.B. Pusey, The Real Pi.rsmre of the Body und Blood uj oiir Lord Jesus Chrrst - TIrp Doctrine nfrheE~rglish Churclr - with a Vbzdicutrun oj Ihe Xeceptiorr by flir W-icked orid of rhr Adorutiun oJOur LordJesusClzriw Truly Presrnl. (Oxlord 1857) 443.9 Pusey 330.

Jonathan C. Naumann: THE MEANS OF GRACE 650jItIIIr,IlThe Confessional Lulherans did theoretically share the same reverenceand adoration for the Eucharist as did the Tractarians, although they mayhave expressed it differently. In this they followed Luther who taught thal'In the venerable Sacrament of the Alter, which one is to worship with allhonour, the natural body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is veritably givenand received, both by the worthy and the unworthy.''' Herrnann Sassejudged that 'perhaps no Catholic evcr had such reverence for the miracle ofthe Real Presencc as Luther did. No one could think more highly of theconsecration, no one could treat the consecrated elements more reverently.'l lRepristination, Romaliticism And TruthRecent commentators on the Repristination efforts of the nineteenthcent~lry have written of the influence oSRornanticism on them. Romanticismdid profoundly influence the educated classes of Europe in the centurybetween 1730 and 1830. Pusey's recent biographer asserts that four out ofsix characteristics of Romanticism listed by Professor Lovejoy applied toPusey:i. A craving for infinite valucs or infinite objects for thought or forthe imagination to contemplate or for the will to aim at.ii. A love of mystery and otherworldliness.iii. An awareness of the duality of man's constitution.iv. A preoccupation with the inner life and a sense of man'scorruption. 12Several of those points would describe not only Pusey and the OxfordMovement, but the Confessional Lutheran Movement as well. It could beargued that any fascination with truth in an imperfect world is a romanticone. By such an argument the Lutheran reprislinationists could accuratelybe called romantics. Both their passionate and dogmatic writings and theirdramatic action of leaving Europe for an ideal new land were symptomaticof a kind of romanticism that sought after inhite values, regardless of thetemporal or finite settillg or physical consequences. They did more thancrave for their goal. They acted upon their aims with great effect.Romanticism is said to explain some OS the sacramental theology of theTractarians. Forrester quoted Srorn a scrmon by Pusey in which he adored10 IL3C355./I1 Heman Sasse, l'/~rs is My Body (Adchidc 1970) 176.i 12 David Forsester, Yonng D?. Pusry (London 1989) 100

66 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWthe mystery of 'the infinite enshi-inecl in the finite,' a concept which portrathe Eucharist as well as the 1ncarnation.13 Reformation-cra Lutherans hrepudiated the Reformed formula which denied that the finite was capaof the infinite lfinitum non est caps iilfiniti] in connection with the RPrescncc. Thc nineteenth-century Lutheran reprislinationists fully confessthe Real Presence, restoring again all the mystery and wonder of Lutl~erown teachings on the subject. Compared side by side, perhaps the inofundamental similarity between the two repristination movements in quetion was the way in which they attempted to attain their respcctivc aims.way to repristination they shared was fundamcntally metnphysicul rathan academically traditionalistic.Luthcranism, as it hcarkened back to the time oPLulher and the LutherConfessions did so in a way thal could not accurately be described as meretraditionalistic:. Tndeed, the Lutheran position with regard to the authoritytradition ruled out traditionalism as such.Tradition has no metaphysical dimcnsiori. Tradition is anthropologic,Repristinationists elevated thcir crusade abovc traditionalism as they elvated thc authority of Biblical revelation to that of a powerlul, mysteriospiritual force.In lheir theology of Scriptuse, the priority and supremacy of the authoity of Biblical revelation over tradition, however ancient and venerable, Winstit~ltionalised by Lutheran repristinationists. They insisted that the woof Cod had more than traditional valuc. The Biblc, likc the wordseucharistic consecration containcd within it, had meliiphysjcal qualities ancffccts.The Traclarian position held sacred tradition to be virtually on the samelevel with the authority of the Bible. In some cases tradition interpretedBiblical revelation. Fi-on1 the experience of Lutheranism, the Tractarianposition made many Cl~ristian doctrines unnecessarily vulncrable. Thc RcalPresence, for examplc, could be at risk bccause of the uses to which patristwritings, so cr~rcial to traditionalism, might be put. Certain patristic quottions were brought to bear with consicierable effect during the Refor~natiera in untlerniinitig the doctrine of the Real Presence. Long lists of patrisquotations in the hands of the Reformed helped make crypto-CalvinistsMelailchthon's followers and possibly Melanchthon himself. Thc opponcntsof Tractarianism also uscd patristic quotations to undermine the Real Presence.

Jonathan C. Naumann. T HE MEANS OF GRACE 67Yet it can be argued that the Tractarians, like the Lutheran rcpristinationistsheld [he word oSC;od to have more than merely traditional authority.They bclievcd in its metaphysical power. The Luthet-ans added to that a beliefin a plenary inspiration and ine~-rancy of the Rible which the Traclarians didnot unanimously share.Pusey's biographer noted that for that Tractarian 'truth was a master tobe served. not to bc criticized and patronized; it was like the ark which hedreaded to touch with unconsecrated 1ia11ds."~ Tractarianisr-n's doctrine 01the Real Presence, in the hands of Pusey, was nut as vulnerable as it couldhave been were it merely arg~led traditionalistically. Likc Luthcr, Pusey didtry to provc that thc Rcfornied inisunderstood patristic texts. But added tothat, he asserted that the doctrine of the Real Presence was inlormedprimarily by Biblical texts. As a doctor of Holy Scripture, Pusey brought toTsactarianisnr its greatesl resemblance lo Confessional Lutheranism.Faith in thc power and trustworthiness of Scripture combined withrespect for the historic doctrines of the catholic church seems to have beenthe source of the great measure of agreerne~it which the Tractarians imintentionallyenjoyed with their Lutheran counterparts. Whethcr or not thc formulathey used wo~~ld bc successful today in creating widespread agreementbetween some in modern-day Lutheranism and Anglicanism is wosthy ofconjecture. While it is true that many new ingredients have been added totlie ecclesiastical scene since the ronlantic mid-nineteenth century, Churchunity seems likely to be most succcssful where Christians gather in faith andobedicncc around 'the quick and powerful' inscripturated revelation of theWrd of God, 'the foundation of tlie apostles ancl prophets' (Ephesians 2:20b).Jot~allian C. Nuunzanlz is pastor- of St. Andl-ew's Lutheran Church, Ruislip,Englaizd (ELCE).

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH:BIOETHICAL ISSUES IN CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVEDaniel Ch. Overd~~inI. Do Abortion, Euthanasia And Reproductive Technology Belong ToThe Witness Agenda Of Thc Church?As a pastor and theologian, of the Luthcran Church of Australia, 1 mustanswer in the affirmative the question posed in the title of this lecture sincemy Church's General Synod adoptedin 1970: a statement on abortion 1in l98 1 : a staterncnt on euthanasia or mercy killing; andin 1987: a statcrnent on human reproductive technology.The Lutheran Church in Australia believes that these bioethical issuesbelong to its "witness agenda." Thc basis of this belief is the fact that theChurch is charged with a dual responsibility, namcly for hcr own children,on the one hand, and for the world, on the other hand. This dual responsibilityfinds its classic expression in the often misunderstood and badly explained"doctrinc of the two kingdoms." Traditionally it has often been said that the"rcsponsibility for the world" lies with "committed Christians who aremembers of society togcthcr with others, but not with the church as anorganized entily, which has another purpose, to preach the ~ospel."~ However,it is clear that the Church in this world hass not only a priestly vole,but also a prophetic role. Besides its eircharistic ministry the Church mustalso address the "powers that be." It must "bring thc gvvcrnment to anunderstanding of itself" (Bonhoeffer). The Statement on Law and Gospelwhich rcsulted from official dialogue between the Lutheran and UnitingChurchcs in Australia places the Church's prophetic ministry within thesetting of the "two kingdoms doctrine":Thc church, while carrying out its prophetic role [in the waysdescribcdj, has to be aware of a fundamental difference in the lawas it understands it on thc basis of God's revelation in the Scripture,especially as revealed by Moscs and expounded by Christ and theapostles, and the law which thc state is called to put into effect. Thelaw which the church teaches its members is the will of Godabsolutely, without modification or relaxation of any kind. It is the1 Th~statement was a malu~al extsrlsior~ of the 1968 synodical statcmcnt on the 'Artitodc to Birth Control."2 Quorcd from the Statcmcnt on Law and Gospel produced by the Luthe~an-Uniting Church Dialogue inAustralia: "4. The. Church's Responsibility for the World."

70 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWcall to love all people in all circumstances, the enemy mcludetl. Itis the demand: 'You shall be holy becauhe I the Lord your God armholy'. The government or the state cannot operate with law on thislevel. The ruled include both good and bad, the criminals and theunsocial and the irreligious as well as Christians and others who canbe appcalcd to on the basis of thc idea of thc will of God. Laws inthe state have to filnction within thc boundaries of what is possibleand what can normally be enlorced. The most perfect law from amoral potnt of vlew may be the worst from a practical point of v~ew.For, if the mass of the citizens simply ignore it, it is not only uselessfor itself, it also creates an atmosphere of contempt for law as awhole. So the law of the land has to be amenable to the principlethat thc statc is not to dictate the good life but rather to create theconditions in which the good life can be lived.Bcsidcs, much of the law of the land has nothing to do with morals,but with order pure and simple. The Bible contains a good exampleof this modirication of the law of God in the state. Moses' law forthe Israelites concerning divorce, a very lenient legislation, wasnecessary for the people concerned, but it did not abrogate the willof God concerning marriage. Jesus explains thc Mosaic legislationwith the statcmcnt: 'For your hardness of heart Moses allowed youto divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so' (Matt.19:8).The church may well see it as part of its commission to enter intoregular dialogue or discussions with government, or with those withinfluence in governmental affairs. The church as well as the statehas a deep interest in the state of society. Not only are commonhuman nature and interests involved; in particular, the church willalways find it difficult to prosecute its real and central mission towitness to the gospel oT Jesus Christ in any society where order isminimal and where violence and crime of all kinds go unrebuked;the state of course exists to protect the good and prevent the actionsof the wicked and so to procure peace for all to pursue their variousgoals, Rom. 139-4; 1 Tim. 2:2. In such conversations the churchwill remind rulers of thcir dignity as scrvants of God and of theirduty as such ministers of God, as well as assure them of its ownefforts to lead its members to the proper sense of obedience to thelaws of the state where these can be observed in a good conscience

Daniel Ch. Ovesdurn: MATTERS OF LIFE ANT) DEATH 7 1(Acts 5:29). Such dialogue with secular authorities must be seckonedas part of the responsibility the church has for the world. Itgoes along with the prophetic role already described - the calling ofthe State to an understanding of itself.Finally, we should not forget and certainly not minimize the importanceof the prayers of the church for the good of society. The prayerof thc righteous man 'has great power in its effects; (James 5:16),and the Christian has apostolic injunction to engage in prayer 'forkings and all who are in high positions' (1 Tim. 22). Prayers and3tears are the weapons of the church.'This understanding of the Church prophctic ministry rendors it unsurprisingthat the Australian Lutheran statements on abortion and euthanasiaalso contain a "call upon governments."The 1970 Statement on Abortion was followed by a synodical rcsolutionwhich says:THAT the govcrnment, medical associations, and hospital associalionsof the respective States be officially informed that if a Lutherandoctor or nurse rcfi~ses on conscientious grounds to take par1in an abortion except for the reasons given in the attached statement,such action has the full support OS the Lutheran Church of Australia;in cases of victimization on account of such stand the officials ofthe Church or District shall take up the matter with the body takingsuch action.The 1981 Statement on Euthanasia or Mercy Killing says in paragraph6 (Call upon Governments):The Church also calls upon Commonwealth, State and local governmentsto support the care for the dying by all appropriate meansavailable to them, e.g., the allocation of sufficient funding for thepurchase of adequate means of life-support for the terminally ill anddying patients; the provision or a 'hospice-type' environment forsuch patients; the support of adequate training programs for mcdicaland para-mcdical pcrsonnel so that the specialised care for suchpatients is readily available; and a firm commitment to refuse theenactment oS any hrm of euthanasia legislation even in the face ofincreased pressure by influential euthanasia supporters.3 Stala~nznt on Law and Gospel

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL KEVIEWhilst the 1987 Statement on Human Reproductive Technology donot contain an explicit "Call upon Governments," I have been and still aactively engaged in providing legislatures with sound bioethical reasons tlegislate against the following practices:[destructive, non-therapeutic, or life-threatening] research to beconducted upon or with an egg in theprocess of fertilisation, or any embryo;embryo flushing;storage of embryos obtained by means of in vitro fertilization forother purposes than for transfer to the uterus of the mother;human cloning;the production of a chimaera;replacement of the nucleus of a cell of a human egg in the processof fertilization;the alteration of the genetic structure of any cell while the cell formspart of an egg in the process of fertilization or any embryo;the placement of any human egg in the process of fertilization inthc body of an animal;~hc placement of any live egg in the process of fertilization or liveembryo, not being a human egg or embryo, in the body of anywoman. 4The Church a5 symbol of inlrusion, c~onl~nmi/y and j~t~1ic.t~ (M. Scharlemann)exercises its prophetic ministry in obedience to its Lord and in thetradition of His apostles. It knows what benefits humankind. It also knowswhat is destructive to its common good and well-being.The witness agenda of the Church ought to be firmly grounded in theapostolic witness to the eternal truth of the Word of God. Its pastoral wisdomaccumulated throughout its historical tradition under the guidance of theHoly Spirit will be expressed In no uncertain terms. After all, the Churchspeaks on the authority of its Lord. The clogrnas or apostolic teachings of theChurch cannot be changed.The wilful destruction of human life by abortion, euthanasia andlordestructive human reproductive technologies, is a grave sin. It constitutes amost serious injustice and violation of human rights. The Church cannot be4 Sec for an cxaniplc of hiocthically c.c~ponsihli. legislation thc Hlmim R~proiiurtiv? Tccli~iology 4ct (No. 22of 1991) of Westcrn Australicl which urns asscntcd to on October 8, 1991

Daniel Ch. Overcluin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH 7 3silent in the face of these evils which destroy thc greatest good God has givenus all, namely, life.ATTITUDE TO BIRTH CONTROLPrepared by the Commission on Theology and Inter-Churrh Rc~lations.Approved by the General Pastors Coiqkrence, 1968. Adopted by the GeneralSynod, l968 Convention.1. Definition of tcrm: we mean by the term 'birth control' control not inthe sense of the prevention of all conception, but in the sense of'planned parenthood' or 'responsible parenthood.'2. The question of t71rth control, i.e., the question of whether it is rightand proper for married couples to use contraceptives, is closely boundup with another question: whether the sole purpose of sexual inlercoursein marriage is procreation. The answer depends on what weregard as the Scriptural purpose or purposes of marriage. This, accordingto Scripture, is threefold:(a) mutual help ancl companionship, Eph. 5:25; Gcn. 2:18;(b) procreation, Gen. 1 :28;(c) avoidance of sexual immorality, 1 Cor. 7:2.Procreation thus cannot be regarded as the only purpose of marriage.For married couples sexual intercourse, therefore, apart from thepurpose of procrcation is right and proper.3. But it is the wlll of God cxprcssed in thc divine blessing, 'Be fruitful,'that normally married couples should have children. Children are a giftof God (Psalm 1 275).4. Nowhere in Scripture, however, is there any indication that marriedcouples should produce offsprlilg to the extent of their biologicalmaximum. Nor has the Church ever taught this.5. It could be a violation of the law of love to bring children into the worldwithoul any regard to(a) the welfare of the mother;(b) the welfare of the children (e.g., wlll such children be adequatelyfed, clothed, sheltered and otherwise cared for without suffering perhapsirreparable harm to their physical, mental, ethical, and spirit~~allife?);(c) the welfare of the community and nation.6. This means that parenthood will be responsible parenthood. It will beundertaken prayerfully, with lull responsibility both toward God andman, and joyfully.

LUI HEKAN 'I'HEOLOGICAL REVIEWThe decision as to thc numbcr of children a marricd couple has, undethe blessing of God, and how the births will be spaced, is a matter fothe Christian conscience ol the parents to make in full responsibililytoward God, themselves, the children, and the nation.As to the means used to bring about such limitation and planning thesemust not be in violation of the will of God. Thus abortion as a meansof limiting thc family is prohibitcd by God's Word (see Statement onAbortion). Abstinence by mutual consent of husband and wife for aperiod of time is recon~mended as a God-pleasing means. However,this good pastoral advice is fraught with so many problcms (1 Cor. 7:5)that it cannot be regarded as the only solution. Married couples shouldcunsult Christian medical advisers as to what in their case is the bestmethod of birth control.All avoidance of parenthood for selfish reasons, such as unwillingnessto assume the responsibilities and sacrifices of hearing and rearingchildren, is opposcd to the Will of God. We warn cspccially against aself-indulgent use of contraceptives. The problem is not so much theuse of birth control itself but ils abuse.We express our grave concern at the alarniing increase in extra- andpre-marital sexual relationships which has been encouraged by theeasy availability of contraceptives. Such relationships are a violationof the will of God. Thc wide usc of contraccptives has aided the generaldecline in sexual morality. We believe that the whole problem shouldnot merely be the subject of private counselling but also of publictcachings and preaching.ABORTIONPrepared by the Comrnz~swn on Theology und Inky-Clzurt h Rclattons.Adopted by the General Synod, 1970 Conventiorz.The General Synod of the Lutheran Church of Australia Issues thefollowing as a guide to thc rncmbcrs of thc Lutheran Church of Australiaand as a statement to the public in the matter of legalizing abortion and ofliberalizing existmg legislation on abort~on.The Lutheran Church, with thc Church of all ages, upholds the biblicalview that the foetus in the mother's womb is human life created by God and,as such, th~s llfe 1s entitled to the care and preservation which God'scommand provides for all mankind. Thc foctus has thc right to l~ve and tobe protected by the laws of the State. Abortion, in the sense of artificial orinduced termination of pregnancy, is therefore not justified.

Daniel Ch. Overduin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH 75The Lutheran Church recognizes circutnstances under which a temiinationof pregnancy may be considered, namely, when in compctcnt medicalopinion, the life of the mother can be saved only by a termination ofpregnancy. In such a case, it becomes a question, humanly spealting, ofchoosing betwccn one human life and another and, consequcntly, a choicecannot be avoided. However, prior to the performing of an abortion, themother, in addition to receiving medical advice should also, if possible,earnestly seek pastoral guidance.Special cases such as pregnancies which result from incest, rape, or anyother perverted sexual relationship, and special problems expcricnccd bymembers of the Church and the medical and nursing profession, must alway~be approached from the ba~ic'princi~le that the foetus is human life createdby God; and the reasons advanced in favour of a termination of pregnancyin such instances must be evaluated in the light of this principle.Members of thc Church, as wcll as medical and nursing personnclconfronted with problems of conscience in connection with the performingof an abortion are advised and invited to consult the ministry 01 the Churchconcerning the Christian ethical aspects of these problems.The Lutheran Church firmly believes that the conscientious ol?jectionsof such personnel to the performing of abortions should be respected by thehospital authorities.The General Synod, 1970 C'unvention, also r-esolved:THAT the governments, medical associations, and hospital associationsof the respective States be officially informed that if a Lutheran doctor ornurse refuses on conscicntious grounds to tale part in an abortion except forthe reasons given in the attached statement, such action has the full supportof the Lutheran Church of Australia; in cases of viclirnization on account ofsuch stand the officials of the Church or District shall take up the matter withthe body taking the action.EUTHANASIA OR MERCY KILLINGPr.rpar~d by th~Commission on Sorial Questions. Adopted by the GeneralSynod, 1981 Convention.1. Definition of Terms and PracticeThe word 'euthanasia' (derived from the Greek eu and thamtos) hasthree primary meanings in common English usage: a) a gentle and easydeath; b) the means of bringing about a gentle and easy death; and c) theaction of inducing a gentle and easy death. The term is a synonym for mercy

76 LUTIIERAN THEOLOGICAL KbVIEWkilling, and this involves either assisting a patient to commit suicide oradministering 'painless' or 'merciful' death to a patient.2. Various Forms of Mercy KillingCurrent 'social' vocabulary distinguishes bctweena) voluntary euthanasia - the deliberate ending of life in a painlessmanner at the request of a patient;b) involuntary euthanasia - the dellberatc cnding of lifc in a painlessmanncr without thc consent of the patient;c) convertible euthanasia - the deliberate ending of lire in a painlessmanner when the patient is a1 the tme unable to give conscnt butwho has consented previously;d) compulsory euthanasia - the deliberate ending of life in apainlessmanner against the wishes of the patient.In addition to these terms, we also havc thc phrases 'passive' or 'negative'and 'active' or 'positive' cuthanasia. The term 'passive' or 'negative'euthanasia is particularly dangerous because it sounds like the acceptablemedical practice of 'allowing a patient to die.' The term 'euthanasia' mustnever be used in the context of dying hecause euthanasia, with or without aqualifying adjective, always means killing.3. Legislation of Mercy KillingThc Church rejects the practice of mercy killing or euthanasia in all itsforms, because such killing is contrary to the Word and Law of God. TheChurch's opposition to past, present, and future proposals for euthanasialeg~slation is based, above all, on ethical considerations concerning thc lifeand the death of human beings. The 'right to lifc' of every person must beprotected by law. Thc 'right to die' concept is completely foreign to soundbiblical ethical principles.There are additional reasons why the Church is opposed to euthanasialegislation, reasons of a legal, social, or medical nature. These may besuinnlarized as follows:a) Euthanasia legislation and practice extend the 'life-not-worthliving'concept which has already been introduced in a number ofState liberalized abortion laws.b) Euthanasia legislation does not eliminate the existing dangers ofuncertainty in diagnosis, crrors of obscrvation, and the misinterpretationof the patient's wishes.

1,IJTHERAN THEOI,OGlCAI, REVIEWextraordinary efforts to prevent their death, in cases where thereis in his cxprcsscd profcssional judgment no rcal hopc ofrecovery.iii) The physician should ncvcr yicld to any pressures exertedby civil or medical authorities, patients or their relatives, or anyother individual or group Lo apply any form of mercy k ~ll ing toh~s patients.iv) The physician should always ensure that his patients' demandfor proper spii-itual care be met with respect, understanding,and goodwill, and do what is in his power to provideopportunities for spiritual care.v) The physician should never hesitate to alleviate pain andphysical distress. However, he should be mindful of thc factthat thc dimensions of pain and distrcss often go beyond themerely physical.vl) The physician sho~~ld remember that the Chui-ch is called tohelp both physician and patlent in the process of decijion-makingand that the Church in pastoral wisdom will continue toremind the medical profession of its responsibilities, obligations,and privileges.5. Call to the ChurchThe Church calls upon its pastors to be diligent in their ministry of Wordand Sacrament to the sick and dying, and encourages its members to becomforting and supporting brothers and sisters to those whose earthlypilgrimage is made moi-e difficult through suffering, sickness, or fear ofdeath.6. Call upon GovernmentsThe Church also calls upon Commonwealth, State and local governnlents to support the care for the dying by all appropriate means available tthem, e.g. the allocation of sufficient funding for the purchase of adequatmeans of life-support foi- the terminally ill and dying patients; the provisioof a 'hospice-type' environment for such patients; the support of adequatraining programs for medical and para-medical personnel so that specializecare for such patients is readily availablc; and a firm commitrncnt to refusthe enactment of any form of euthanasia legislation even in the face oincreased pressure by influential euthanasia supporter,.

Daniel Ch. Ovcrduin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH 79HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGYPrepared h?? the Commission or? Social Questions. Adopted 174' the GcncmlSynod a1 its 1987 Convcvrtion.IntroductionThe Church recognises that involuntary childlessness has become ahurden to approximately 10-1 5 per cent of married couples; and the Churchknows that, because of the rapid advancemerits in,various human reproductiontcchnologies, childless couples may have an opportunity to form afamily; and the Church has a pastoral obligation to guide its members in theirconsideration of the rnoral aspects of reproductive procedures:StatementTherefore thc Church(a) supports scientific and social endeavours designed1) to assist and corrcct naturc in thc prcvcntion of childlcssncssand2) to restore ancl muinlain the possibilily [or married couples toform a family;(b) approvemf reproductive procedures which assist married coupleswith the generation of their child, but opposes those infertilitytrcatmcnts which deprive the child of the genetic heritage of its twoparents who are to have social care and responsibility for it;(c) rejects those reproductive procedures which irivolve intentionalharm to and destruction of embryonic human beings; and thereforcurges childless married couples to consider this in the light of theWord of God before seeking techilological assistance or medicaltreatment;(d) upholds that God is thc Givcr of marital, i.c. unitivc andco-creative, love which is the authentic source of the generation ofnew life; that he hears and sustains those who bear the burden ofinvoluntary childlessness; and therefore endeavours to render compassionatepastoral care and advice to those couples and individualswho cannot achieve natural [=biological] parenthood.TT. Rioethics - The Theollogical Foundation for the ChumStatements On Medical Issues.The theological basis or foundation on which thc Church makcs statclnentson medical-moral (bioethical) issues must be derived from the very

80 LUTHERAN THEO1,OGICAL REVIEWsources of its theology, i.e., the Sacred Scriptures and its Tradition. The latteris embodied in its historical Creeds and Confessional writings together withits cxpressed authoritative teaching on matters of doctrine and ethics.We may distinguish between primary and secondary sources or discussthe levels of authority attached to the various sources in the light of ourChurch's practice which is expressed in its liturgy, teaching, pastoral practice,ecclesiastical structures and koirzonia (fellowship) arrangements. However,as was demonstrated in the first lecture, we cannot escape the necessityof giving witness to our faith in the world today.The purpose of this presentation is to raise a few relevant issues relatingto the Church'\ concern for both justice and compassion and its practice ofmaking statements on social and bioethical questions for the purpose ofinfluencing public policy-making. There is a 'relationship between categoricalcommandment and compassionate concern for people.' Justice andcompassion, law and concern stand in juxtaposition, or side by side. TheScriptures say of God that He is "good and upright" (Psalm 25%) and thatHc says through His prophet: "Listen to Me, My people; hear Me, My nation:the law will go out from Me; My justice will become a light to the nations ...:(Isaiah 5 1 :4ff).When the Church makes "statements" on current concerns, includingbioethical or biomedical issues, it does so in awareness of its prophetic rolein society. This "role" is part of its practice. The latter in turn constitutes itslife of sanctification in Christ. The church's life of sanctification is the fruitof the Divine indicative of grace through which the Divine imperatives andthe apostolic exhortations become the people's "delight." "I will speak ofYour statutes before kings ... for I delight in Your commands, because I lovethem" (Psalm 1 l9:46,47).The theological basis for making statements on issues of a social andlorbioethical naturc rcsts in the Word of God, thc Verbum Dei. There is ampleevidence both in the Old and New Testaments that God's people, throughprophets and apostles speaking on the authority of God (through Christ),have given witness both to the people of God (in teaching and pastoraladmonition) and to the world (in public testimony). The great commissiongiven by Christ to His Church (Matthew 28: 16-20) does not remain a hiddendatum in the world. It provides the impetus to the Church of bcing (=dwelling)in the world as a symbol ofcontirzuity, of intrusion, and of justice.The social responsibility 01 the Church is expressed in the Church'sprophctlr vol~ in the world without shifting the boundaries of both "kingdoms"or the perimeters of the two "spheres" within which the Church

Daniel Ch. Overduin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH 8 1realises its Christ-given mandate. Christ is LORD of all. He cares for bothHis Church and Creation. He rules His body, the Church, with the mercifulmeans of His grace, and His creation by the power of His life-sustaininglaws.Recognition of the fact that one may spcak of a "natural knowledge ofGod" (cf Romans 1:19-21) and of the "nalural law" (lex nat~ualis) is ofimportancc to any dialogue between the Church and secular authorities andinstitutions on issues of justice and social. concern. Whilst the concept ofnatural law was initially developed by the carlier Stoics (3rd century BC),the term itself was coined by the later (Roman) Stoics who emphasized theimportance of cthics (e.g., the Greek philosopher Epictetus, AD 50-130).The natural law concept was further dcveloped by Roman jurists whoconsidered the natural law as being the legitimate basis of civil law. Someof the Latin Fathers, especially those who were influenced by Roman law,Identified the nat~lralaw with the "primitive natural revelation" of God inman's heart, the innate knowledge of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15).The concept was further developed by St. Thornas Ayuinas (1224-1274) whodivided all law into four categories (or "classes"), i.e.:1. the eternal law which exists in the mind of God;2. the divine law, part of the eternal law, revealed by God;3. the natural law which can be discerned by human reason;4. the human law which is the in~plementation of natural lawwithin changing life situations.It is interesting to note that the concept of natural law has served thegreat political movements of modcrn times. Whilst the Fathers of theReformation generally accepted the patrislic view of natural law (especiallythat of St. Augustine of Hippo, 354-430 AD), the "Age of Reason" saw thenatural law concept being used as an ideological basis for the insistence onizatur-a1 rights, social contr-act, dernocuacy, and the rzght oj'r-evolutiorz.In today's Age of Bintechnology the concept of natural law is bcingattacked from various quarters, e.g., the schools of jurisprudence and socialsciences, which regard the law as a product of a historical development andof personal and social relationships respectively. Many schools of philosophyno longer acknowledge the validity of a natural law concept.Lutheran theology has mainly concentrated its attention on the naturallaw as "a remnant of the law with which man was created." According tothe Lutheran principle of wla srriptiwa, "the law from within (subjectivemorality) must be interpreted in the light of the law from without (objective

82 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL KEVlEWmorality)." Roman Catholic moral theologians and Kcformed ethicists haveapplied thc natural law concept to a variety of theological and anthropologicaldata in contemporary bloethical discourses on both eccleslartical andsocio-pol~ticalevels. Lutheran contributions In this area have been markedby the~r understanding, acceptance or non-acceptance, of the "two kingdoms"conccpt m Lutheran theology. It mubt be said here that this teachingdoes not imply that Luthcrans reject the universal basileia of Christ who isKurios and basilr~~~s, Lord and King, in His threefold kingdotn of power, ofgrace and of glory.The issues 01 natural law and natural justice (including "natural rights")are important to the Church. The undei-standing of natural law in the contextof the doctrines of creation and redemption is of pararnount significance formeaningful reflection on the present subject.The Lutheran Church of Australia has established by synodical resolutiona body within its sjrnodical structure, called Lutheuans For Life. Thisbody functions under the auspices of the Chmch's Comrni,rsion on Bioethiand Social Questions. It reports to the Conventions of the General Synand promotcs by means of witness, teaching and socio-political actiondeeper understanding of contemporary bioethical issucs. Conscience-formation is also an important ingredient of the activities of this lay-movemcnwitllin the Church. Quitc recently Luther-ans For Lve has establishednation-wide service for pregnant womcn and single-parent familics, calleAbortion Alternatives Net~wrk. Both the synodical initiative and the actiof Lutheuansfur Lij? give evidencc of the Lutberan Church's awarenessits "reslmnsibility Ior thc world" in addition to the felt need of informing anencouraging its members to act as faithful witnesses to the truth in rcgard tlife and death issues. Thcse examples also illustrate thc manner in which thLuthcran Chwch of Australia exerciscs its pr.oyhrtic role in society wilhirthe parameters of the modern development of the bio sciences and technologies."If we speak of a Luthrt-m (or Christian) Bioetizics or Bioctlzos we asimmediately confronted with the "3 c's of Ethics, namely that ethics (at leasfor Lutherans) is at oncc eschcctologicc/l (both God and evil powers atexistential (I am at work in the decision-making process), and evm(the Gospel is at work through which I know who God is and who I am).cannot flee from our "sacred secularity" which consists of serving thiThe Lutherar~ Church of Australia hay also spolwi on "Wa and Peace", "Apnrlhcid", "Poverty", the "Rir~alCriies" and on other isrnes ol aucio-legal, socro-economic or soc~o poli~ical ~lalu~c.

Daniel Ch. Ovetduill. MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH 8 3and the other's good. William H. Lazareth in his I~zt~~od~~tioi~ to "TheChristian in Society" says:When our sccular occupations among men are faithfully acknowledgedto be part of our religious vocation under God, then loveprovides law with its elliical conlent and law provides love with itssocial fonn. 6These words wpport the point which I would like to makc with regardto biolechnology. WC should not try to search for a Christiurz hio sciencc.We should endeavour to provide the life sciences with a 14rriversully ididbiocthical ti.amtr of rcfcrr~ncr. Contemplation on Christian bioethical perspectivesmust begin by stating that all technology, including biotechnology,belongs to the sphere of the ki~igdom of creation. There is rlolhing specificallyChristian about laboratories and their equipmcnt. Howcver: biotechnologicalresearch and its application need a bioethical frame of referenceso that certain activities may either he affirmed or ruled out (on ethicalgrounds).Christian bioethical pcrspectives have an 'ecumenical' point of departure,i.e., the natural law and the laws of nature. The doctrines 01 creationand law must provide the building blocks for a thcological foundation onwhich the Church makes statements on social, biomedical and bioethicalissues. There should not be a confusion of law and gospel in this asca. Wcshould endeavour to speak clearly, rcsponsibly and articulately so that vitalconcerns may be shared as widely as possible.The dungel. qf "politicizing ~ hc gospcl", the Church's "essential tunk ofprocluiwring the gospel" and "avoiding being implicated in the powerstruggles of lobby-groups" are important issues to ~xmernher when thechurch decides to act.Only a soid theological foundation will provide the Church with apropcr point of departure from which we can proceed to formulate thewitness of the Church to the greatness, goodness, value and destiny of all ofGod's creation and to our human (including socio-political) responsibilityfor that which God has entrusted to us.

84 LUTIIERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW111. Euthanasia in International Perspective - a Bioethical ~ppraisal.~Life and Death - Natural Events or Ethical Dilemmas?These titles may be summarized in the question: Is the administration ofdeath a responsible medical alternative?I would like to begin by defining the terms used in the title of mypresentation. What do we mean by "administration of death"? Administrationof Death in this context means: a medical act which brings about thedeath ofa patient. Again, Responsible Medical Alternative implies that thedirect or indirect administration of death can be regarded as a morally justact on the part of the physician which violates neither. the fundamentalbioethical principle of the sanctity of human life nor the integrity of thedoctor-patient relationship.It is important to remember that traditional medical codes of ethics, withtheir strong personalistic emphases, focus foremost on the well-being of thepatient and the professional responsibility of the physician towards his orher patient. 1 am also aware that in view of the enormous advances in medicaltechnology these codes need to be updated, enlarged and modernized.However, my presentation is not about recommendations for amendmentsto medical and nursing codes of ethics but about Life and Death - NaturalEvents or Ethical Dilemmas. The topic proper is a question in the bioethicalcontext of the medical care for the living in times of sickness and dying,events and experiences within the time-span between our conception anddeath. To put it half paradoxically, dying takes place before death.A medical act which brirlgs about the death of the patient is seen bymany as (to quote a Dutch author) "goed doen door dood te maken" i.e. doinggood by means of killing.8 In today's discussions we use various terms:medical assistance in bringing about a dignified death, assisted suicide,euthanasia, mercy-killing, the exercise of the right to die, and so on.Whatever term we use we are basically talking about the administrution ofdeath by a physician. The physician has the knowledge and means availableto end the life of the patient. I think that maintaining the life of a patient isfar more difficult than actively ending the life of a patient. Nevertheless, allaround the world we notice public and private ethical dilemmas as far as care7 The first palt of th19 lecture 1s bascd on t\ro prestalatlons pen at thc Nu1 ses' Education dnd Resea~chFund November Scininar held on Novrnebe~ 8, 1991 at Fl~nders Med~cal Centre, Adela~de, South Australmand on a prcqentatlon given to the Luthelan Nurses' Awoclar~on, Adeldde, huth Austral~a, on November25, 1991 The ae~ond pd~t consists of newly rewarched rnale~~al to wh~ch refcrencc~ have heen mddr: in thefootnolea.8 Ck D~ck Meerman, Gmd Dom Dou~ Dvod l e Maken (Kok Kampen 1991 )

Daniel Ch. Overduin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH 85for the sick and dying is concerned. Proponents of euthanasia or dignifiedexit (a rather simplistic euphemism) are very active in promoting a perceivedright to die for thosc who wish to end their life. To give but a few examples:a) The recently published rcport of thc Dutch "Remmelink" ~ommission~has been severely criticized because of its dcficiencies, contradictions anddub~ous bioelliical presuppoh lion 5. The report proper contains thc results ofthe Dutch nationwide study on euthanasia and other medical decisionsconcerning the end of life (MDEL)." A recent "Letter to the Editor" by Dr.Th. M. G, van Berkestijn, the Secretary General of the Royal Dutch MedicalAssociation and thc response by Dr. Brian J. Pollard of Greenwich, NSW,in The Medical Journ~71 oj ~ustrulia," highlight the dilemmas which weface in the c~~rrent bioethical discussions on euthanasia andlor matters relatedto the end of life. Some of you may be aware of the news-itcm in the SunHerald (November 3, 1991) which read:The Dutch Government yerterday agreed to decriminalize euthanasia inline with strict medical guide-lines.Returning to the Renzrnelink Report it may be useful to consider whatactually happcned on the basis of the Dutch mortality figures for 1990, i.e.,129,000 deaths. 12Firsl, the definition of euthanasia used in the rcport is a very narrow one:"active termination of life upon the patient's request." This dcfinition docsnot include those who die of involuntary euthanasia. The real numbcr ofphysician-assisted deaths, estimated by the Reminelink Comrniltee Report,upon which the The Lancet (Dutch) Report is based, is 25,306 which is madeup of:2,300 deaths following euthanasia on rcyuest13400 deaths by means of assistcd suicide 149 Medisclze Beslissiligen Rond Her Leivnseindo - Hcr onderzock voor. ilc Commrssie Onderzoik Medi~rhePrukiijk irizuke Eulhunusie (The Hague, The Netherlands: Sdu Uitgeverij. 1991) [Euihanasia S~ir.vcyRryor tj and Medische Besiissinjien Rund Het Levensernde - Ruppor-t van de Comn2issic OnchzockMrdisclie P~.ok/ijk inzokr Eutil~~r~o~ie. (The Hague, The Nethe~lands: Sdu Uitgeverij. 1991) lRenirnelirzkR?pol?j10 Cf Paul .I. van der Maas, Johannes J.M. van Delden, Loes Pijnenbolg and Caspar W.N. Loolnar~.'Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end ot hfe" In 7he Loncer, vol. 338, September 14,1991,669-674.I I Vol. 155, September 16, 1991,422.12 Cf. also Comnzenta,y by the Dutch Phyirians' League on rizeRemrne1rnk Report (not puhlishcd a* yct, hutreceived by the writer from the Secretary of the League, Dr. K.F. Gunning on Octobcr 17, 199 1 inRotte~dam, The Ne~herla~ids).I? Relu~rieli~k Report, 13.14 Kemmelink 15.

1,000 life-ending treatments without explicit request 154,756 paticnls died after request for non-treatment or the cessationof treatment with thc intention to accelerate the cnd of life168,750 cases in which life-prolonging treatment was withdrawn orwithheld without the scqucst of the patient either with the implicit(4,750) or explicit intention (4,000) to lerminate life178,100 cases of morphine overdose with the implicit intcnlion(6.75U) or with the explicit intention (1,350) to terminate life''This total of 25,306 physician-assistcd deaths amounted to 19.61 pcent of total deaths [l 29,0001 in The Netherlands in 1990.To this should be added the unspecified numbers of handicapped newborn~,sick children, psychiatric patients, and patients with AIDS whoselives were terminated by doctors according to the Rentmelink Report. 19The conclusion is justified that in far more that 2,300 cases an "intentional!,,life-shortening act has been performed."The Dutch situation is vcry alarming and it is therefore not surprisingthat many pcople, organizations, biocthics institutes, etc., arc decply worriedabout the current statc ol affairs as far as thc care for the dying is conccrned.b) European Communities - European ParliamentReport of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health andConsumer Protection on "care for the terminally ill." 20The "Motion For a Resolution" on care ,for the leminal/y ill refers iits preamble ("E") to the proposal that 'the right to a dignified death' benshrined in the European Charter on Rights of' Patients. However, themphasis in the motion itself is on palliative care, rather than on assistantin dying. The motion itself is currently debated in bioethics centres (anbeyond) and during my recent discussions at the annual mceting of thEuropean Association of Centres of Medical Ethics in Stockholm 21became quite clear that nobody was in favour of euthurzasiu.Rmiri~eli~rk 15.There were 5,800 such cascs, cf Rcnnnclirlk 15. However 82%, i.c., 3,756 of thebe palrents actually dicd. Cf.Euihurturia Sur-i'ev Repor,! hZff.l'l~ere wel-e 25,000 such cnyes. cCElilliu~~usla Slrivey Repo,.r 69 Howeber, only 35% [(8,750) C:ISCS WCIX donewit11 the intention to tel.miniite Me. Cl', blrtllurmsicr Sznvey RP~OVI, 72: also Kenintelink 16.There wcrc 22,500 patierila who ~eceived ovcrdoscs nf morplline, cl Rc?~nnieIir~k 126. 36% were done withthc intcntinn to terminate Me. cf. Enth/inosin ,Sur.iey Rcpw 1 58.Re~~~r~~clirrlc 17-19,Sessinrr Dor~rmcnrs (iri'rt.i.lish Edition) 30 April l991 A3-019019 l.

Dan~el Ch. Ove~.duin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH 87c) USAThe US-Washington State vote on Initiative 119, a "death with dignity"initiative, resultcd in the rejection of euthanasia. 59%) of precincts reported55% of votcrs opposed, and 45% in favour of the ~rzitiative.~~ It seems thatthe availability ol "a painless lasl cxit via lethal injection or pills" is not whatthe majority of people really want, in spile of the vigorous propaganda bythose who believe in the right to die "a dignified death."d) AustraliaIn South Australia the Select Committee on thc Law and PracticeRelating to Death and Dying has just released its Intcrim ~ e ~ owhichr t ~ ~lists a number of opinions expressed in writing and verbally by a largcnumber of people and institutions.In the ACT the debate on euthanasia has intensified as a result of theadoption of a "controversial" euthanasia policy by the ACT branch of theLabor Party.The debate on euthanasia, also in Australia, will continue. It is hopedthat public policy makers will consider the many negative socio-moralimplications of allowing doctors to involve thcmsclves in the administrationof death.The euthanasia debate continues. The demand for right-10-die legislationwill increase in most Western countries. The latest Victorian (Australia)survey of nurses' attitudes and practices as far as euthanasia is co~lcerneclreveals some interesting facts. 24A close examination of the methods used and the results gained in thissurvey may prove worthwhile.METHOD1942 nurses with current practising certificates were sent questionnaires.The accompanying lclter statcd:WC wish to investigate the question of whether, and if so when,terminally or incurably ill patients request that they be allowed todie. We are also interested to find out how nurscs deal with thoserequests and whether they believe [hat nurscs should be involvcd inlegalized physician-assisted active voluntary euthanasia.22 C1 The Adw~i~et,Uoverr~bu 7, 199123 11 Octobcr 199124 Cf. Helgd Kuhse and Peter Smgei'r "Euthanaw - 4 Survey of m~r~c~' attltudcs and pract~ces" In AushnlirrNut rey Journal, 21 X Maich 1992, 21-2

LUTHERAN TIIEOLOGICAL RFVTEWThe questionnaire consisted of six sections:A. General informationB. Patients' requests for euthanasiaC. Nurses' responses to patients' requcsts for passive euthanasiaD. Nurses' responses to patients' requests for activeeuthanasiaE. Nurses' responses to recluests by doctors to be involved inactivc euthanasiaF. Nurses's attitudes to active euthanasia.ResultsThere was a 49% response rate. This was "a plcasing return for a mailquestionnaire and suggests that nurses have a keen interest in the subject."97.7% of nurses who responded had, on a least some occasions, dealt withpatients from whom a competent request for euthanasia might be expected.Thcy were asked accordingly:Tn the course of your work, has a patient cver asked you to hastenhis or her death (whether by withdrawing treatment or by takingactivc steps to hasten death)?45% answered No55% (502) participants responded to the invitation to rank in ordersix listed reasons (or to wrile in an unlisted reason) Sor why apatient/s had asked them to hasten death.Result:Persi~tent and unrelievable pain was ranked first by 165 nurses followedby Terminal illness (7 1 first rankings). Infirmities of old age (54). Incurablecondition (42). Not wanting to be a burden on othcrs (22) and Being afraidof a slow dying process (21).Almost 66% of respondents had bcen asked by a patient to hasten her01 his death by permitting the patient to forego llfc-sustaining treatments,i.e. passive euthanasia. Thc other 33% were asked to go to Section D. leav111369 nurses to answer the remaining qucstions on passive euthanasia.10% of those nurses indicated that they had complied with a patient'request to hasten death by permitting the patient to forego Me-sustamintreatment without having been asked by a medical doctor to do so. 7 nursehad done so once; 19 two or three times and C) more frequently. A11 nursewho had done this believed that their actloll was niorally right.

Daniel Ch. Overduin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATII 895% of the remaining 33 nurses said they had complied with a patient'srequest lo directly end his or her life without having been asked by a medicaldoctor to do so. More than 50% of those who answered that they had notcomplied with the patient's request said that the belief that active euthanasiais morally wrong was Not at all a reason for their not complying with therequest and 16% said that they had rejected the request pl-imar-ily or solelyfor this reason.Almost 25% of respondents said they had on a least one occasion beenaskccl by a doctor to engage in an action that would directly and actively endthe lifc of a patient who had requested that her or his death be hastened.Those who answered No were asked to go to Seclion F. The remainingre5pondents were asked whether they had complied with the doctor's request.Tn contrast to the small minority of nurses who had complied with apatient'$ request to directly end her or his life without consulting a doctor,85% had engaged in such action when asked to do so by a doctor and 80%had done so more than once.The survey indicated that approximalely 75% of nurses and 60% ofdoctors wcrc in favour of the introduclion of volunlary euthanasia underconditions like those in the Ncthcrlands. Thcsc nurscs and doctors alsosupported legalisation of voluntary euthanasia.The results of this survey (according to the writers) indicate "that therewould be no shortage of nurses willing to assist in the provision of activeeuthanasia to incurable ill and suffering patients who earnestly and compelentlyrequest it."Between the hcl that "four-in-five nurses support euthanasia"25 and thevlcw that euthanasia is "potcnlially a prodigious killing machine"26 lies thetragedy of our contemporary biocthical dilemmas in the facc of a prevailingsecular, utilitarian hznethns. Whatever we may think of the ethics of theAustralian philosopher Peter Singer, the "death ethicist",27 the debate willcontinue. Tt seems that we still have to learn about how, why and for whatpurpose WE LIVE!IV. Hioethics: Theological Mandate and Pastoral Ministry.The legitimacy of this topic may best be treated by the use of a test-rase. 1have chosen abortion.25 Headline in Sydrley Mor.iirrr~ tier-oiii. ivlarch 12, 1992.26 Hiram Cnton in Tlzr .Ausrr.iilinff, .Tnnuary R, 1992: 9.27 Cf. Bettina Schune-Seifelt and Klaus-Petel Rippe, "Silenching the Singer - Antibiuclhicb irl Gerrnany" inHastiqs Center Kepol-t. 21:6, November-L)ecembet 19'11, 2011.

Daniel Ch. Overduin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATII 91r.ighls debate, no1 an easy one. A dcfinitive answer to this question, either ayes or no, has great socio-moral and socio-legal implications. I11 this settingwe may briefly comment on the tactics of "Operation Rescue" which originatedin the United States and which has recently been active here in Canada."Operation Rescue" is a highly controversial wing of the whole pro-lifemovement. My own position vis-a-vis this dimension of the pro-life muvementis that, while resci~ing those in danger is morally commendable,everything in the end of the day depends on how one goes about the "rescue"and what is achieved by it. There arc different ways of carrying out theChristian "rescue mission," after all. One thinks of Charles the Great, whoplaced the pagans of Europe before the choice: eithcr get your heads choppedoff, or else get baptised. Most, understandably, chose baptism. It is open toquestion, though, whether this was the best way to convert people toChristianity! By the same token, we have to ask whether bombardingabortion clinics is the right response to a deeply scrious issue. I shall neverbe tempted to get involved with such activity. Having said this, there aretimer when 1 am prepared to demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic. Sucha clinic is soon to open in Adelaide, Australia, and I have announced myintention to symbolically chain myself to the clinic. The archbishop ofAdclaidc has announced that he will be joining me. With other pastors weshall fast and make a Christian witness, but I shall be taking not bombs butScripture with me.Theological and Pastoral ConsiderationsThis important bioethical issue ought to be dealt with on theological andpabtoral-mmisterial levels. It may be instructive in this context to look at thevarious Lutheran statements on abortion.a) "A Social Statement on: Abortion" was issucd by the Evangelical LutheranChurch in America and adopted by a more than two-thirds majority at thesecond biennial Churchwide Assen~bly meeting in Orlando, Florida, August28-September 4,1991.~~ The Statement said (pp. 9,101 that "because of ourconviction that both the life of the woman and life in her womb must berespected by law, this church opposes:- the total lack of rcgulation of abortion;- legislation that would outlaw abortion in all circumstances;32 The atlopl~olr ol' this atatemetil waa nlerllivned in Lurhelm Wo~~ldIrfoi~mution, Release No. 30191,September 26, 1991, p. 11. The Statement itself ha? hwn produccd by thc Church's Department for Studiesof rhc Commission for Church In Society.

92 LUTH FXAN 1 H t>OLOGICAL REVIEW- laws that prevent access to information about all optionsavailablc to women faced with unintended pregnancies;- laws that deny access to safe and affordable services for morallyjustifiable abortions;- mandatory or coerced abortion or sterilizations;- laws that prevent couplcs from practicing contraception;- laws that are primarily intendcd to harass those contemplating ordeciding for an abortion.The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the motheis threatened, where pregnancy results fro111 rape or incest, or where theembryo or fctus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortionprior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public fundingof abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this churcl~ supportslegislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus isdetermined to be viable, except when the mother's life is threatened or whenlethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.Beyond these situations, this church neither supports nor opposes lawprohibiting abortion." By way of commcnt, wc must clear up the confusionthat underlies the statement that an abortion niay be needed to save the lifeof the mother. We must state with emphasis that such a situation never arises,and that if' necessary surgery on a mother should have the unfortunate resultthat the baby is lost, this may by no means be equated with an abortionMoreover, the third item opposed by the ELCA statemenl invites the commentthat most pregnancies are unintended! Again, is there any law in theUnited States or Canada that prohibits access to information on alternativesto abortion? lVIy mind is boggled by the ELCA's opposition to "laws thatdeny access to safe and affordable services for morally justifiablc abortions."This church body has a different view of Christian charity from my own.Careful examnination of this statcment uncovers some sheer nonsense. Forexample, how can a person be alive at all when he is suffering from "lethalabnormalities incompatible with life"? The statement betrays very poorlogic. I am very sad that a major Lutheran denomination of five millionmembers has produced such a statement. Perhaps we should pray for a greatincrease of "low income" mothers who have no access to publicly-fundedabortions, because in this case children would have a better chance of beingborn alive! Since the age of viability is going down all the time, thestatemenl on "abortions prior to viability" lacks meaning. This is a tragicstatement, and I should be sad to be a pastor or a layman committed to this

Daniel Ch. Overduin: MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATHdeclaration.b) Over and against this statement stands the following:Jan. 4: The leaders of three Lutheran denominations, the AmericanAssociation of Lutheran Churches, The Association of Free LutheranCongregations, and the Church of the Lutheran Brethrcn,issued a teaching letter to condemn abortion as "murder of the mostinnocent" (Wushington Tinws 1/4/92).~~ConclusionIt is obvious that there are at present a great number of bioethical issueswhich demand the Church's attention, e.g. assisted human reproduction,prenatal diagnosis, contraception, prolongation of life (euthanasia, palliativecare, assisted suicide), human orgurr tl-ansplantation and research withlzurnan subjects. The biocthical implications, including thcir thcological andpastoral dimensions, are enormous. Let us pray that our good and graciousLORD will strengthen his Church to be and to remain a faithful witness tothe truth.Daniel Ch. Overduin ended his distinguished career as a pastor and theologianas Executive Oficer for Social and Bioethical Questions of theLutheran Church o f Australia.33 Cf. "Short Steps tu Succesa" in Life li~sight, a Publicatiun of Lhe NCCB Secrelmial [or Pro-Life Activities,3:2. February, 1992.

THE EXTRA USUM RULE AND FORMULAOF CONCORD ARTICLE VIIDavid P. SaurThe useful rule and norm, nihil hahet ratinnem sacrarnenti extr.~ LISLI~scu actiovzenl divilzitus institutam (nothing is a sacrament without the appointeduse or divinely instituted act), occurs six times in Article Seven ofthe Solid Ucclaration of the For~nula of onc cord.' Thc frcyuency withwhich this thcological theorem is quoted or alluded to suggests the authorsof the Formula must have thought it significant. Furthermore, the renewedinterest in confessional Lutheran sacramental teaching has once again causedthis axiom to be highlighted. Therefore, a discussion of the history of therule is in order, along with an examination of its inclusion in the Formulaand its meaning and LI~Cin this sctting.Thc Foi-nzula oj'Concord offcrs two clues with respect to the origin ofthis useful rule. First, in SD VII,87 the authors of the Formula explain thatthe rule dates back over thii-ty years to the time of Luther. "For against suchpapistic abuses this rule has been set up at the beginnin [of the revivingGospel], and has been explained by Dr. Luther himself." While thc extraMSLIMZ rule was fornlulated during Luthcr's lifctimc: it did not originate withhim. It would rather appear that the source of this axiom was the reformerof Strassbourg, Martin Bucer. Edward F. Peters, in his unpublished doctoraldissertation on the extra LLSUP~rule, concludes that Rucel- is the source of thisconcept in sacrament a1 theology.There is little doubt that thc idca stems not from Melanchthon, andcertainly not from Luther, but rather from Martin Bucer. .. . Shortlyafter the close of the Wittenberg Colloquy, Melanchthon writes aletter to Justus Jonas, in which he explicitly says that the concept'outside 01 the ilse there is no Sacranlent' is that of Bucer: 'Thereare certain Nurembergers, 1 hear, whom Buccr's opinion, in whichhc confesses a prcscncc in the use but not outside of it, has notsatisfied.' At about the same time Andrew Osiander writes to JohnBrenz: '[Bucer and those with him]. . . grant a sacramental union. .. hut ~ievertlieles~, it is a union which does not last outside of the81 FC SD VII, 15. 73, 83, 85. 88, 1082 F. Rcntc and W.1I.T D:lu, et15 . "The Pol-rnl~la of ('oncord Art~clt. Secm," C'o17cot-ilio 711glorrn (St LouisConco~rlia f'ubhshing ilouse; 1921) 1003. Ilenceforth citat~ons fi-0111 the rolmula will be abb~evrated CTtollowed by the app~opi-iate page numbc~.

96 LUTIIBRAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWuse, that is, a Sacrament outside of the instituted usc is no longer aSacrament. ,3Dr. Lowell Green agrees with this analysis, noting that the phraseoriginated not from Luther, but from Bucer and ~elanchthon.~ Thesefindings substantiate the second clue the Formula gives regarding the originof this rulc. In SD VII,12-16 the Wittenher-g Cnnrnr-d of 1536 is cited inwhich Bucer explains his theology of the Lord's Supper.For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preservedin the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in theprocession and exhibited as is done in popery, they do no hold thatthe body of Christ is present. 5The conclusion may therefore be drawn that Bucer fathered this handyand useful rule concerning the Sacranlent of the Altar.Although Bucer authored the extra usum principle, Melanchthon popularizedit. Even though Melanchthon does not specifically refer to the phraseas a rule or proposition until 1549, Peters testifies that his eucharisticwritings after the Wittenbcrg Concord in 1536 make extensive use of thisaxiom.Melanchthon's cucharislic theology is permeated with the rule that'outside of the use there is no Sacrament.' In almost every onc ofhis later writings on the Sacrament he repeatedly asserts this opinion.Melanchthon seems overly interested in guarding against anunderstanding of the 'use' of the Sacrament which includes anymore than thc bare essent~al of the action. 6By "usc" Melanchthon means the distribution and the reception of theconsccratcd clcments. This concept of "use," Peters explains, is the essentialcomponent of Melanchthon's ~mderslanding of the extra usurn phrase and isindicative of his sacramental thought.[Melanchthon] emphasizes that this use is what Christ instituted andnothing more. This he concentrates in the distribution and receptionof the elements. The fact that he equates such terms as use, action,3 Edward P. Peters, "The Origin and Meanq of the Axiom: 'Nothlnp Has the Characte~ of a Saclan~eiilOutside uC the Use, ' in Sixteenth-Century and Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Theology," diss., CnncorrliaSem~nary, St. Louis, 1968 14, 18.4 Lowell C. Green, "The Holy Supper," /\ Conrcmpnrilry Look of the Foi.rwrrln (fCnnror.d (St. 1.ouis:Concordia Publishing House, 1978) 306.5 CT977.6 Peters 224.

avid P. Saar: CONCORD ARTICLE V11 97reception, eating, communication, Lord's Suppcr and participation,indicates that he is not interested in anything besides this action. Ifone collates what Melanchthon says about what is within andoutside of thc usc, it is fair to say that he limits the use to thedistribution and reception of the Sacrament, and excludes everyth~ngelse. 7Luther himself acknowledges that Melanchthon is an exponent of therule. In table talk recorded by Anthony Lauterbach on June 3, 1539, he says:"the Sacrarnenls are nothin apart from the action and use. Philip Melanch-#than [treats] these things." In correspondence dated July 20, 1543, Lutheragain recogni7es Melanchthon's treatmenl of the rxlra usum phrase. Th~sletter is addressed to Simon Wolferinus, a pastor in Luther's home city ofEisleben, who had been mixing consecrated and unconsecrated elements,thus causing a scandal. Luther tells Wolferinus:Sane D. Plzilippus recte scripsit, Sacvamentum aullum esm e~raactior~mn sacrarn~ntulern. . D. Philipp~rs uctionenz sacuamentalemdefinit relative ad extra, id est, contra inclusionem et circumgestationemSacuamenti, non dividit eam intra se ipsam, ner definitcontra se ipsnm.[Indeed Dr. Philip wrote rightly that there is no Sacrament outsideof the sacramental action. . . Dr. Philip defines the sacramentalaclion in relation to what is outside it, that is, against reservation ofand processions with the sacrament. He does not split it up with (theaction) itself, nor does lie define it in a way that contradicts itself.] 9Dr. Bjarne Teigen, a theologian of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod,explains the thought behind these remarks of Luther, indicating that Liltherand Melanchthon are actually milcs apart on the meaning of the extra usunzrule.Lulher acknowledges that Melanchthon wrote corrcctly when hcstated that thcrc is "no sacrament outside of the sacramental action."Luther is thinking of the truth that Christ's conlmand is to consecrate,thus effecting the sacramental union, and then to consumethat which has become the body and blood of Christ. If one changesthe meaning of the words and does not do what Christ has com-7 Pctcrv 115.X AE54:3589 IVABt- 10:348.

98 LUTHERAN THEOT.OGICAL REVIEWmanded, then, oS course, there is no sacrament. But he, as a trustingcolleague of Mclanchthon, is unaware that R4elanchthon does notbelieve the consecration effects the Real Prcsence, but that forMelanchthon the Sacrament of the Altar is "action" in the vaguesense of something bcing done which resulls in God's promise ofgrace. . . . Luther in the Wolferinus correspondcncc assumes thatMelanchthon with his formula is only warning against what isoutside the "sacramental action," that is, "against reservation oS andprocessions with the sacrament." 10Thcrcfore, during Luther's lifetime, that is, "at the beginning of thereviving Gospel," Melanchthon pron~oted this rule as a kcy to understandingthe Sacrament.In contrast to Melanchthon, Luther did not find the cJn/ra usurn ruleparticularly vital. Green testifies: "the axiom played only a peripheral rolein Luther's tliin~iin~."'~ Peters concurs: "Luther seems little interested inwhat is 'outsidc of the usc' and therelore not u sucrament."12 Lutherspecifically mentions this rule only a few times in his writings, including hiscorresponderlce with Pastor- Wolferinus, ancl in table talk chronicled in 1539noted previously. In addition, a further comment has been recorded in tabletalk by John Mathesius between October 19 and November 5, 1540. Aquestion was asked whether the Sacrament can or sliould be carried to thesick, as was thc custom in Brandcnburg. Luther reporleclly replied:I put up with it on account of several heretics who must be opposed,for thcrc arc some who allow that it's a sacrament only while it's inuse; what is left over and remains they throw away. That isn't right.. . . as long as one is engaged in the action even if it extends for anhour or two or cvcn if one carries it to another altar or. . . across thestreet, it is and remains the body of Christ.'?Writing on thc practice of saying so-called private masses in the RomanChurch, Luther adamantly maintains that the institution of Christ must befollowed, in effect stating that outside of the use or apart from Christ'sordinance therc is no Sacrament.They remove the essential ordinance and institution of Christ and10 Djal-ne 'l'eigen; 711e Lo1.d .S Sripper 117 the Theoloyy oJil.lur/iii Cheninitz (Arewcle~: 7rinity Lutlmm Press,1985) 137-138.11 Green 309.I 2 Pcrc~s 225.I3 AL: 54:408.

produce their own ordinance. For Clit-ist's ordinance and intentionare that one should administer the sacrament and preach about himin order to strcngthcn the faith. This ordinance they abolish and turneverything around. They retain the sacrament for thcrnselves alone,and administer it to no one. . . . On that accoiint no onc can or shouldbelieve that Christ's body and blood are there because his vrdinanccis not there. 14Peters further explains Lutlier's thoughts:Luther is generally of the opinion that il Lhere is to be a Sacrament,there must also he a coniplete action: consecration, distribulion, andreception of the elements. He has strong doubts that there is aSacrament in thc private Mass as celebrated by the followess of thepope: beca~lse there is no distribution of thc elements. 15Melanchthon and Luther thus differed considerably oil the meaning ofthc ext~tl.~~ usum phrase. Whilc Melanchthon used this rule extensively, Lutherdid not; and while Melanchlhon meant by "use" the rcccption or eating ofChrist's Body and Blood, Lutlier meant consecration, distribution and rcccption,as does the ~oimu1a.l~ Peters explains these differences in terms ofhow cach thought of what the Sacranlent is, ontologically.[Luther has a] strong emphasis on the sacrament as an objectiveentity, rather than as an action, [and so] it is not suqxising to findthat he refers to this axiom only on rare occasions, in contrast toPhilip Melanchthon, who sees the sacrament primarily as an actionand who repeated1 K insists that there is no sacrament outsidc of the"use" or "action."Thus, while not denying the validily ol Lhe e.rtru uszin7 statcmcnt, Luthcrwas much less interested in it as such.The Fornzula of Concord points out what lies heliind its inclusion of theexlra usum rulc:a misundcrstanding and dissension among some teachers of theAugsburg Confession also has occurred concerning consecrationand the common rule, that 'nothing is a sacrament without the14 AE 38: 194.15 Petas 220.16 FC .TD VTI, 83, 85.17 Edwa~d F. Pelns, "Lull~zs dnd Llie Principle 'Outside of the Use There is No Sncrnmcnt,'" l?o~rr.orr/~nThcologic~rl Vlo~~thly Notcmbcr, 197 1 : 647

appointed use [or divinely inblituled ac1].'18 1In order to understand the meaning of the Forn~ula at this point, aexamination of this controversy concerning thc consecration will prhelpful. The protagonist around whom the contention centred was a panamed Johannes Saliger (Beatus), a Inan about whom little is known. He isaid to have belonged to a senatorial family of that name in Liihcck, and Fsurfaces as a pastor of a Lutheran congregation in the Netherlands in 15At this time, he is described as a Flacian, that is, a follower of MattFlacius lllyricus' doctrinc of original sin as a subslantial par1 of hnature, a heresy condemned in FC I. This error undoubtedly discrSaliger in connection with the consecration as Peters remarks.Furthermore, in addition to beconling embroiled in the eucharisticcontroversy, Saliger also became involved in the controversy overthe question of original sin; and in the course of the battle sided withMatthias Flacius lllyricus, whose ideas on this score were lateropposed by the writers of the Formula of Concord. Thus his falseposition conccrning original sin may have helped his o poncnts tocharacterize him as a heretic in other respects as well. I BThe Lutheran scholar John Warwick Montgomery arrives at the sameconclusion with respect to Saliger's removal from the pastoral office: "1111-portant factors in Sali .er's removal were his Flacian anthropology and hisrefractory charactertk0 In 1568, Bliger returned to his native city ofLiibeck. Not long after he arsived, he became involved in a wrangle with theothcr pastors of the city over the presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament.After six months, Saliger left Liibeck, defrocked because of his attacks onthe city's clergy, who according to Saliger taught a presence limited to thereception, while he himself taught a presence beginning with the recitationof the words or institution. Five wccks later, Saliger was installed as pastorof St. Nicholas' Church in Rostock. Once again the dispute over the presenceof Christ's Body in the Sacrament flared up as it had in Liibeck. The so-called"Saliger Eucharistic Controversy" in Rostock lasted a ycar, rrom autumn1568 to autunln 1569, and was resolved with a decree bp the dukes ofMecklenburg. In an effort to arbitrate the situation, an appeal was made toJohannes Wigand, professor at the University of Jena and the former Supe~intendent of Wismar, to analyze the case. Wigand presented his Gutachtr

avid P. Saar: CONCORD ARTICLE V11(Opinion), in the spring of 1569, summarizing the disagrccment. In October,the matter was settled by a ducal edict written by David Chytraeus, later tobe one of the authors of the Foi~mulu of Concotd. The Mecltlenburg Abschied(Edict) incorporated the Wigand Opinion and urged that true Lutheransshould be circumspect in the use of certain expressions to describe theconsecration. While Saliger's opponents affixed their signatures to thisdocument, Saligcr refused and was promptly rcrnovcd from office on October16, 1569. After his dismissal, Saliger's adherents in Rostocli continuedto dcSend his podon lor almost twenty years. After slaying some years invarlous other parts of northern Gcrmany, Saligcr returned to Holland onlyto be expelled in 1580. Following his expulsion, nothing f~isther is knownabout Sahger, whose name woidd live on in thc history oiLuthcran dogmdtics.The exact nature of the Saliger Eucharistic Controversy has remainedunclear for two reasons. First, an imprccisc definition ol the term usus hasperpetuated the ambiguity clouding the issues. Hence the manner in whichFriedrich Bente explains the teaching of Saliger in his influential introcluctionto the Book oS Concord, labeling him as an extremist: "[Saliger] taughtthat in virtue of the consecration before the use (ante usum) bread and winea1.e the body and blood of Christ, denou~lcing all who denied this as~acrarnenlarians."~' Liltewise in the third volume of his standard dogmaticstextbook does Francis Pieper describe Saliger's eucharistic dogma: "JohannSaliger, pastor at Luebeclt and Rostoclt, had tenaciously delended theopinion that the unio sac^-anzentulis occurred already unte usurn; hcnccbefore the distribution and reception."22 On the other hand, Lowell Green,addressing himself to Bente's summary, asserts that unte usurn was understooclby Saligcr to mean that Lhe Body of Christ is present beginning withthe recitation of the words of institution: "[Saliger] asserted that the body ofChrist is present 'before the action;' he had probably rneant that the bod23was present bcSorc the reception, that is, beginning with the consecration.The late Dr. Hermann Sasse, this century 'S foremost confessional Lutheranscholar, was substantially in agreement wilh Green's explanation olSaliger's teaching.Joh. Saliger, first in Luebcck, lalcr in Rostock, was accused ofhaving taught that the Real Presence begins with the consecration21 CT179.22 Fsancis Picpcr, Clwistim Dop?rati

102 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW(mlrtc uvuvn here to be understood a% meaning anlr vlrrnpliovrc~un) andlasts even if no d~stribution takes 5, lace, or if the distribution shouldfollow some days or weeks later.Peters also recognizes that the disagreement involved the ante usurnconcept.[The controversy] centered in his assertion that the Body and Bloodof Christ were prcscnt in the brcad and winc 'bcforc the use' of theSacrament, and that any onc who taught otherwise was a 'Sacramentarian.'Saliger on the other hand, was acc~lsed of teaching25tran~ub\~antialion.Teigen apt l y \ummari/es Lhe result of employing ill-delined vocabulary:"It is also apparent that the adversaries on both sides used tertns which werenot precisely defined so that soinetiines they were talking past each other,e.g., actio, USUS, sacrment, ~iessun~."?"' Secondly, a scholastic dependenceon an Aristotelian philosophical paradigm has created an air of incoherenccsurrounding the controversy. Thc disputc over the use of thisphilosophical model is only a part OS a larger debate which involved theGne\~o-Lutherdns and the Ph~J~ppisls after Melanchthon's death in 1560.According to Dr. Tom G.A. Hardt, pastor of St. Martin's Church, Stockholm,Sweden, Saliger struck at the philosophical root which his Melanchthonianopponents were utilizing to buttress their argument that only at the completionof the USL~S is the Body and Blood of Christ present.Saliger strikes at what he believes to be an unbiblical, philosophicaltreatment of the subject, viz., when his opponents producc thesyllogism: "The form of' the Supper gives the thing its existence.The form of the Supper is the entire action. Thu\ the entive actiongives existence to the Supper." That concept of "form" fromAristotelian philosophy means the forming principle, which gives"form" to the materia (matter), in this case the body and blood ofChrist undcr thc brcad and winc. This inlplics that only with thecompleted action, i.e., when the Supper has reached the point ofeating and drinking; only in this total action, under which the bodyand blood of Christ are present, has the real presence been effected.As the consecration, for example, belongs to the total action, the24 Hermnm Saw, This is My Bvci), (Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, 1977) 110.25 Peters 346.26 Bjdrne Te~gen 'The Ulhll Rule Rev~sited," The Corfessioml Luther fm Rereal ch Soclet) Newsietter T~rnity1991, Lt.11~1 No 24 3

Dnvid P. Saat : C'ONCOKD ARTICLE V11body and blood or Christ are present also at that time, but this cannotbe stated until the total action has occurred. One could say thataccording to this way of thinking the eucharistic action is no longerthe Mass which takes place in tinle and space, but becomes thethcoretical abstraction implied in the notion "totality," wherebyoccurrences that are separatcd in time are brought togcther into one.. . . to a certain cxtent. . . Saliger's opponents, as well as Saligerhimsclf, believed in a real, extended presence all the way from thewords of institution, only that this presence was merely to bepredicated retroactively. That is why the controversy is so extremelydifficult to analyze. . . . throughout this entirc conflict wemeet the Melanchthonian school of thought which deviates fromLutheranism in fact, but uses Luthcran words and expression^.^^Furthermore, Tcigen states that Saliger's attack on his adversaries'cmploymcnt of Aristotelian tliought processes is also an assault on Melanchthoniansynergisin and a dclence of the true Lutheran position of soh guutia.Similarly, Saliger knows that to insist that after the consecration onestill cannot say that the Real Presence has been achieved but thatone can bc certain of it only in the distribution and reception, is toallow for a synergistic explanation. Saliger's rcjoinder shows thathe was quitc aware of the Philippistic position and its conflict withthc solu gratia. 28Thus, Saligcr was following St. Paul's caution: "See to it that no onemakcs aprey of you by philosophy and empty deceit (Colossians 2:8 RSV),"which caveat the authors of the Forw~ulu of Concord accepted by omittingphilosophical terminology in the discussion on the consecration in FC VII.The manner in which thc controversy was resolvcd gives a clue as to thecontemporary altitudc toward the orthodoxy of Saliger's teaching. Accordingto Petcrs, the clergy of Liibeck disposed of Saliger not for doctrinalabcrrations but because of his obstreperous behaviour.If one is to judge on thc basis of extant docurncnts, there is nodoctrinal reason as to why Saliger. . . should have been dismissedfrom the city. . . . it is obvious that in no instance was Saliger accusedof any aberration in doctrine, even though his behavior was cer-27 Tom G.A. Hardt, "'l'he Saliger Euchnrisr Controversy.'' Co1$e~siun~i/I,1rrI7c1~crn Rrsear-cl? Soc~ely Nausletr~rTrinity 1989, Letlel No. 16: 4-6.28 Teigen, Tlw N ~hl Rule h'evrsilrd 3.

David P. Sax: CONCORD ARTTC1,E V11 105Yet, Saliger's refusal to sign the document is a sign of sharp-sightednessand intellectual honesty. He saw that something was lacking.It is possiblc that he himsclf could not pinpoint exactly what theproblem was, how the Melanchthonian concept of ar,tio worked. 34Two Lhings may be thus concluded. First, although Saliger may havebeen characterized as an incredibly contentious individual, he seems neverto have been accused of doctrinal errors. Secondly, this very controversy andits vocabulary are specifically discussed and resolved in the Formuln ofConcord.Having discussed briefly the history of the extra usum principle and thcoccasion for the rule's inclusion in the Formula of Concord, the meaningand use of this norm as presented by the Forwuln will be examined. SD V11relers six times to the ufra usurn rule to a concise examination of whichrefcrcnces wc now turn. First, in SD, 15, a portion of the Wittenherg Corzcor.dof 1536 is quoted wherein Martin Bucer is reported to have said thus:For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preservedin the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in theprocession and exhibiled, as is done in popery. they do not hold thatthc body of Christ is prcsent.35In this case, c..rlru usurn is clelined negatively, that is, thc rulc is used inorder to prohibit popish practices. Bucer does not specify what the ~uus ispositively, rather only what it is not. Secondly, in paragraph 73, SD V11introduces the discussion on the consecration by citing the extra L ~ S Lrule.L ~Since a misunderstanding and dissension among some teachers ofthe Augsbury Conf~ssion also has occurred concerning consccrationand thc common rule, that nothing is n sacrament without theappointed use [or divinely instituted act],. . . 36Thirdly, paragraph 83 quotes the Mecklenburg Edict's resolution of theSaliger Eucharistic Controversy. Here, both a positive and negative defintionof the usus or ucrio ol the Sacrament is givcn. Thc usus or nctio docsnot include certain practices popularized by the Roman Church: "when theconsecrated bread is not distributed, received, and partaken or, hut is enclosed,sacrilicecl, or carried These arc to bc rcjccted bccausc thcyare not Scriptural, that is, they do not come from Christ's Word of Institution,

106 LUTHERAN THEOLOGTCAI. REVTEW"This do." On the other hand, the usus or actio is defined by the actions ofChrist Himself in the Supper: "that in an assembly of Christians bread andwine are taken, consecratcd, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and theLol-cl's death is shown forth at the same time."38 Fourthly, in paragraph 85,SL) V11, having adopted the judgment of the ducal decree, further establishesthat the extra usum rulc was formulated to put an end to the abuses of Christ'sSupper.To preserve this true Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Supper,and to avoid and abolish manifold idolatrous abuses andperversions of this testament, the following useful rulc and standardhas been derived fro~n the words of institution: Nihil habet ratior~emsacrurnerzti extlw usum a Chrislo instihctwn ("Nothing has thenature of a sacrament apart from thc use inslituted by Christ") orextra uctionern divinitus institutarn ("apart from thc action divinclyinstituted"). That is: If the institution of Christ be not observed asIIe appointed it, therc is no sacrament. 39In addition, SD V11 also explains that usus or actio does not refer to aChristian's faith nor does it limit uscts or uctin to the reception as Melanchthonhad done, but cxplains that these terms refer to the entire action of theSupper- as instituted by Christ, and apart from this usc there is no Sacrament.And the use or action here does not mean chiefly faith, neither theoral participation only, but the entirc cxternal, visible actlon of theLord's Supper instituted by Christ, [to this indccd is required] thcconsecratwn, or words of institution, the distr ihution and reception,or oral partaking [manducationl of the consecrated bread and wine,[likewise the partaking] of thc body and blood of ~hrist."According to SD V11 it was to oppose papist customs that the extra usurnrule was composcd: "For against such papislic abuses this rule has been setup at the beginning [of the reviving Gospel], and has bccn explained by Dr.Luther himself, Tom. TV, ~ena."~' Luther, as demonstrated earlier, did notauthor the rule, but he did unfold the ~neaning of it, and it is this explanation,found in volume IV of the Jcna edition of Luther's works, to which theauthors refer. The edition of the Book of Concord edited by Thcodore

David P. Saar: CONCORD ARTICLE V11 107Tappcrt follows thc critical edition of the Book ofby includinga footnote with a citation from the Weimar edition of Luther's works: WA30II:254-255. This Luther reference is also found in the American editionolluther's works, 34:9-61. Unfortunately, this Luther quotation is not foundin either tome IV of the Ger~nan or Latin Jena editions of Luther's works,bul in tome V of the German edition. Regrettably, the lhcory of the latcWisconsin Synod theologian Siegbert Beckcr, who believed the citationreferred to tome 1V of the Gertnan Jena edition in which Luther formulatedand explained a rule that Holy Communion is not to be celebrated when theseare no communicants present is not helpful, for the Formula is discussingnot a wrissa solituriu (a Divine Service without a congregation) but theconsecration. Therefore, the identification made by Bjarne Teigen namely,WA Br X:348l, St. Louis 20:1604f, which consists ol the previously citedcorrespondcncc writtcn by Luther to Pastor Wolferinus, is the most reasonablesolution. These letters are found in tome 1V of the 1558 Jena edition ofLuther's works which the first American edition of the Book of Concord,published in 1851 and again in 1854, also includes.43 Finally: Teigen notesthat there is a great deal of verbal congruity between the letter to Wolferinusand SD V11 which further corroborates that the For-rnula of Concord isreferring to the Woll'erinus correspondence.A comparison of a part of Luther's second letter (July 20, 1543)with the Latin of the Formula will show a high degree of similarityin the formation of an axiom to exclude both Roman and Sacramentarianaberrations: Lulher's Letter: Sacramentum nullum essc extraactionem sucuamentalem. Thcre is no sacrament outside of thesncrumentul action.SD 1/11, 85: Nihil habet rationein sacramenti exlra usurn U Chrisloinsliiui~lrn oder extr-U actiolwn divinitiis i~zslitutum. Nothing has thecharacter of a sacrament apart,fuom the use instituted by Christ or.apart fi-onz the uxe instiaited hy Christ [sic!j or apart from thedivinely instituted action. 44Fifthly, SD VII,88 points out that this rule had bccn perverted by theSacramentarians and Calvinists for the purposc of denying the Real Presencc:42 Dic Rrh-a171~tissrhrrfte11 del. Evoi?~eiisch-Lirtl7ei'ischeil Kzrclie (Gotlingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986)1001.43 'l'eigen 136.44 Teigen, T/7e Lor.d's Surpper ln the ?heoloyv of Mwtbi Cltenmitr 136.

LUTIIERAN TIICOLOGICAL REVIEW[they] wickedly pervert this useful and necessary rule, in order todeny the true. essential presence and oral partaking of the body ofChrist, which occurs here upon earth alike by the worthy and theunworthy, and interpret it as referring to the usus fidei, that is , tothe spiritual and inncr usc of faith. . . 35Finally, this rule is referred to in paragraph 108 where il is once againcited against popish misuses of the Sacrament:[when it is taught that] the body of Christ is present even apart fromthe administration 01 the Holy Supper, when the bread is enclosedin the pyx or is carried about for display and adoration. For nothingcan be a sacrament without God's command and the appointed usefor which it is instituted in God's Word, as was shown above. 46Thus the authors of the Fornzz~la of Concord publicly confessed themeaning of the extra usum rule.On the basis of this brief examination of thc e.w-cr usum rule, it becomesevident that the Formula of Concord uses this rule in three ways. First, [heextra USUMZ principle is used to combat popish abuses of the Sacrament suchns Curpus Chrisli processions with the Sacrament, extra-liturgical adorationor ihe Sacrament, and the reservation of theSecondly, thisuseful norm and rule of the church is used to condemn all the enemies of theSacrament who imagine that usus means a Christian's faith in the Sacramentor who interpret usus to be only the rcccption of Christ's Body and Blood. 48Thirdly, the rule is used to explain what the usus or nctio of the Sacramentis according to Chrisl's institution, narnely, the consecration, distributionandTn these three uses, the Formula agrees with Wigand'sOpinion.The rule. . .is good, necessary, and useful in opposition to Romanmisuses, but it does not apply to what Christ has ordained, and itstands- in opposition to those who want to disparage the Sacra-7 0mm.-For these purposes the Fornzuln of Co~zcord uses the axiomatic extrnusum rule.45 C'I IOU346 TT 100947 FC SD VII, 15, 83, 85, 10848 FC SD VII, 85, 88.49 FC SD VII, 83, 85.50 Peters 352.

avid P. Saar: CONCORD ARTICLE V11 109The significance of the Saliger Eucharistic Controversy and the inclusionof its rcsolution along with the rule nihil habet mtionem sacrarnctlllextra usurn scu actionem divinitus irzstitutum in the Formula of Concord istwofold. First, the potency and pervasiveness of thc article of justificationand the Lutheran solus built upon the ontological foundation of Christology,are clearly evident in the consecration, which IS ascribed to the power ofAlmighty God, His word alone, and the institution of Cht ist, a4 the Forinulastates.. . . the abiding significance of the Saliger controversy lies in thefact that here the influence of the Lutheran doctrine of justification(in the sense of an antisynergistic doctrine of the sole efficacy ofthe work of God), is exhibited in thc doctrine of the consecration.No man's word or work can effect the true presence of the body andblood of Christ in the Supper. This is ascribed only to the Almightypower of God and HisTherefore, the soh gratia principle, when applied to the consecration,excludes everything on man's part in the reception of the Sacrament, for thatis not a condition for God's last will and testament. Secondly, man'sresponse is gratefully to rcccive the gift God gives in the consecration whicheffects life and salvation. This gift, Christ's Body and Blood given and shed,is the source or daily nourishment Sor the Christian. Luther says in the LmgeCutechism: "That is why the Lord's Supper is given us for daily food andsustenance to refresh and strengthen us, so that our faith may not becomeweary in battle but go from strength toTherefore the LutheranConfessions encourage frequent communion, recommending at least aweekly celebration of the Sacrament as the Augsb~~rg Confession and itsApology witness.Now, forasmuch as the Mass is such a giving of thc Sacrament, wehold one communion every holy-day, and, if any desire the Sacrament,also on other days, when it is given to such as ask for it (CAXXIV:34).At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that wedo not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain aud defend il. Foramong us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the otherfestivals, in which thc Sacrament is offered to those who wish to51 Teigs~i, Tire i\'ihil Rule Revi~iterl 4.52 P. Samuel Janzow, Lirtlw's Loqe C'oieciris~~ A Co111ernpo1-UIV TI-utrslirlio~z with Study Quesrions (St.Lollis: C'oncordia Poblishmg Ilouse, 1978) 113

110 LUTHERAN I'HhOLOGICAL KEVIEWuse it? after thcy have been examined and absolved (AP XXIV: lp3This is, though, not to be forced upon anyone? rather it is the pastor'sobligation according to his office and by virtue of his call to preach and teachin such a way that the laity will so desire thc Sacrarncnt that thcy will compelits frequent administration. This is what Lulhcr told pastors in the preface tothe Snia11 Cntcchism. "Our preaching should instead be such lhat oS theirown accord and without our command, people feel conslrained thernsclvesU54and press us pastors to scrvc the Sacraincnt. 'Therefore, no contingenciesof time or place or. the response oC man should inhibit Christ's word, and lorthis reason thc eut7.a L~SLLITZ rule is cmployecl in the Formda of'Concord.Davd P. ,Caul-, a 1992 gi-uduutr oj Coi~col-diu L~ilhera~i Tlieolo,qicd Senli-I~CI~J, St CLLI/IN~LII~\, Ontul-io, is ~UJIOI of St. .JoIm's Lutlic~an CIZLIICIL,Mout~l Fol-etl. Onlur io51 Cl.67, 383.384,54 hthdr ,Snrnll Cnreihiw~ Wirh Evplnniition (St. I.o?ii\ - Conrnrili~i P~uhli.\hirr,y Hou.rc, IYYI) 247

A CI,OSER LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL COMMUNION CUTimothy TruschcrIntroductionThe sub.ject of individual communion cups does not seem all thatearth-shattering or important. After all, over the past ilu~nher of years manycongrcgalions of our synod have either switched to inclividual cups oralternate bctwcen varieties of both the individual cup as well as the commoncup. Furthermore, the Conlmission on Theology and C.11urch Relations(CTCR) of our synod, in its 1983 report entitled, "Theology And PracticeOf The Lord's Supper," states:Does it matter whether a congregation uses individual glasses or thecommon cup to distribute the consecrated wine? In the absence ofa specific Scriptural mandate, either method of distribution, whenperformed in a reverent manner, is acceptable. Many Christianspref-'er the use of the co~llinon cup because of its symbolism asrepresentative of the oneness of the body of Christ -- the church --and because there is reason to believe that Christ used this methodof distribution. Any decision in this area is to be marlted byChristian liberty and charity. 1At the sanle time, however, the following question is one that we needto consider: is the use of individual communion cups really a non-issue ornon-concern and thus an acceptable practice, or have we followed along withthis popular trend of our day without I'irst secing if thcrc are any theologicalramifications to this maner? Three areas that touch on this matter ofindividual cups shall be considerecl: first, Lhe subjcct of what is calledadiaphom; secondly, certain practical aspccts of thc Lord's Supper; andthirdly; some theological consideralions pertaining to the Lord's Supper.I: AdiaphoraThe word adzaphom is a Greek word and means "things indifferent;"that IS, malleis which ate neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word.Loren~ Wundcrlich, in his essay on ud~nphor-a in The Ahidlng Wmd, athree-volume series of essays dclivered 111 connection with the centennialanniversary of the Missouri Synod in 1947, says the following:Thc hcld of casuistry is not only filled with acllaphoia, but is lagclycomposed of them. Their name is literally leglon. In the donlain of1 CTCR "Theology And Prncticc nf Thc Tmd's Suppcr" X-.? l.

112 LIJTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWthc Church they center on the business affairs of the congregation,its church property, the order 01 service, church architccture, thebuilding and its appointments, the altar, pulpit, organ, baptismalfont, crucifix, Furthermore, the timc and place of worship, thechurch year with its festival days; again, the order of service,kneeling, bowing the head, standing; in connection with Baptism,the inaimer of applying the water, sponsors, questions directed tothcm; in connection with the Lord's Supper, the kind of bread used,the manner of its distribution are adiaphora. Such arrangements ascongregational meetings, constitutions, the officers of the church,the Sunday school, thc Christian day school, the organizationswithin the congregation are per se adiaphora. Synod, membershipin Synod, the officers and commissions of Synod, the essayist ofSynod -- all these, and many more, purely human arsangcments anddevices are, strictly speaking, adiaphora. 2It is thus important to note that our Lutheran Confessions speak directlyto this matter of adi~rphom. Article X of the Formzila of Concord is entitled,"Church Usages, Called Adiaphora Or Indifferent Things." As such, it isnecessary to examine briefly this article before proceeding to the subject ofindividual communion cups.After Luther's dcath in 1546 the first major issue that troubled theLutherans bears the title "the Adiaphoristic Cuntrovcrsy." This, in brief,was a quarrel about church rites and ceremonies that are neither commandednor forbidden in God's Word. While WC don't have time to go into thehistorical circumstances of this controversy, we can ssmunarize it as follows:the Adiaphorists, led by Philip Mclanchthon, said that in matters that areneither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word one may, in effect, at anyplace and any lime do jusl about anything. The Anti-adiaphorists, however,led by Matthias Flacius, maintained that under cerlain circumstances, concessionsin matters which in and of themselves are adiaphova cease to beindifferent matters but rather involve a denial of the truth. This latter positionwas embodied in the Formula of Coizcord X, endorsed by the LutheranChurch as a whole, and, as such, subscribed to by the congregations andpastors of our synod.One particular section from Formula of Concord X that impacts on thismatter of individual communion cups reads as follows:

Timolhy Teuscher: INDlVTDUAL COMMUNION CUPS 113WC believe, teach, and confess that in time of persecution, whcn aclear-cut confession of the faith is dernanded of us, we dare not yieldto the enemies in such indifferent things, as the apostle Paul writes,'For frccdom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do notsubmit again to a yoke of slavery' (Gal. 5: 1 I ). 'Do not be mismatedwith unbelievers, for what fellowship has light with darkncss?' (I1Cor. 6:14). 'To them we did not yield submission even for amoment, that the truth of the Gospel might be preserved for ~ OLL'(Gal. 2:5). In such a case it is no longer a quebtion of indifferentthings, but a matter which has to do with thc truth of the Gospel,Christian liberty, and the sanctioning of public idolatry, as well asprcventing offense to the weak in faith. Tn all these things we haveno concessioiis to make, but we should witncss an uncquivocalconfession and suffer in consequence what God sends us and whathe lets thc cnemies inflict on us. 3Now, it seems to be the case that we are indecd living in an age and ina nation when and whcre a clear-cut confession of the truth is demanded ofus, not only in the pulpit and classroom, but in our practices as well. In fact,this has always been the emphasis of our synod. The church's practicc musthe in harmony with its confession of faith because practice is but the logicalextension of what is meant by the doctrine professed. C.F.W. Walthes putsit this way:The mere official declaration of a body that it acknowledges theLutheran Confessions does not, of course, make it Lutheran; itsstatus is determined b 2' what is publicly witnessed, preached, andpracticed in its midst.The Solid Declaration elaborates on this matter even further when itstates:We should not consider as matters of indifference, and we shouldavoid as forbidden by God, ceremonies which are basically contraryto the Word of God, even though they go under the name and guiseof external adiaphora and are given a different color from their trueonc. Nor do WC include among truly free adiaphora or thingsindifferent those ceremonies which give or (to avoid persecution)are designed to give the impression that our religion does not diffcr3 Foi.muia of Cor~col.d Ep X, 6.4 C.F.W. Walther, "Thc Propcr Form OS An Evangelical Lutheran Local Cungrepation Independent 01 TheState" reprinted in Wulther. And The CChirr-ch, Tlr. El~gelde~, ed. 88.

LUTHERAN THEOLOCiIC'AL RP VLEWgreatly from that of the papists, or that we ase no1 seriously opposedto it. Nor are such ritcs matters of indillerence when these ceremoniesare intended to crcatc the illusion (or are deinanded or agreedto with that intention) that these two opposing religions have beenbrought into agrccmenl and become one body, or that a return tothe papacy and an apostasy l'rorn the pure doctrine of the Gospeland from true religion has taken place or will allegedly result littleby little Irmn these ceremonies ... For here we are no longer dealingwith the exterrlal adiaphora which in their nature and essence arcand remain of themselves free and which accordingly are not subjecteither to a cotn~nand or a prohibition, requiring us to use them or todiscontinue them. Here we are dealing primarily with the chielarticle of our Christian faith, so that as the apostle testifies, the truth5of the Gospel might be preserved (Gal. 25).In short, Fotwtulu of Concord X setc down a three-fold emphasis on thismatter of church usages or indifferent things. First, church ritcs and rituals,congregational custonls and practices might indccd vary without mitigatingagainst the Gospel and destroying the unity of the church. Here, for example,we could list such things as chanting thc servicc or speaking it: using TheLuflzernrz Ilynznal, Luthel*arz Worship, or some other orthodox hymnal;wearing an alb: cassock and surplice, or black preaching gown; using thethree-year lectionary series or some other one: celebrating Coin~nunionevery Sunday, twicc a month, or only once a month; and so on. The essentialpoint is that in and through such things, and perhaps: even in spite of them,the Word ol' God is taught purely and the Sacraments correctly administered.Secondly, there are some church practices that are not udiuplzora becausethey conflict directly with the Word of God. For example: opcncommunion; the ordination of women; substituting grape juice for wine inHoly comtnunion; dedicating children to God instcad of baptizing them; andso on.Thirdly, and here is the situation specifically acldressecl in Forr~ul~r ofConcord X and where, 1 believe, the mattcr or inclividual cornniunion cupscomes in, there are times and placcs when such indifferent matters impactdirectly upon thc Gospel and are, therefore, no longer adiuphor.~.In such a case it is no longer a question of indiffcrcnt things, but amatter which has to do with thc truth or the Gospel. 6

T~mothy l'cuwher INIIIVIDIIAI COMMUNION CUPS 11511: Practical Aspects of the Lord's SupperIn the Smull Cuirr:/~i.sm wc recall this simple, Ublical definition of theLord's Supper:What is the Sacrament of the Altar? Tt is the true body and bloodof our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, for us Christiansto eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. 7By means of somc questions and answers let us thus see what is essentialor commanded by Christ in connection with Holy Communion and what isan adiuphmm1) Is it pcrn~issible to substitute grape juice for wine?All four Biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper speak of "the cup" (Matt.26:27; Mk. 14:23; Lk. 22:17; 1 Cor. 11:25). The content of this cup wasdefinitely wine. The phrase, for example, in Matt. 26:29 -- "the huit of thevine" -- is used throughou~ the Riblc to refer to wine. Also, the JewishPassover supper, which was the occasion on which Jesus instituted theLord's Supper, called for hc use ol wine. Furthermore, one of the abuses inthe Corinthian congregation involving the Lord's Supper was the fact thatsome were getting drunk (1 Cor. 11:21). As such, then, wine must be usedbecause Christ not only used wine, but also commanded His disciples to usethat which the cup contained, namely wine. And no one has the sight tochange that which Christ has instituted.2) Is it necessary to use a certain kind or colour of wine?The phrase "fruit of the vinc" (Matt. 26:29) means wine that comes fromthe grape vine. As such, the use of apple wine, dandelion wine. and the likeis not permissible. At the san~lime; any kind of grape wine may be used.The winc, for example, that is sold in liquor stores as "communion wine" or"sacramental wine" is no morc Fitting Cor use in Iloly Communion than, say,Bright's Hwse Wine. What makes wine communion wine is not a label ona bottle like "St. Augustine Communion Wine," but, rather, Christ's Word.Furthermore, the colour of the wine is a matter on which the Riblc issilent. While it is more than likcly that Jesus used red wine, since the Biblecalls wine "the blood qf the grape" (Gen. 49:l l), nowherc in the account orthe Lord's Supper is it commanded that red wine be used. In fact, there isanother area where in adiaplzor~a may cease to be an indifferent mattcr. Touse red wine, for example, bccause it symbolizes the blood of Christ is a

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWReformed understanding of the Lord's Supper. The winc, aftcr all, is not amere syimbol of Christ's blood but, rather, in, with, and undcr thc winc Christgives us His true blood. Perhaps it may be in ordcr, especially whcn the mainattack on the Biblical doctrine of the Lord's Suppcr today is coming not fromRoman Catholic but from Reformed influences, to consider switching towhite wine which does not carry with it the symbolic baggage and mightcause us to consider, reflect upon, and hold cvcr more strongly thc words ofChrist: "Tlzis (that is, this white wine) is My blood."3) Is it necessary to use unleavened bread?Unleavened bread. bread baked without yeast, was indeed used in thePassover meal (Ex. 12:15). The three evangelists also set the time of theinstitution of the Lord's Supper as "on the first day of the feast of unleavenedbread" (Matt. 26: 17; Mk. 14: 12; Lk 22: 1). Unleavened bread, then, was usedby Jesus when He instituted the sacrament. At the same time, however, theGreek word for bread used in the Biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper iscrrtos, which is a generic term for any kind of bread. While the Greeklanguage has a more restricted word for unleavened bread, nzumos, it is notfound in any of the accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper.Consequently, it is permissible to use either leavened or unleavened breadin Holy Communion. After all, we are to follow the words of Scripture andnot merely that which iq inferred.4) Is it necessary to use one loaf of bread and break it into pieces, ormay Communion wafers be used?Whilc our Lord dld indeed break the bread when He instituted thesacramenl (Matt. 26:26) and while St. Paul speaks of "the bread that webreak" (1 Cos. 10:16) and of "the orle locf' (1 Cor. 10:17), nowhere is itcommanded that one leaf of bread be used or that the bread be broken. NoticeIhc words of institution ~tself: Jesus took bread, broke it, and gave it to Hisdisciples. Hls command is: "Take and eat" (Matt. 26:22), not, "Take, break,and eat." Whelher the bread is broken into edible pieces just prior to thewords of institution, immediately after they are spoken, or hours or evendays prlor to the celebration of the Lord's Supper is, therefore, an adiaphorun.Communion wafe~s, it should also be noted, have been in use in thechurch since the foulteenth century. Why this custom was introduced is lostin the pages of history. Coininunioil wafers, which are almost universallyused in our churches today, are proper and in accordance with Christ'scoinrna~id because they are hsead. The reason why we use Comniunionwafers instead of breaking one loaf of bread is a practical one that has no

Timothy Tcuschcr: INDIVIDUAL COMMUNION CUPStheological significance; that is, we usc Communion wafers for the sake ofand for ease of distribution.The brcaking of bread, we should note as well, is a general descriptionin the Bible and is used in conncclion with ordinary meals (Matt. 14:19; Lk.24:30; Acts 27:35). Before bread could be eaten: the loaves hacl to be brokeninto edible pieces. On Maundy Thursday Jesus simply broke the bread inorder that He might distribute it to His disciples and so that they could theneat it. To insist that the bread he broken, as nlany of the Reformed do, bccauseit symboli~es Lhe suffering of Christ is not only a misreading and ~nisapplicationof the text, but, again, reflects their mere symbolic understanding ofthc sacramcnl. So also, to insist that one loaf of bread be used because ilsymbolizes the unity of the church is also a Reformed understanding that iscontrary to the Scriptures. In fact, the ~mity of the church -- that is, ~ hc unityof our laith -- is prolcssed by the cating together of that bread and not by theone loaf of bread.5) Is it necessary to use one common cup, or may individualcommunion cups be used?On the surface and at first glance this seems to be the same question asIhe previous one; that is, whether WC are to use one loaf of bread orCommunion wafers. The CTCR's report on the Lurd's Supper states: "Inthe absence ol a specific Scriptural mandate, either method of distributionis acceptable."' In and of itself that is certainly true. The words of institutiondo not tell us how the wine is to be distributed. While Jesus did indccd usea common cup (Matt. 26:27) and while St. Paul speaks of "the cup ofthanksgiving" (1 Cos. 10: 16), such does not prescribc Lhe use of the commoncup nor prohibit the use of individual cups. Again, the co~ninand of Christis that we take and drink Ihc wine. Hc does not tell us how we are to drinkit; that is, whether from a coinnlon CLIP or individual cups. To insist that thecommon cup be retained as a symbol of the unity of the ch~~rch, while not,at the same time, irlsistiiig on using one loaf of brcad, is an illogical andfallacious argument. The unity of the church is demonstrated and profcssednot by using onc common cup but by drinking together the blood of Christin and with the wine.At the same time, however, when we proceed to determine the reasonsfor using individual cups instead of the common cup, the answer given isnot the same as with the bread. No one, as far as I know, has ever claimed8 C1'CR '"l'heology anti Placuce of 11ic Lotd'i Supper'' 3 1

118 LUTHERAN THEOIAXTCAL REVIEWthat for ease of distribution and sake of convenience individual cups arepreferable. In fact, just the opposite is thc case. What, then are the reasonsfor having individual communion cups? The one answer uwally, iT notalways, given is this: to safeguard against the spread of disease. W~th thisreason, howcver, I submit that we are now into what Foi mula of Concord Xis talking about. In olher words, whlle the question of individual cups versusthe common cup is and remains an adiaphora, a matter neither commandednor forbiclden in God's Word, the reason for using individual cups does havea theological significance that may be contrary to the very blessings of theLord's Supper itself.111: Theological Considerations of the Lord's SupperFrom the Small Catechism we recall these words concerning the benefitsof thc Lord's Supper:What is the benel'it of such eating and drinking? That is shown usby these words, 'Given and shed for you for the remission of sins';namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life and salvationare given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness ofsins, there is also life and salvation. 9While we tend to emphasize, and rightly so, the spiritual blessings thatare offered and received in Holy Communion, we must not, at the same tirne,ignore the bodily benefits. By means of testimonies from the Scriptures, theLutheran Confessions, the ancient church fathers, and the Lutheran fathers,lct us take n closer look at these blessings.Testimonies From The Scriptures1) In the Lord's Supper Jesus offers and gives His very body and bloodin and with the bread and winc as a mcans of divine grace "Ior theforgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). With His body and blood in thesacrament, He thereby bestows all the blessings and benef~ts of theatonement. The writer oT Hebrews speaks of the blessings of theatonement in this way: "How much more, then, will the blood ofChrist, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished toGod, cleanse our consciences from acts that lcad to death, so that wemay serve the living God" (Hcb. 9:14). "Acts that lead to death" and"serving the living God" are not mere spiritual matters but involve ourbodies as well.9 SC VI, 5-6

Timothy Teuscher: INDIVIDUAL COI\IIMUKION CIJPS 1192) When our Lord instituted the sacrament He said: "Take. eat; this is Mybody. Take drink; this is My blood" (Matt. 26:26-28). The bread andwine are thus received by the communicant like any other food, in anatural manner. Also, Christ's body and blood are received by thecommunicant with his mouth, although in a supernatural manner. Thissacramental eating and drinking is not simply a spiritual eating anddrinking of Christ, in other words, faith, but it also includes a bodilyeating and drinking of Christ as well.3) Jesus clearly speaks of the signilicance of the Lord's Supper inconnection with His future return in glory. He says: "I will not drinkof this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I clrink it anewwith you in My Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:29). St. Paul also linksthe Lord's Supper with the second coming of Christ when he writes:"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim theLord's death until He comes" (l Cor. 1 1 :26). At the Lord's Table thecommunicant thus confesses or proclaims confident faith in the Lord'spromised return. A fcw chapters later Paul speaks of the assurance ofthe resurrection unto eternal life when Christ does return; as hc says:"For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, andwe will be changed. For the perishable ~mst clothe itself with theimperishable, and the mortal with immortality" (1 Cor. 15: 52-53).Notice here that Paul is speaking about a physical resurrection --something that has to do with our bodies. Since the Lord's Suppcr isclosely tied to Christ's second coming, a foretaste, as it were, of theheavenly, eternal banquet and the marriage supper of the Lamb, it alsohas significance for our bodies, for on the Last Day our bodies shallbe raised "imperishable."4) The theme of judgment is also prevalent in the Lord's Supper; for asPaul writes: "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing thebody of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cos. 11:29).Then he adds: "That is why Inany among you are weak and sick, anda nurnbcr ol you havc fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 1 1 :W). Notice that theapostle does not say that a number of the Corinthians became sick andeven died because they drank from a common cup, but rather becausethey partook of the Lord's Supper unworthily. Conversely, worthyreception of the sacrament benefits us no1 only spiritually but bodilyas well.5) The Lord's Supper offers and conveys the forgiveness of sins (Matt.26:28, and "Where there is forgiveness of sins," the catechism reminds

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWLIS, "there is also life and salvation." This forgiveness of sins, life, andsalvation are not simply spiritual blessings, hut they affect our hodiesas well. St. Paul, for example, writes: "May God Hiinself, the God ofpeace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, souland body be kept blameless at the coniing of our Lord Jesus Christ.The One who calls you is faithful and blameless at the coming of ourLord Jesus Christ. The One who calls you is faithful and He will doit" (l Thess. 5:23-24). Again he says: "As if the Spirit of Him whoraised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ fromthe dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit,who lives in you" (Rom. 8: 11).6) David's penitential psalm speaks of the physical suffering he enduredbecause of his sins; as he laments: "When I kept silent, my boneswasted away through my groaning all day long .... My strength wassapped as in the heat of summer (PS. 32:3-4). Conversely, when heconfesses his sins and is assured of God's forgiveness, then he is filledwith new vigour and strength; as he declares: "Rejoice in the Lord andbe glad, you righteous: sing, all you who are upright in heart" (PS.32:ll).Testimonies From The Lutheran Coiifessions1) The Large Ccitrchism contains the most explicit reference to the bodilybcncfits of the Lord's Supper when il says:Tn this sacrament he offers us all the treasure he brought fromheaven for us to which he most graciously invites us in otherplaces, as when he says in Matt. l l:2X, 'Conlc to me, all wholabor and are heavy-laden, and l will rcfrcsh you.' ... We rn~~stnever regard thc sacramcnt as a harmful thing from which wcshould flee, but as a purc, wholcsome, soothing mcdicinc whichaids and quickens us in both soul and body. For whcrc thc soulis healed, the body has benefited also. Why, then, do wc act asif thc sacramcnt were a poison which would kill us il we ate 01it'l"loNotice, especially. that the Lord's Supper is a medicine also for ohodies as well as our souls. Because of this great benefit, therefore, we shounot regard it as something that could weaken and even Itill us; rather, thopposite is the case. To switch to individual communion cups out of fcar o

Timothy Teuscher: INDTVI L>llAL COMMGNION CUPS 121contacting some disease, I submit, is acting "as if the sacrarncnt wcre apoisonwhich would kill us."2) A few lines later we read again of the benefits of the Lord's Supper interms of God's power and protection against all evils -- bodily as wellas spiritual: "For here in thc sacrament you will recieve from Christ'slips the forgiveness of sins, which contains and conveys God's graceand Spirit with all his gifts, protection, dcfense, and power againstdeath and the devil and all cvils."' '3) The Formtrlu of Concord with St. Paul, speaks thus of Lhc ncgativebodily effects from partaking of the Lord's Supper unworthily:It is essential to explain w~th great diligence who the unworthyguests at lhls Supper are, namely, those who go to this sacramentwithout truc contr~tion and sollow lor their sins, withouttlue fallh, and without a good intention to irnprovc then lifeand who by thcir unworthy oral eating of Ihe body oi Christburden Lhemsclves wlth judgment (that IS. Lernporal and eternalpun~slments) and profane the body and blood of Christ." 'Testimonies From the Ancient Church Fathersl) Ignatius of Antinch describes thc Lord's Supper as "the medicine ofimmortality, the antidote thal we should not die, but live forever inChrist. l'2) Ircnaeus declares that Christ "has acknowledged the cup: a part of thecreation, as His own hlood, from which He bedews our hlood; and thebread, a part of I lis cseation, He has affirmcd to be His own body, fromwhich Hc increases our bodies."14 Hc gocs on to say: "Just as thatwhich is bread from the earth, when it rcccives the call of God is nolongcr common bread hut the Eucharist, consisting of two parts, theearthly and thc heavenly, so also our bodies when they share in theEucharist which consists of these two things are no longer subject tocorruption but posses5 the hope of the resurrcction." Again he writes:"Christ has testified that the cup which is thc created thing is His blood,and He has confirmed that the bread which is a created thing is Hisbody, from which our bodies draw strength.16I I LC v. '10.12 I'i' ,711 VIT, 68.13 Ignaliua. Epistle to r/rc E,vh(~r/iiis 20, 2.14 Ircnaeu5, A~niiivt HPI ebi~b 5, 2, 2.l5 Ilwiaei~s 4, 18, 5.16 Ire~r~iet~a 5. 2, 3.

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW3) Justin Martyr expresses it this way: "For we do not receive these thingsas corninon bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviorbeing incarnate by God's Word had flesh and blood for our salvation,so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word ofprayer which comes from Him and from which our flesh and blood arenourished by transfo~ination, is the flesh and body of that incarnateJcsus." 174) Cyril, as wcll, states: "And thus we have life in us, sincc we arc joinedto this flcsh which has been made life-giving."1x And again he says:"It is absolutely necessary that not only the soul through the Holy Spiritmust ascend into a blcssed lik, but also that this body, rude and earthlyas it is, be brought back to immortality when it has received, touched,and tasted this bread."195) Finally, Tertullian declares: "Now let us look at the proper form ofthe name 'Christian,' how much privilege before God belongs to thevain and filthy flesh; and if it suffices for it that the so~d in no way canacquire salvation udess it believed while in thc flesh, therefore itfollows that the flesh is the heart of our salvation, through which thesoul is bound to God. It is the very thing which makes it possible lorthe soul to be bound to God. The flesh is also cleansed, just as the soulis purified; thc flesh eats the body and blood of Christ, just as also thesoul is nourished by ~od."*~Testimonies From The Lutheran Fathers1.) For Martin Luther, the bodily benefits of thc Lord's Supper were accntral teaching of the Sciiptures of which he madc considerable usein his fight against those who rejected the words of Christ concerningthe naturc of thc sacrament. He says: "It is a glory and pram of Hisinexpressible gracc and mercy that He concerns H~mself so profoundlyw~th us poor sinners and shows us such gracious love and goodness,not content to be everywhere in and around, above and beside us, huteven giving us His own body as nourishment, in older that with sucha pledge He may assure and promisc us that our body too shall livefo~ever because it partake., herc on earth 01 an everlasting and livingfood."*'117 Justin Martyr, km/ Apologv 66.18 Cyril. Catechrticiil Lecrr~s 18, 18-19.19 Cyril. Oil Tlw ,Mystrr.ics 4, 3-4.20 Trrtnllian, 011 The Reaur-~rr.lion Of ?'ire Flesh 821 AE37,71.

124 LUTHERAN THEO1,OGTCAL REVTFWin the grace that Christ gives through His sacraments. ,,27In light of the testimonies from the Scriptures, the Luthcran Confcssions,the ancient church fathers, and the Lutheran fathers, it is cvidcnt thatthe benefits of the Lord's Supper apply to our hodics as well as our souls.At the same time, however, how this takes placc and what this specificallyentails cannot be det.ermincd. To regard the sacrament as some kind ofmagical potion that automatically wards olf disease and cures bodily ailmentsis as unbiblical as tlic Roman Catholic theory of tra1lsubsta1ltiatio11.On the other hand, to deny the bodily benefits ol the Lord's Supper is asunbiblical as thc Reformed theory ol representation. In the Lord's Supperwe not only rcccivc thc true body and blood of Christ in and with the breadand winc, but, thereby, we receive bodily as well as spiritual blessings.Hcrlnan Sasse puts it this way: "Therefore it would be quite wrong to denythat the Lord's Supper has a meaning also for om mortal bodies. This is theprofound insight into the mystery of God's saving grace that Luther expressedin the simple words of his Catechism: 'Where there is forgivenessof sins, there is also life and sa~vation.'"~~ConclusionMay individual communion cups thus be used instcad of thc commoncup? As we strive to make a God-pleasing dccision relative to this matter, Ihave formulated a few concluding thoughts on thc issue.1) Individual communion cups were originally dcsigncd for Protestantswho bclicve that thcLord's Supper- is only a memorial of Christ's deal11and not a divine means of grace. The question that must be asked inthis context, then, is: are we giving credence and support to thissymbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper by using individualcups? The answer to this question, as Formula qf'Concoi-d X remindsus, may be "yes" or "no" depending upon the time, place, and circumstances.2) Individual coinmunion cups were also designed to be passed down thechurch pews. This accounts for the difficulty in administering individualcups from the altar. If comm~~nion wafers are used for the sake ofconvenience, the same cannot be said of individual cups. At the samctime, however, this in and of itself docs not preclude their use.3) Individual communion cups may indcccl emphasize individualism atthe expcnsc of the Biblical emphasis on the unity of the church

Timothy Tcuschcr: INDTVTDUAT, COMMUNION CUPS 125professed at the Lord's Table. While this unity is confessect by theactual eating ancl drinking of Christ's body and blood in and with thebread and wine and not by the mere use of a common cup, there is atwofold danger when it comes tu using individual cups. First, insteadof the unity of the church being professed at the Lord's Table, thesacrament becomes the occasion for a division of the congregationbetween what I call "the commoners" and "the individualers." In Fact,this has taken place in some congregations of our synod. Secondly,individual cups may lead to thc idea that the content of the cup is onlywhat each individual believes; in other words, for one it might be onlya symbol of the blood of Christ, while for another it may indeed be thetrue blood of Christ. The words of institution and the confession of thcchurch thus recede into the background.4) Besides the theological considerations mentioned above, namely, thebodily benefits of the Lord's Supper, we should also note that nothingkills germs and bacteria quite likc alcohol. The alcoholic content ofthe wine used in the sacrament gives an added assurance to theco~nmunicanthat he is sale lrom receiving some germ from his fcllowcommunicant. Furthermore, wine and precious metals like gold orsilver set up an ionized situation in the liquid which acts as a furtherdestroyer of bacteria. The same cannot be said of individual communionglasses that must be sterilized in boiling water for 20 minutes andcovered tightly. A two-year study by the Columbia University MedicalCenter in the 1950s, in which contents of the communion cup used inLutheran and Ang l icari churches lollo wing Holy Communion wereanalyzed, showed not a trace of any contagious germs. The studyfurther documented the fact that Lutherans and Anglicans, who use thecommon cup, do not suffer from more colds or flu than do theirRcformcd ncighbors. In fact, throughout the entire history of thechurch, not one disease has cver been traccd back to a common cupused in the Lord's Supper. And this, we should note, included the BlackDeath or bubonic plague of 14th century Europe when over a third ofthe population died. While I am not aware of more recent studies doneon this issue, especially in connection with the AIDS virus or theHepatitis-B virus, the scientific evidence would seem to preclude sucha spread of diseasc by means of thc common cup. Of course, this doesnot meikn that the spread of disease through the common cup can neverhappen, although it has never been proven and is highly unlikely froma scientific point of view, let alone a theological one. It is interesting

ILJTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVTEWto note that in 1527 the bubonic plague struck Wittcnberg. Dcspitc theelector's ordcr to leave thc city and the pleas of his friends, Lutherstaycd to minister to the sick and l'rightened people. In a pamphletentitled, "Whcthci- Onc Muy Flee From A Deadly Plag~ie," Luttspeaks about the need to establish public hospitals, to use medicinto avoid unnecessary contact with the sick, to establish well-keptcemeteries, and to clean up the filth and garbage in the streets. At thesame time, He also says that the best way to deal with thc plaguc is "toattcnd church and listcn to the sermon" and learn how to live and howto die "by going to confession and taking the sacrament once everyweek 01- fortnight. ,1295) Tntlividual corri~nuriion cups, T believe, are a concession to a concernfor germs and the spread of disease that may be transmitted through acolnrnon cup -- a concern that Christ did not have when He institutedthe sacrament, a concern that thc disciples did not havc whcn theydrank of thc one cup, a concern thnt St. Pail1 does not mention whenhc writes to the church in Corinlh about the 1,ortl's Supper, and aconcern that the ancient church fathers and our Lutheran fathers didnot have. At the same time, we cannot simply dismiss these concernsas being invalid or unimportant; after all, they are real concernsexpressed by real people. While the context and the situation is not thatof individual communion cups, the apostle Paul, I bclicvc, spcaks tothis mattcr in a general way when he says: "Accept him whose faithis weak, without passing judgment on disputable rnallers. One man'sfaith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith isweak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must notlook down on him who does not, and the man who does not eateverything must not concern the man who does, for God has acceptedhim" (Rom. 14:l-3). Then, he also writes: "WC did not give in to themfor a moment, so thnt the truth of the gospel might remain with you"(Gal. 2:s). In other words, it is one thing for a congregation to switchfrom the common cup to individual cups because of the fear of someover the spread of disease. It is quite another for the congregation torecognize the concerns of a few individuals and thus to make provisionsfor them while not, at thc same time, legitimizing thosc conccrnswhich, as we have seen, are not based on any empirical proof and maybe in conflict with the very blessings which the Lord offers and gives

Tiinothq 'I'eusclle~: INDIVIDUAL COMMUNION CIJPS 127in the sacrament itsell.6) The Biblical teaching concerning the naturc and the bcnefits o-F theLord's Suppcr nccds greater and more frequent emphasis in ourchurches -- from the pulpit, in the classroom, in church periodicals,and in pastoral calls. The "fol-giveness, life, and salvation" phrase h-omthe catechism, T'm afraid, has become so stantlard, routine, and prcdictablethat it no longer means much to peoplc or strikcs their heart.Certainly, the bodily bcncfits of the Lord's Suppcr is onc area that hasbeen much neglected and, as a result, we are now faced with a concernover the spread of disease through the coininon cup. To merely acceptand adopt this practice of individual cups runs counter to the spirit ofFolmula o~Concord X beca~rse it inililales against the bodily bencfitsol the Lord's Suppcr. Thc assurance of not contacting somc diseasethrough thc common cup rests ultimately not on scientific studies anddata nor on greater precautions and care given to the handling of thecommon cup, but, rather, on God's own promise and blessing thal Heoffers us in the sacraments; namely, the bodily as well as the spiritualbenelits thal we receive whcn wc partake of the very body and bloodof Him who dicd for us and rosc again in order that we might have life-- not death! The Large Catechism thus reminds us again: "We mustnever regard the sacrament as a harmful thing from which we shouldflee, but as a pure, wholesome, soothing medicine which aids andquickens us in both soul and body. For where the soul is healcd, thcbody has bcncfitcd also ,,30Timothy Teuschel- is Pastoi oj Christ Ewngelzcal Lutllel an Church, Pptuwawa,O1zta7 io, and also SPIW.F us .x-'(.oYI~ C-pi CSI~CYII oj tllr Errst D~strrciclf Lrrth~t~in Cllui cl]-Cuurudu

WE ARE ALL PRIESrI'S" : A CONTEXTUALSTUDY OF THE PRIESTHOOD IN LUTHERTl~on~u~ M. WingerIntroduction"Wir sind alle gleich Priester"; "nos onmes esse acqualitcr sacerdotes"- with phrascs such as these Luther expressed the doclrinc comnlonly knownas the "pricsthood orall believers." Yet it is significant thatLuther apparentlyncvcr used this latter phrase or others such as "universal priesthood," andonly rarely used "royal priesthood."' In fact, thc only adjectives he appliedwith any frcyucncy are "spiritual" and "common." This simply indicates howfar reinovcd today's "priesthood of believers" talk can be from what Luthesactually wrote. This phrase has served as a banner I'or innumerable teachingswhich claim Luther as their father.This "priesthood of believers" comes alivc today in at least threec1ilTcrent ways. First, there are the radical Protestant vicws:... it has been used to support a bewildering varicty ol' practices,such as Congregational polity, the Quaker meeting, Pictixtic rwlesiolue,and thc Methodist commissioning of lay preachers. Sometimes,again, it has become associated with such slogans as "theright of private judgment" or "immediate access to God," andinterprctcd so individualistically that any institutional or corporateexpression of it becomes unthinkable. 2According to E. Harris Harbison, a more "logical" Luther would havepainted this picturc: "A man alone in his room with God and God's Word,the Bible, like Luther in his tower room - this would be the true picturc 01 a~hristian."~ This 1,uther is used to champion misdirected calls l'or rnorc "layparticipation," calls which pine for the early polemical Lutlier, and lamcnlhis turn to "institutionalium":Liberty without law is imprac~icable, and Luther panicked into aconservatism that camc to i~ivolve state control and clerical officialismand an externalism almost as strangulating as that from whichhe escaped. Ronald Knox would like to think of Luther as an1 This concluskm is cmfi~ merl liy HA. Gcrrish, Luthcr on Priesthood and Miniitry.' Clriir r i d Hi~1o14(1965): 421 117-6. Howecer, 112 elra 111 den)mg thc cupression "common priesthood" to Luther, as Rohe~t H.Fischer points out 111 "A11i1ll1el Liiok at Isirhcr's Doctrine of the Minrstry. Lcrt/ier.~~n Q~irn-tdg 18 ( 1966):268 n.47.2 Ceiii$h 4043 E. IIlu-ris Iialhisnn, Tirr, Axr oJ~Rt.io~nilrflo~~ (Ithaca, NY, 1955) 50, quoted 111 Geniih 405.

LUTIICRAN TIICOLOGICAL REVIEWenthusiast manyue, a "lost leader" of Anabaptists; certainly we hearlittle more of the priesthood of believers, and though the earlierLuthcr lived on in Pietism, the German layman's spiritual witnesshas suffered under Erastian influcncc. 4Whether or not thc "priesthood of bclievers" actually disappears in thelatcr Luther renlains to be seen.Secondly, a Icss-notcd strand of thought has questioned the very legitimacyof Luther's exegesis which proclaims "we arc all priests." John Elliott,in his major study ol'I Pet. 2, strongly questioned what he saw as Luthcr'sunderstanding of the passage.5 Following Elliott's argument; and with aconccrn for contemporary ecumenical dialogue, George Hoycr purs~~sthischallenge:Luther's argumcnt did not develop the context of the 1 Peter passageor work seriously with the context of thc Exodus passage on whichSt. Peter builds. Luther quoted the words "priest" and "priesthood"from Scripture but chiefly in a polcniical use against the Roinanabuses in the ordained priesthood. He was not gencrally dcvclopingthe charactcristics St. Peter ascribed to Christians under the title of"a royal priesthood." In much the same way, what Luthcr claimedfor evcry Christian under the title "priest" in the course of hisargument ... waT not in fact what thc passagc fi-om l Peter impliedin the terms he employed. 6This charge amounts to an accusation that Luther dcals with Scripturear the previously cited radical Protestants have dealt with him. This questionableproposition will be challenged as we listcn to L~llher.Thirdly, L~rther's teaching on priesthood figures greatly in thc contcmporarydebate on the Office of the Ministry. "Conk~nporary" belies the factthat the rnoclern debate on "priesthood and ministry" reachcs back into themid 19th-century. (In fact, thc issue has arisen in every century. althoughthe questioiis have been differently posed.) With these two intinlatelyconncctcd arliclcs oP faith, the question arose as to whether the Office isfounded on the comtnon priesthood (jui-e Izun7arw), or immediately on divineirlstitutiorl (juw divino). Julius Stahl emphasized the divine institution of not4 G D. Hcndclson, "P~.ic\rhood of Reliews," Sr.ortrslz .lort~-!rcrl uJ 'l hrdug.i. 7.1 (~Vlar. 1954): 12.5 John Hall Elliotr, Thc E1rt.r ,~nd thr Holy. ,411 E.te;~e/iccrlE.tcirni!rn~roir of I Peter- 2 +l0 nid the Phrorehnqileion lie~n~l~e~un:l (Lcideu: Bull, 1966).h Geovge W. Hoyer, "Clnibli;~nllootl. Pl~csllroud allcl B~othsrhood." In Acceirts in Luther.' r Tlrrolog), cdHzino 0. Kxlni (S[. Luu~a: CUIICUI.~I~, 1967): 187.

Thomas M. Winger: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF TIE PRIESTHOOD 131only the f~~nctions of the Ministry. but also the Office [Amt], the rnen whofill it, and the special estate [Starzdl to which they belong, without relianceon the local congregation. Johannes lToetling responded that the Word andSacraments are divinely instituted, and are given to the whole churcl~. Ratherthan being exercised by a special class, they rest nlorie on the universalpriesthood - the special Office of the Ministsy is a hun~aii ecclesiasticalordinan~e.~ This debate continued much as always in the Missouri Synodthrough Walther's encounters with Stephan, Loehe, and Grabau, and it hassimmered constantly since then. Its lasting significance was to tie thepriesthood of believers inextricably to questions of the Ministry, arid secondarily,of the church.More recently, debate has continued to flourish around this predeterminedquestion. In 1950 Wilhelm Rrunotte found unity in Luthei-'S doctrineof the Ministry, centred around only divine institution. Three years latei-Welmut Lieberg concluded that divine institution always appeared side byside with the universal priesthood as foundation.' Lieberg left us with theterm Zweipoli,qlreit (bipolarity) to describe this continual tension in Luther. 9Paul Althaus bases his summary of the Ministry in Luther on this bipolarity:Luther without hesitation co-ordinates these two derivations 01 theoffice of the ministry - the one from "below" and the other 1rom"above." He sees no co~ltracliction in them. ... 111 the first, he basesthe office on the presupposition of the universal priesthood and thusdescribes it as a mediated office. In the second; he derives it directlyfrom the institution by Christ without reference to the universalpriesthood. ... Luther cannot base this office only on its directinstitution by Christ. That would obscure the fact that all baptizedChristians have received this priesthood from Christ the Priest andthat they have both the power and the duty of exercising all thefunctions of the priest? described by Luther. They all have theauthority of the ministry of the word and sacrament. 10This "bipolarity" persists in Kurt Marquart's rcccntly-published volumc7 See J. S~alll, Die ICii-clieiil~e!/as~~~ii~g irii~ii Lelii-e ~iriil Rcihi ilei Pi-otesruiwi~ (Ellangen, 1840); and J.W.F.IIbflmg. Grli~rilsiii;e pi iingeli.~cl~l~~t/rer~~~ hri- Kirch~rn~ei,fcr~.c~ii~~, (Crlangen, 1850). [he coulse of the debateis briefly iraced in Wilhelm Brunotte. Do.? gcistiidit~ /\lnr ht.1 Liiihw (Rcrlin: I,i~rl~ci.isclics Vcl.lagh;iu~,1959) 9-33, Mole detailed rs H. F:igerberg, KeXeii~iiiii~, Kidre wrlilnrl iii rler dculaciie~i Xorrfe~siowllei~Tlzeolo~~e iles 19. .Irrhi.h~indei.ts(Uppsala: AB Lundequ~tika Bohhandeln. 1952).8 Blunotte 011 cir. Helmut L~ebelg, .?t~~r iir~ci Ordriiiirioir hi.1 Luilirr onrl Mrlmrlithorr (Gouingcn:Vandenhoeck & Knprecht. 1962).9 Scc lkhcrg 235-8 for a srrn?mary.10 Paul Althnua, Tlic Theologj of,Mcrr.nn Lrrthw, tms. Rohert C. Sch1ilt7 (Philntlelphi:~, Fortress, I ' M ) 724F.

132 LUTI-IBRAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWin the Covy'kssio~~ul Luthei-uri Dognwtic.~, whose treatment of thc Ministrybegins with a discusrion of "priesthood and Ministry": "Everything dependson prcscrving intact this bipolarity .... There is a priesthood and there is aministry. They are not the same, yet both are God-given, and there existsbetween them a contrapuntal relationship." I IThe connection of "priesthood and ministry" was perpetuatcd in ascholarly debate in 1965-6. K. A. Gerrish, picking up on the Bruriotte andLieberg publications, tries to answer the question, "Why do we need anofficial ministry in tlie Church?" on the basis of Luther. In agreement withLicberg, he Pirids "the delegation - and the institution-theory ... side by sideunreconciled, but with a definite bias toward the idea of divine in~litulion."~~Lowell Green soon responded, challenging his "hunt-and-peck method ofquoting Lutlier, and suggesting that Gcrrish failed to see the "Change inLuther's Doctrine of the A4inistry."For if' we ~;tudy Luther's writings on the ~ninistiy and the priesthoodof believers from 1220-25, isolated from his thought in otherperiods, we can find a strong case for the transleral view. ... But areversal set in during the second halt of the 1520's, and the officeof the ministry was preserved lo the developing Lulhcran church. 13Perhaps the argument finally moved towards resolution when RobertFischer responded. On the premise that "you cannot get right answers towrong qucs~ions,"14 ~ischcr analyscs both Green and Gerrish to demonstratehow they are led astray by a question wrongly ut "This won't do, becauscncither of thc two 'thcorics' is legitimate."lP His soletion is simply toidentify the priesthood with the church: "Actually, God instituted both thcchurch and its public ministerial office, and he always works throughrnen."16 "The church is U priesthood; it has an ordained mirzistly." 17Fischer does a great service by questioning the priesthood-ministrydichotomy. However, hc still attcmptx to find one all-encompassing descriptionof the role which "priesthood" plays in Luther's "theology." TheI I Kurt hiiarqua~.t, C~nfessiuii/il L~tthe~mi Do$in~riirs IX. Tlie Churcii crnd He). ~~I~oIvsIII~~, iWii~i.s/i ,v, U I I ~Coi:n.~~ii~~cu (Fort Wayne: The Intetnr~t~onal Foundnt~on fo~ Lutheran Confcssiu~lal Kesea~cli, 1990) 104.12 Gcrrish 414 By delegalion theor)" or "transfesal," of course, tllzse wliters are Llmku~g ol 111e CUIIII~UI~priesthood "delegating" what are popcrly the11 functioiis to the Mlnislels. "Delegal~ul~" jiihw~iqr~iig~ doesnot In itself imply this, fo~a uriter. may he refelling Lo Cllr~a~ Ilirnsell'doing the delega~iun. Thus wlier~Luther i ol Wdlthet) speaks of "delegatmn. conie~ral. or 11anrll.al" one IIILI~L ~bk IIIIU is doing tlir actlon.13 Lowell C. Green, "Change in Lutlier's Uoclru~e ul lhe hlli~~iuy." The L~rtlw~o~~ Q~~wter-ly (May 1966): 174.14 1-rsche~, 261.15 l-mhei 268.I6 l-~schet 269.17 blbchcr 270. E~iipllasis urrginal.

Thoinx M. Winger: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE PK IESTHOOD 133investigation will be more firmly Iuimdcd whcn it recognizes the multifariousroles the "priestliood" plays in Luther's theological ~~riti~z~q,~. What unitesall of these occurrences is the use Luther makes of this common priestlioodfur the cause 01 the Gospel. Furthermore, each appearance of the priesthoodserves little more than orie purpose in thc debate at hand. Note Stcins'swarning against generalizing Luther: "Lulhcr's remarks about the essenceof thc priesthood of all Christians are countless, sometirncs only partialdescriptions, orten polemically unbridled."18 Thus, in the polemical years,at least, one can only read an cntire trcatise in context and determine in whatway the priesthood of all is the Gospel answer to a Law situation. To drawany inferences beyond this one conclusion is to mistake the "priesthood ofbelievers" for an Oberbegrifwhich could he grossly mis-labcllcd the "thirdf~mdamental principle of the Protestant Reformation." 19Antecedents to the Common PriesthoodLate in 1519 Luiher first uscd thc cxpression "we are all priests." Onemust be careful, however, to mask whal is ncw, and what is accepted teachingof the day. Therefore it is helpful to noLe at least thrcc teachings whichappcarcd in Luther already before this time. First is the view of thc churchas a communion, a Chrislian brothcrhood, a sharing of colnnion goods. Thisis so common in his early writings that onc cxarnple would suffice.20 In his21Explanation qf'the 95 The.ws (1518) Luther deals with the Roman treasuryof mcrits (thesis 58). He denies that the saints have superabundant merits forthe remission oI punishment but affirms that one may perhaps think of thechurch as "a communion of saints in which each one works for the other, asmembers of one another."22 However, "thc saints did this during theirlifctirne, and if they were to do it now, it wo~rld be accomplished byWoli~ang Stem, Liar l

133 1,IJTHERAN TIIEOLOGICAL RHVIEWintercessio~l rather than by the power of the keys."23 Thus Luther spcalis ofthc saints in language very similar to what he will later say of the pricsthoodol all.Secondly, without recourse 10 the "commori priesthood," Luthcr is ableto affirm that Confession and Absolution belongs to the wholc church, andmay in necessity be exercised by laymen one to another. His sermon on TheSucrurr~ent of Pe.narzcc (1519),24 while constantly assuming that absolulionis pronounced by a priest Lofficially], nevertheless affirms that it does notdepend on the per.snrt saying it.It follows in addition that in the sacrament of pe~lance and forgivenessof guilt a pope or bishop does nothing more than the lowliestpricst. Indeed where there is no pricst, each individual Christiancvcna woman or child-does as much [rbcn szovil thlut eyn igliclzChristen nzerrsch]. For any Christian can say to you, 'God forgivesyou yoi~r sins. in the name,' etc., and if you accept that word witha confident faith, as though God were saying it to you, then in thcsame faith you are surely absolved. So co~ripletely does everythingdepend on faith in God's word. 25One sees thal Lulher is einphasi7ing the role ofJkillz and Gocl's Wordin Confession, so that he must remove confidence in the poson of theabsolver. His goal is to remove A~~j+chtzu~g in thc believer by lemoving alldoubt in Absolution.Another intereating aspect of thi5 sermon is that the keys are placed intothe hands of cvery Chrrstian (again without reference to common priesthood)."It follows that the keys or authority ol St. Pete~ is not an authosity[gewallt] at all but a selvice [d~rzct]; and thc kcys have not been given to St.Peter but Lo you and me The keys are yours and nune [cleyn ,,nil m~~,n]."""Yet Luther goes on i~ninediatelq to speak of Lhe comfo~t sinners recelve troin[official] priests by theii exercise ot the kcys! It seems that "possession" ofthe kcys by '111 Christians means that no one m q deny them the rlght torecenv forgiveness! "Pnssession" means bemg served by them. Th~s mustbe kept m mind in later references to the "possessio~i" of the keys by all23 4L' 3 1 :216=U:4 1:607.24 AE 35:9-27=1f1A 2:711-723. This was published 111 m~d-Ocroher 1519.25 AE 35:121.=WA 2.716. Thc worrl~ by which Ihe Iayrr~m prunounces absolut~ori arc significant: "Godforgivcc you . " For u,hen L~1tht.r speak5 ul the Arrtt~ii-oc.qer. ahrolb~ng, the priest sajs "I absolbe you fromymr cins ....' AE 35: 13=bI'A 2:7 17. Thrs sobtlc disrincrlon cxriea lhruugl~ 111s 11lc. In this documcnr T,uthc~always qual~iie statmcnrs about lay nhcolution with sLalements about the emcrgcnq or rhc ~~tuntion Irzuli].when a pricsr c:lnnot be fui~~rd.26 ./\E 35:15=WA 2:719.

Thomas M. Winger: CONTEXTUAL STCDY OF THE PKlESTHOOD 135Christians.One even finds Luther9s bride-bridegroom argument used of the keyswithout reference to the priesthood. Luther preached on Mt. 16: 1 3-1 C) lor thcday of St. Pctcr and St. Paul at the opening of the Leipzig debate:It is truc that the keys were given to St. Peter; but not to himpersonally, but rather to the person of the Christian church. Theywere actually given to me and to you for the comfort of ourconsciences. St. Peter, or a priest, is n servant of thc keys. Thechurch is the woman and bride, whom he should serve with thepower of the keys; just as we see daily that the sacrament isadministered to all who desire it of the priests. 27Possession of the keys again means not being denied their cornfort. Thekeys were given to Peter and every Minister to be given on to those to whomChrist gives thcm. When Peter or a Minister denies this by making the keysan instrument for ruling or domination thcn they are in the way of the Lawand have deserted Christ's intended use of thcm for giving out IIis Gospelgifts. Since Luther- is able lo say this without reference to thc pricsthood ofall, one might find that he is speaking uniquely of the priesthood whcn hcno longer includes keys in the discussion. This will serve as one gauge inwatching his progress.Thirdly, many authors have noted that the common priesthood was atcaching of the Roman church throughout the middle ages. Jerome spoke ofBaptism initiating one into the sacer-dotiunz laici (priesthood of the laity),and this common priesthood was stresscd by Tertullian, Origen, Leo theGreat, as well as ~quinas." The debate with Emser will demonstrate thatthis was not denied. What was new in Luther was the assertion that thosewho are now called "priests," the clergy, are illegitimately so named, for theNew Testament does not restrict this term to the few. 29Of thcse latter two points Stein takes particular note in an excursus onTuchel's "misleading" work." Hc analyses the history of the relationshipbetween the person of the priest and the forgivcncss of sins in Absolution.He notes that Thornas Aquinas was the first to speak of thc priest as cnusa27 AE 5 1:59=W 2.248.28 See Hendelson 4-5. thoup,h docurne~~hlion ii lacki~ig. Fol a11 exlenswe survey of the hisro~y of the teachingsee Cyl-il Eastwoocl, 17ru PI iestlronrl o/ r~ll Beire1 en, (Min~ledyul~s: Au~aburg. 1962) and The RoyalPI-rrstl~moil ofthp I.iiitl~f'irl. (Mlnnrapolis: Angsbul-g, 1963)29 Scc Stcin 63-5, "P~.climlnar) Ikmal-kq who~~t the Change m Luther's Te~minology concei-~iing P~~estlioodand Ofhcc."30 Stein 48-52. He refers to I

136 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWinstrurrlentalis in forgiveness, yet he still spoke of the Christian becoming aps-iest in Baptism. Gabriel Biel, not insignificant in Luthcr's studies, haddenied that ordination gave the priest an inhcrcnt \7011mac.ht ("full power")to forgive sins. Luther must be secn to stand in this theological line. Steinconcludes that everything Luther said in the Scxci-amcnt cfPrnunr,r (15 19)can be understood in terms of the rnilic~lultct-lirhcn Luicnheichte ("medievallay absolution"). As we enter now into Luther's writings on the coininonpriesthood, we must therefore be careful to note what new help he drawsfrom the Sci-iptures, and what elements do not pertain exclusively to thepriesthood of all.Beginnings: 1519Lmhcr first spokc of all Christians being priests in a lelter to Spdalinon 18 December 1519.~~ Since it is not published in English, a lengthyquotation is in order:The offices [qffiiria] of a priest, concerning which you inquired ofme, T do not know; although, the more I think about it, [I feel] Iwon't discover what to write except ceremonials. But then theapostle Peter (I Pet. 2) propels me very much, saying that we all arcpriests [nos ornnes esse sacel-dotes]. John says thc samc in Rcvclation.So this kind [genus] of priesthood in which we are inusl notbe thought to differ absolutely Srom the laity except with respect tothe Ministry, in which the sacraments and the Word are administered.All other things ase equal, if you should remove ceremoniesand huinan statutes. And we are quite astonished how Order [ordo]receives the name of a sacrament. Aren't these things astonishingto you? But togethcr with Philip in person [we have trcatcd this]much morc, for we have trcatcd [it] often keenly. Consequently,your office will differ in no way Irom the conirnon offices oflaymen, with the exception oC [he burdens. These things the Romancuria imposes upon all priests without choice. Now it is mostimportant that you consider in what place you have been called.That is: you have been called into the court, just like Esther, whereyou may serve the people (where you are able) who arc rulcd fromthis court. Of all things this is most difficult and most dangerous.Thus you should not hesitate to be highest anti first. But [these31 That this is the first appearance of the teachmg is affirmed by a number of wrltels. including E.G.Schwebert, L~itlzo.nnd His Tinzes (St. Louis: Concordia. 1950) 447; and Stem 50.

Thornas M. Wingeu: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF 'THE PRIESTHOOD 137duties] are incomparably more excellent than all your offices whichanyone is able to prescribe to you, be they canonical hours orwhatever. 32Many things arc unclcar in this letter, especially the question Spalatinasked. Perhaps he is concerncd over whether he must continue thc dailyoffices of a priest. Luther then would answer thal you need not do that to bea priest, for we are all priests. Ordained priests are only different because ofthc Ministry of the Word. Spalat~n should concentrate on the duties of hisposition in the court. Thus Luther's first use of the common priesthood wouldbe to deny any spiritual distinction between clergy and laity and to pointeach man to his vocation. 33The Reformation Polemic: 1520Six months later what Peter and John taught Luther found 11s place inthe first of his so-called "Reformation treatises": To the Chvzstiua Nobility(1520).~~ In this large document it 1s remarkablc how little a role thepriesthood plays - as noted before, there is one main function which it servesin each argument. This appeal has a twofold structure: first hc deals theologicallywith thc thrcc "walls" of defence which the pope has set up andwith them suitably demolished, he makes practical suggestions for reform.The first problem is the corruption of the clergy: they should carry outthe reform of the church, but they are too indifferent.35 Therefore he exhortsthe nobility (laity) to help. Hence the second problem (identified as the first"wall"): "when pressed by the temporal power they have made decrees anddeclarcd that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but that, onthe contrary, thc spiritual power is above the temporal."36 The "spiritualestate" claim that since they alone are spiritual, the temporal powers cannothold authority over them. Luther responds: "all Christians are truly of thespiritual estate, and there is no diffcrence among them except that of office";"we are all consecrated priests through baptism."37 This he proves from IPct. 2, Rev. 5, and I Cor. 12. The last-named is the most significant at thistime, for from it he argues the need for each Christian to exercise his given32 WA BT. 1595.33 This intcrprctation is contismed by a sermon [or Christmas Day, 1520, cited by Schwicbcrt 45 1: "Everycalling. hc bclievcd. cven that of the simplesl folk, was of God. In the Lorzg Sermon or1 Urery .. Luther forthe first time stated his vicw of thc 'priesthood of all believe~s,' which wiped out with one strokc anyspecial merit in the work of a regular or secular clergyman"34 AE 44:123-217=W/4 63404-469=SA 2:9h-167.35 AE 44: 123=WA 6:404=SA 2:96.36 AE 44:126=WA 6:406=SA 2:98.37 AE 44: 127=WA 6:407=SA 2:99.

138 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWoffice as pal-t of Ihe body of Christ.The priesthood of all is therefore used to destroy any notion that theclergy are in a different Stand ("estate"), that they are essentially differentin character before God.It follows from this argument that there is no true, basic [andem"other"!] difference between laymen and pricsts, princes and bishops,between religious and sccular, except for the sake of office andwork, but not for the sake of status [sirrnrl,~]. They are all of thespirilual estate [gcis/lir,hs siunds], all are truly priests, bishops, andpopes. But they do not all have the same work to do. ... Christ doesnot have two different bodies, one temporal, the other spiritual.There is but one Head and one body. 38The claim was caracte~.es indelibiles - the answer was "we are allpriests." Now the nobility are freed from thc claim of thc clcrgy that thcyare not subject to the civil authorities, for the cxcrcise of justice is their office.The sccond wall, that the pope alone may interpret Scripture, is overthrownby the same weapon, for it is basically the same problem. We are allspiritual, arltl so are charged by Scripture to judge doctrine. "The Roinanistsmust admit that there are among us good Christians who have the true faith,spirit, understanding, word, and mind of Christ. ... Besides, if we are allpriests, as was said above, and all have one faith, one gospel, one sacrament,why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is right orwrong in matters offaith'?"39 Thu, the pope may not claim that it is only hisoffice to judge doctrine. The office of the temporal power is to see to it thatall I he others fulfil their offices. Therefore, in this situation the com~nonpriesthood justifies the nobility calling a council for the reform of the church.Fundamental to the understanding of the next major work, thc Bahylonia~zCaptivity, is a writing which prcccded it: The Treatise on the NewTestament, that is, the Holy Mass (152~).~' There are really two issues atstake here: what is the precondition I'or the Sacrament, anti can it heconsidered a sacrifice? In the first case, the clergy through their canon lawhave so separated themselves from the laity that "they regard laymen asthough they were no Christians at all."41 Because they are not of the"spiritual estate" they are not worthy to offer this "sacrifice." This is the samc

Thornas M. Wingcr: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE PKlESTHOOD 119error as before: they have cseated divisions within the church where theGospcl allows none. Luther responds that faith is the best preparation.bccausc thc esscncc of the Sacranlent is "testarnenl," a promise. Testamentand l'aith itre correlativcs. Thc loss of lcstament as romise (Gospel) is theloss of faith, and this is the first abusc of the mass. 45The worst ahuse of the mass is then as a sacrifice we do to induce God'sfavour. For if the mass is a sacsifice, then the Gospel is lost. Here, wherc theGospel is at stake, the priesthood of all is the answer. The mass, which is inessence testament, can only be considered a sacrifice because of what flowsfrom its gifts: prayers and offerings. "We should bring spiritual sacrifices,since external sacrifices have ceased .... What sacrifices, then? are we toM43ofrer'? Ourselves, and all that we have, with constant prayer, .... Thissacrifice is defined more cleai-ly when the priesthood of Christ is brought in:To be sure lhis sacril'ice of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and ofourselves as well, we ase not to present before God in our ownperson. But we are to lay it upon Christ and let him present it forus, as St. Paul teaches in Hebrews 13[: 151, ... From these words welcarn that we do not offer Christ as a sacrifice, but that Christ oCCersus. And in this way it is permissible, yes, profitable, to call the massa sacrifice along with Christ. 44Because this sacrificc is made through Christ, then faith is the propermark of the priest. "For faith must do cvcrything. Faith alone is the truepriestly office. Tt permits no one else to take its place. Thercforc all Christianmen arc priests: all women priestesses~ he they young or old, ...'l4' Thus thcGospel is at stake as much in the common prieslhootl us in the sacrificc ofthe mass.This treatise was destined to be only a prelude to another prelude: APwlinde Concerning the Bubyloniun Captivity of the Chur-ch (1520).~~Luther expected [his to spark a full-fledgcd battle over the seven sacran~entsof the Roman church. The priesthood of believcrs as such does not figure inuntil close to the end, although [here are echoes earlier. In his attack on thcpopish abuse of the "sacrament of the bread," he concentrates on sacrviceas the third and greatest abuse. Once he has established that it was no1 inessence a sacrifice but the promise of Christ, he challenges the distinction

140 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWbetween privatc and public masscs. For if the reception is the essence, thenpriest and layman are alike: "As far as the blessing of the mass and sacrament[res sucrumenti "matter" of the sacrament, as opposed to the sign~wn "sign"]is concerned we ;Ire all equals, whether we are priests or laymen."47 TheGospel's gifts do not distinguish persons.The papists make distinctions of person again in the abuse of reservedcases in confession. When the absolution of certain sins is reserved to ahigher person in the hierarchy, then absolution is made conditional upon aperson. Thus the sinner is deprivcd of confidence in the power of [he Gospel.Luther responds by denying the pope's claim of exclusive tyranny over thekeys. "for this [Mt. l X: 181 is said to each and every Christian [omnibus etsinRlrli.s]."48 Yet Luther maintains that they are held in "common" - it is nota matter of individual usurpation. "For where does he get this authority [togrant dispensation from vows]? From the power of the keys? But the keysbelong [rather "are common"] to all, and avail only for sins [Ex clauibis.7 Athae onznibus co(rn)rnunes sunt, (et) supar peccatu duntoxclt uul~nt].'~~ Forthc pope to reserve the keys lo himself is to act individualistically and neglectthe commune aspect.The most significant part of this treatise, however, is the section onordination, in which he argues vehemently against distinctions of spiritualessence between Christians. Scripture does not give a promisc of grace toordination, nor as practiscd by the pope is it divinely instituted. The churchcannot creatc sacraments. This is a concern of utmost Gospel significance.Thcy have sought by this means to set up a seed bed of implacablediscord, by which clergy and laymen should be separated from eachother farther than heaven from earth, to the incredible injury of thegrace of baptism and to the confusion of om fellowship in thegospel. ... Trusting in the external anointing by which their handsare consecrated, in the tonsure and in vestments, thcy not only exaltthemselves abovc the rest of the lay Christians, who are onlyanointed with the Holy Spirit, but regard them almost as dogs andunworthy to be included with themselves in the church. 50By so exalting the anointing of their fingers. they blaspheme againstBapti5m which is the true anointing of the Holy Spirit. They may not rtde47 AE 36:54=W.4 6:525=SA 2:206.38 AE 36:87=WA 6:547=SA 2332.49 AE 36:79=tVA 6:541=SA 2225. N.B. The Stud~ennrispbe indicates with parcnthcscs what was ahhrcvlatcdIn the original manuscript.50 A/i 36: 112=WA h:S63=BA 2249.

Thomas M. Winger: CON'I'EXI'UAL STUDY OF THE PRIESTHOOD 14 1over the laity, for I Pet. 2 teaches that WC are all equally priests. The papalpriesthood rules (Law) to the detriment ol' the grace of Baptism which makesall priests (Gospel). Anticipating that this rnay be misundcrstood as denyingthe Office of the Ministry, Luther adds:... WC are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power[potestanz] in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, noone may make use of this power except by the consent of thecornmunily or by the call of a superior. (For what is the comrnonproperty of all, no indivitlual may arrogatc to himself, unless he iscalled.)"Luther was not talking about Ihe Officc when hc brought up the priesthood;he was talking about the Gospel. But anything can bc misapplied.Closing the year 1520 is the third "Reformation treatise": The Freedomof o Christian (1520).~~ This treatise, prompted by Miltilz and prcfaccd bya letter to Pope Leo X, is his last great conciliatory effort. Or course, thistreatise must be understood in terms of the proposed thesis: "A Christian isa perfectly free lord oS all, sub'cct to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutifulservant of all, sub@ to The first half is a consequence of justification,so that any external laws which promise rightcousncss stand against theGospel. Therefore, "It does not help the soul if the body is adorned with thesacred robes of priests or dwells in sacred places or is occupied with sacreddutics or prays, fasts, abstains from certain kinds of food, or does any workthat can be done by the body and in the body."54 Nothing bill faith makesa Christian.One benefit of faith is that it unitcs the soul with Christ, as a bride to herbridegroom. "And if they are one flesh and therc is betwcen them a truemarriage ... it follows that everything they have they hold in common, thegood as well as the A great exchange occurs: Christ gets sin, death,and damnation; the soul gets grace, life, and salvation. The Script~~res teachthat Christ is both king and priest; through marriage with Him, all Christiansare likewise kings and pricsts (I Pct. 2). Kingship is described as spirituallordship over- all things, so that all serves thcm, and does them no harm. Itis not so much ruling as being served by all things (receiving). Priesthood51 AI: 36.1 16=WA 6:566=,SA 2:252.52 AR 31 ::\ 7:49=SA 2:264.54 AE 31:345=WA 7::50=SA 2266.55 AE 31:351=WA 7:54=SA 2:274.

142 LUTIIBRAN TIIBOLOGICAL REVIEWIS described according to the Old Testament priesthood. It is twofold: "foras priests we ase worthy to a pear before God to pray for others and to teachone another divine things."' The contrary is that he who does not believeis not served by anything. Thus both kingship and pricsthood arc Graceissues: thcy describe our blessed state when God's gifts serve our good. Onccagain Luther suggests that the New Testamenl offers Tar better names for theMinisters of the Word than "pr~est."57 All of this discussion must beunderstood as an assert~on of the "inner man's" liberty and freedom fromgood works in the sphere of justification. Priesthood is a Gospel expression.Luther's "Captivity" at the Wartburg: 1521Thc grcatcst challenge to Luther's pricsthood argument came from "theGoat" Jeromc Emser. This is an especially significant exchange, becauseEmser was responding to Luther's adtlress '1'0 he Chri,stiun Nobility (1 520)when Einser wrote his climactic challenge in Dec. 1520. Thus Luther'ssplendidly-titled sesponse, Answer to the Hyperchr-istian, Hyperspir-itual,and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser-Including Some Tho~ights RegnrdingIIis Companion, the Fool Mumer (Mar. 1521) may be considered"Luther's own intcrprctation" of his former writing. 39Emser's challenge revolved specifically around the assertion "we are allpriests" and that those who now are called "priests" are not so called inScripture. The issue was the exegesis of I Pet. 2. Emser stands behind thetraditional medieval reading, and so does not deny that "all Ch1-istians arespiritual and are However, he challenges Luther for taking awaythe name "priest" from the clergy. Emser argues that onc must see both thespirit and the lctter in Scripture, that the letter is the sheath which holds thcsword. Luther has read 1 Pet. 2 only according to the letter and so is swingingabout an ernply sheath. Apparently Enlser has interpreted Luther as sayingthat all Christians are consecrated priests (everyone a minister). Instead,Emser sees in the passage tnjo priesthoods, a "spiritual" one (of all), and an"ecclesiastical" one (tonsured).61 This is the spirit and the letter.Luther agrccs that the passagc docs not make all Christians comecratedpriests, but asserts that it speaks only of the "spiritual" priesthood. This is56 AE 11,355=WA 7:57=SA 2:280.57 rlE 31 :35h=WA 7:58=SA 2282.58 AE 39: 143-228=IVA 7:621688. See especially the historical ~~ltrotluction to the exchange in AE 39: 107115.59 Stein 94. Stein also notes that in an exchange with Henry V111 Luther interpreted his Btrbyloiiicm Cc~ptivir?.(1520). For both, see 94-101.60 AE 39:151=WA 7:628.61 AE 39: 152=WA 7:629.

Tlio~nas M. Winger: CONTEXTIJ AT STUDY OF THE PRIESTIIOOD 143both the spirit and the lcttcr of thc tcxt. Now Luther must distinguish thcpriesthood of all from the Officc of thc Ministry because of Ernser'smisreading. He admits that the name "priest" is not in itsclf wrong (for it issimply a form of preshulei-(>,v - he himself continues to use it for the Office),but it has been given a dangerous interpretation. T1 obscures the fact that theMinistry is to be servanthood. At the same time he must defend the "spiritual"character of all. "Yct all of us in common are church, spiritual, and priests:to the extent that we believc in ~hrist."'~ Emser had argued that "no1 allChristians are spiritual, ~piritrnules."~~ Thus he rcplaces faith in Christ withconsecration and tonsure. Again it has come down to the Gospel. Luther addsone more error of Emser's: "You also lie that I have made all laymenbishops, priests, and spiritual in such a way that Ihey inay exercise thc officewithout a call. But ... you conceal the fact that I added that no one shouldundertake this office without a call unless it be an extreme emergency [dieeuss erste nott1.1~~~ What Luther asscrted because of the Gospel, Ernser usedagainst the Office.Emser quickly responded to Luther's book in July 1521. Luther, plaguedby physical troubles at the Wastbur-g and tired OS the debate, was at first notgoing to respond. When he regained health he decided tr, end the argumentwith a sarcastic feigned capitulation: Dr. Luther's Retroclion of the ErrorForced Upon Him by the Most Highly Learned Priest of God, Sir JernvnrRmscr, Vicar in Meissen (Oct. 1521).'~ The debate had come exclusivelyto the interpretation of 1 Pet. 2, "You arc a royal priesthood." Luther notedthat Einser certainly had the support of some fathers, and tradition supportsthe use of "priest" for the clergy, hut by his very argument Emser admits thathis position is not Scriptural. In his feigned recantation Luther describeswhat his only intention had been:... in all my writings I never wanted more than that all Christiansshould be priests; yct not all should be consecrated by bishops, notall should preach, celcbrate mass, and exercise the priestly officeunless they have been appointed and called to do so. This was myfinal intention. 66It is Emser who has twisted his meaning. Luther proceeds to point outall the details in I Pet. 2 which show that Peter is talking to all Christians.

144 LUTHERAN TIIEOLOGICAL REVIEWSince Emser argued that the passage 1-efei-s to both kinds of priesthood, theeffect of Luther's investigation is to show that Enzser. actually asserts"everyone a minister"! The "priesthood" which Luthcr sees in all Christiansis parallel to that in Christ: to be both priest and sacrifice, and thus tosacrifice one's own body (Rom. 12:l).While at the Wartburg Luther becanme concerned about the preaching inWittenberg because of the reported turmoil (he was called preacher at thecity church). Citing a pair of letters Luther wrote,67 Martin Brecht suggeststhat he wanted Melanchthon appointed preacher as "an exemplary way ofdemonstrating the priesthood of all believers.'t68 In fact, what Luther askedwas that Philip would hold public lccture~~~ after dinner on festival days towhich the common pcople could comc. Luther argues that the lack ofordination and tonsure should not be a hindrance, for all spiritual priests mayteach. Furthermore, his status at the university authorizes him to preach, andbeyond that he requests that the city council would issue Melanchthon a call!His request is made clear by his directions: "I have written to Spalatin thathe should push the idea of our Philip lecturing to the peoplc in Gcrman onthe Gospels; Philip should do it on festival days and in some place like alccture What is the role of the priesthood in his‘! No one couldobjcct that Melanchthon is not consecrated a priest; being a spiritual priestallows him to teach, and his university office and the call of the couilcilwould give him a double mandate to do so publicly.In a more extensive writing to Wittenberg, Luther addressed his brotherAugustinians on the abuse of private masscs: The Misuse ofthe iMuss (pub.Jan. 1522).~l The pope had justificd his right to make laws (such as privatemasses) from Heb. 7: 12, arguing that Christ transferred His priesthoodthrough St. Peter to the pope. Thus the pope has vcmovcd Christ as priest,and has set up his own sacrifices in place of Christ's! On the contrary, theNew Testament knows of only Christ as priest, "who has sacrificed himselffor us and all of us with him."72 The corollary is that there is a spiritualpriesthood through which all Christians arc priests with Christ. What is then67 AE 48:307-12=WA GI 2:387-391.68 Maltin Urecht, ~LZrrrtlrr irltlrrr: ,Yhopig m7d Il~fr~~lng the K(~~i.~iiotioi? 1521-15.?2, t~ms. Jamcs L. Schaaf(Minneapolis: iorkess, 1900) Appal-cntly th17 intctp~ctatlnn 15 sharcd by thc translator of the Ame~icanEdition of thcsc Icttcr~.h9 IC'A Br 2:388 - conclo~~nretui. "to speak in public before an assembly." 4E 48:308 translates this "preach."70 AE 48:31 l=lirA Br 2.390. Note the Weicnar annotation: "Thus Luther did not think first of all ofMelanchthon p~.eaching in the city church, but in the university building or elsewl~ere," TVA B1 2:391 11.6.71 AE 36:133-230=T$'A 8:411-476 (Latm). Rewri~ten from noks inLu Gzl-man IT7A 8.482-563.72 AE 36:138=C17,48:415.

Thomns M. Winger. CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE PRIES I'HOOD 145common to all men is "prayer, access to God and teaching." Having accessto God means being taught by IIim, being in a Gospel relationship with~ ~ d . ~ ~Now, since the pope's pricsthood is fictitious, so are the laws of hispriesthood by which he establishes the privatc mass. This is a serious matter,"for to offer mass as a sacrifice, ancl Lo have anointed and tonsured priestsas is now the custom, is nothing else than lo slander and deny Christ and toabrogate and remove his priesthood and all his The New Testamentpriesthood consists of putting one's self to death and offering it to God as aholy sacrifice (Rom. 12:l). This is based on Christ as example. The popefirsther errs in establishing a ncw "ministry of the Word" which merelyproclaims laws. Inslead, the genuine "ministry of the Word" is common toall and involves proclaiming God's mighty deeds of Gospel (I Pet. 2:9).75In every case, Luther opposes the laws of the pope which rob the priests ofthe Gospel which is theirs in common. The monks will only find coml'ort asthey abandon laws in favour of the Gospel.Teaching Through Preaching: 1522When Luther returned from the Wartburg he addressed the turnloil inW~ltenberg with his famous Invot nvit Servzoizs. Throughout that year he tookmany preaching tours to further the evangelical pcacc. In many of thesesermons he expounds on the coinrnon prie\thootl and ils sacrifice. In all ofthese he stresses one's priestly role to the neighbour.Preaching on PS. 22:23, "I will proclaim your name to my brother.^^^,^^hc dcscribcd works directed to the brother. Our priesthood is based onChrist's. Since He took our sins upon Himself, we too must bear the sins ofour brothers. For the priestly office is "to bear, to teach, and to pray."Teaching comes from God to man; prayer from men to God. and this praycrshould be for the neighbour. Everything one does is for the bcncfit of theneighbour. In view of the riotous events in W~ttenherg, this emphasis is notsurprising.In a Sernzon von dem Tcruben und Stiimvzen (the deaf and dumb man),Mk. 7:3 lff., Luther emphasizes the role of the man's friends in bringing himto Jesus Sor healing. Just as Christ stands beforc the Father and asks Him togive us fa~Lh, so a Christian appears before the Father in praycr to bid Him73 /\E 36:139=1V/\ 8:415.71 AE 36:142=WA 8:418.75 AE 36:148=IVA 8:4276 W4 10"'. 106-8. Sec Blecht 67 for a description of thls preaching tout..

146 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWgive another his own faith. "Thus whcn I scc now that you have no faith ora weak faith, 1 go I'orth and bid God that he would give to you a atrong~hith."~~For he has crowned, consecrated and anointed us with the HolySpirit that we all in Christ are especially priests, and may do apriestly office, [that is] to come before God, pray one for the other.Thus may we say all together: Christ has become my priest, whohas prayed for me and obtained faith and the Spirit, so that I alsoam now a priest and should ray further for thc world, that God8would give faith also to them.In this way the Christian's faith hclps his neighbour much more than thcmasses, vigils, and brotherhoods of the "great knaves."Particularly noteworthy is a sermon preached at Weimar on 26 October1522 based on Mt. 9:2ff, the forgiving and healing of the paralytic.79 Justas those present in the text marvelled that the authority to forgive had beengiven among men (Mt. 9:8), so too we marvel today.So then Christ shows that we all may forgive sins. Thus the Gospelis a preaching which forgives sins. Let the "spirituals" take notefrom where they take the power alone to forgive sins, for the Gospelmakes it clear that we all may absolve. Who will oppress or stop upthe Gospel? ... Whoever now has faith anti is a Christian, he alsohas Christ, and who has Christ, all the goods of Christ are his. Thushe has also the authority to forgive sins. 80This sermon emphasizes in no uncertain terms that all Christians havethe authority [gewajt] to forgive sins, though it maintains that an ordainedpriest will usually do it. At length he denies that the pope's priests are anydifferent before God, or that they have cxclusivc possession of the Gospel.Finally he conclucles that we all are priests. Here on earth WC must honourthe Officq but before God we are all priests. The ten\ion here between theregular procedure of going to one's pastor for confession, ancl confession toone's neighbour can be explained if one considers the situation of thesenewly-formed congregations. In the absence of true evangelical pastors, thepeoplc must reccivc comfort from their brothers, and may believe that it istruc absolution. As the situation changes, and proper pastors are in place,77 CVA 10"':306~.78 CVA 10"':309.79 CVA 10"':394-YY.X0 CV,4 10"':3'14.

Thornas M. Winger: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE PRIES'I'HOOD 147then the normal proccdure will be for them to use the Off~ce. The Gospel isat stake for them. Thcy cannot go on being Christians wlthout receivingforg~veness-it is a life and death emcrgency.Near the end of 1522 Luther undertook to prcach through I Th15is an interesting time to hear his exposllion olchapter two. Thc whole chapteris founded on the works and fruits of the Chr~st~an life which flow fromBaptism (the theme of I Peter): "faith in God and love toward one'snelghbour."82 Luther notes that Peter begins with Christ:For sincc Christ is the Groom and we are the bride, the bride haseverything that thc Groom has, even His own body. ... He alsosacrificed His own body for us, which is the highest function of thepriestly office. Then He prayed for us on thc cross. In the third place,He also proclaimed the Gospel and taught all men to know God andHim Himself. These three offices He alw gave to all of us. Conscquently,since He is the Priest and we are His brothers, all Christianshave thc authority [macht], the command [befelh], and the obligationto preach [pr-edigen], to come before God, to pray for oneanother, and to oSSer themselves as a sacrifice to Cod. Nevertheless,no one should undertake to prcach [puedigen] or to declare[zusagen] the Word of God unless he is a priest [in thc officialsense]. 83What Luther says here of imitating the example of Christ does not yetspeak with full Gospel clarity. Thus we must die on the cross, Ibr "Itlhe trucpricstly officc is practiced when we sacrifice that villainous rogue, the lazyold itss, to ~od."'~ The positive side is that Luther is still cornbattingdistinctions among Christians before God which the Gospel and faith cannottolerate.The Need for Evangelical Ministers: 1523In 1523 Luther presented two cases in which the need for an evangelicalpreacher was obstructed by the papal hierarchy. In the first case, the preachersin Leisnig, a small town in Saxony, were customarily appointed by theabbot of the local Cistercian monastery, a man hostile to the Reformation.With Luthes's advice, the congregation chose thcir own priest. When theensuing dispute with the abbot could not be settled thcy asked Luthcr for

148 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWScriptural support for thcir actions. He fulfilled their request with That aClzristian Assenzbly or Congregution has the Kight and Power fo Judge AllTraching and to Cull, Appoinl, and Dismiss Tc>ochers, Estahli,shcd and85Yrovcn by Scriptztrc (pub. May 1523). Remarkably, the common priesthoodappears only once in this defence. What is most important is the properrelationship between the pastor who preaches and teaches, and the sheepwho listen and judge what they hear.The treatise presupposcs the overarching nccd for evangelical Ministers.Avoiding falsc tcachers is a matter of the salvation of souls. The need forleachers is Iounded on the necessity of the Word. "[Slince a Christiancongregation neither should nor could exist without God's word, it clearlyfollows from the previous [argument] that it nevertheless must have teachersand preachers who administer the word."86 Because the bishops and "spiritual~"have given up the Word, the congregation must act on its own to getqualified preachers. This is justified because "every Christian possesses thcword of God and is taught and anointed by God to be priest." As priests whohave the Word, they have the right to hear it properly taught. For withpriesthood comes the responsibility "to confess, to teach, and to spread" theWord. This is done primarily by seeing to the election of evangelicalMinisters. Everything hinges on the great need for the Office of the Ministryfor the sake of the Gospel; the priesthood of bclievcrs must sce to it that thisneed is not unmet.The situation in Bohemia was similar. The people were torn betweenthe desire for episcopally-ordained priests and the reception of both kinds inthe Sacrament, which the priests were required to denounce in their ordination.Prompted by the visit of a Bohemian clergyman, Luther wrote them atreatise to alleviate their dilemma: Concerning the Need for OrdainingMinisters of the Church (1523).~~ In it he argues that, rathcr than obtainingpapally-ordaincd pricsts by way of dcccption, thcy should ordain thcir ownMinisters, as the church historically has done. Once there are a few Ministers,they can establish their own episcopal system so that the bishops may onceagain see to the ordination of priests.88 It is essential to remember that theneed for Ministers of the Word is the primary concern. "We do not have85 AE 39:305-14=WA 11:408-16=M 3:75-84.86 AE 39:309=h'A 11:411=SA 3:79.87 AE 40:7-44=WA 12: 169-196. De ins~i/~rrnrlis t&ris/tis Ecrrlsicir is the Latin title. The translation ill AE 40,"Concerning the Ministry" is loose, to say the least, and obscures the whole purpose of the writing: that thenccd for Mini,~trr.~thc church overrides the usual older In thls emergency, especially when the alternativei* a dcvilish dcccptlon.88 .4E 40:41=WA 12:194.

Thomas M. Wingcr: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE PRIESTHOOD 149priests and we cannot do without them."89 Therefore Luther advises themto elcct and ordain Ministcrs without the Roman hierarchy, and thereafter toreturn to the people electing and the clergy ordaining.The first issue is the papal claim that only episcopal ordination canbestow the requisite "indelible character" on ihe priest, without which therecan be no mass or Ministry. Luther's response is to attack papal ordinationas an abomination. "In place of ministers of the Word the ordain priestlyfunctionaries who offer up masses and hear confessioi~s.~'~' Since they areordained for sacrifice and not the Word, they are really no Ministers at all.By their sacrifice of the mass they reject and destroy the sacrifice of Christ,so that the Gospel is at stake. "lndeed consideration of our salvation necessarilycompels us to abstain Srom their disgraceful and damnablc ordinations."ylThe answer to this den~al of the Gospel is to alfirm the priesthoodof all. This begins with the oft-quoted phrase "Sarerdotern non rsscJ yrnodpresbyterurn vel ministrunz, ilhz nasci, liunc fie1.l" ("A priest is not what aPresbyter or Minister is; the former is born, the latter is made").92 The papistsby limiting "priesthood" to the few, deny God His work in giving birth topricsts, They deny Holy Baptism by ascribing a special grace to the priesthoodthrough ordination. In this way he proves that there is no special graceor character lacking in men who do not receive the pope's chrism. One isalready "qualified" in Baptism to be made Into a Ministel.The priesthood of all appears agam when Luther argues that all yevenpriestly "offices" are held in common by Christians. The papal priestsarrogate "sacrifice" to themselves. They also turn what should be sacramentinto sacrifice (destroying thc Gospel). What is sacrificial belongs to all, for"in the New Testament there is no sacrificc cxccpt the one which is commonto all, namely the one tlescnbed in Rom. 12[:11, where Paul teaches us topresent our bodies as a sacrifice, just as Christ 5acvifices his body Sor us onthe cross."93 The papists have stolen another common priestly function whenthey reserve prayer to themselves, for "since we are commanded to ray forall, certainly all are equally commanded to function as priests.."' Thus89 4E 40:1S=WA 12: 177. Immediately before lliis is the sentence, ne~e~siim nun tuliu CLWUI "necrssily doesnot worry about such things' which the AE mistranslates as "Necessily knows no law." Lulher is 1101advocating anarchy or the despising of the order, but that in an emergency you simply act. do what isncccssarg.90 AE 40:12=WA 12: 173.91 AE 40:15=l17A 12:176.92 WA 12: 178. Our translation affirms the passivity in both cases, which A6 40:28 obscures.93 AE 40:28=l17A 12:185. Once again. one might object to the use of Christ as an 'example". This tends todisappear in the later writings, in favour of God's Word to us being the first action.94 AE 40:30=l17A 12:186.

150 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWLuther can conclude that "priest" should not be applied to Ministers sincethere are better New Testament names, and since it destroys the Gospel anddeprives all Christians of their role.Expounding the Scriptural Priesthood: 1524-30For the next seven years Lhe cornrnon priesthood is scarcely found inLuther's polemical treatises. Mostly it appearsas the text calls Tor il in histreatment of the Bible. For instance, in his Pref;lces to the Old Testament(1923) he identifies Christians as the heirs to the priestly sons' sacrifice: theold man is sacrificed (Rom. 12:l) when the Gospel is preached and believetl.35Yet it is not completely irrelevant in his debates with the Schwaer-96nzer, as many tcxts hint. Whcn he deals with Jocl he comes across "I willpour out My Spirit on all flesh" (2:28). We is reminded of the Romanists whorestrict the Spirit lo the Tew, and notes that no such distinction can be made,for all have the Spirit to be priestly.y7 Yet it seems that he thinks also of theZwickau "pl-ophets" who demand a demonstration of a special level ofspirituality. Apparently he views both the papists and the "prophets" asSchwael-lner., for they both restrict the Spirit to a few. The priesthood of alldoes not allow for cithcr distinction.The key text for this period seems to be Rom. 12:l.~' This passageexplains the paradox in Deul. 12:15, which speaks of the meats offered in"all places" instead of just the Temple. Luther- identifiec this with theChristian saci-ificing himself spiritual1 99 It arises again in his somewhatallegorical intespretation of Zechariah, "And every pot in Jerusalem andJudah shall be sacred to the Lord of hosts so that all who sacrifice may comeand take of thcm and boil the flesh of sacrifice in thcm" (14:21). "Every potis sacred" he takes as a reference to the priesthood of all. To "boil theS1esh"means to sacriSice the old man in your neighbour by teaching himGod's ~ord.'"His Lectures on Isaialz (40-66)(1527-30)lo2 are transitional, dernonstratinga change even within themselves. Side by side we find preach-95 AE 35.248=WA DB 8:30. Althuugh he lixs spoken hefore or Caith as a sacrilice, this is one of his cleareststatements that belief in the Word is a use oC the p~eaclling or the Gospel which he p~iesll~uutl is LU exercise.96 Lrclrrres or! Joe/(1524), AL' 18:77-123=WA 13%-12297 A1i 18 106=WA 13:10Y.')X For a mosl dctailcd cxposltion of Rnm. 12:l scc Luthev's scrmon on this text in the 1525 I.'/istriiposti/le WA17":s-l'.99 Lectrwes on D?~irer.orzoniy (l525 j, AE 9: 124=W.4 14:645.100 Lecriircs on Zcchar-idr (1527). /LE 20: 153-347=WA 23:484-669.101 AE 20:346=WA 23:663.102AE 17=WA 311':261-585.

Thornas M. Winger: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE PRIESTHOOD 15 1inglteaching and praise, with the latter slowly pushing our the former. Thushc writes on Is 43:21 (thc passage quoted in I Pet. 2:9):That they might declare My praise, that is: to teach and to preachand to praise God, at the same time rejecting everything else. Thereare the sacrifices and whole burnt offerings that reject all our ownofferings before God. To declare the raises or Christ is the priesthoodand kingdom of the Christians. 83These thoughts are continued on 61 :6. "This title, priest, must no1 beapplied to a particular person in the New Testament, but those who build upthe ruined cities and convert the people are the priests. They bring sacrificesby their public office [puhlico oficio], by teaching and givino thanks. Hepraiscs God and teaches the brother. Such a onc is a priest."'" As Lutherconcludes his lectures on Isaiah in 1530, he comments on 66:22.So today all tcachcrs arc pricsts. Hcncc the pricsthood has beenshifted horn a single tribe ol' the Jews lo all ni~lions. We are allpriests. It is the priest's task to bring sacrifices 10 God. This he doeathrough prayer, mediation, and worship. Let no one, however,105assume the exercise of this function without a call.The conciseness of these notes makes this difficult to interpret. However,it seems that the teaching aspect of priesthood is reserved to those whoare called, while the priesthood of all is defined more specifically as "prayer,mediation, and worship." This distinction lcads into thc ncxt section.Reaction to Infiltrating Preachers: 1530-32The writings of these years cannot be considered apart from the turmoilcaused by the Anabaptist "sneak preachers." Though Luther did not writedirectly against them until 1532, they were apparently a concern as early as1528.1°6 Provoked by the conditions found in his visitation of Sasonchurches in 1530, he wrote a "manual for the Christian princc" bascd onPsalm 82.1°7 Included in thc rcsponsibilitics of thc princc towards thc ch~~rchis the suppression oS "private preaching and sacred ceremonies." Uncalledsneak preachers are transgressing the charge of the called Ministers.103 41: 17:9X=M1A il":3:3~ ('hapte1.44 was erpnunderl wro~intl May 1529, ilccoiding to AI: 17:,~.In4 AE 17:117=W4 111':521 (latc 1529). Inc~dcntallq. thc phmc "public officc" is "cry confusing in thisCOlltCXt.105 AE 17:415=WA 31°:584.106 See I,fi/n.anng und Clanilesrirre Preadws (1532). AE 40:383=WA 30"':~ 18-27. Not surprisingly, lha"priesthood of all bel~evers" does not appear in this document even though they had clai~ned it a5justification for their actions (cf. Psalm S2 (1530) belou).107 Psuln~ 82 (Apil lS30), 4E 13:39-72=WA 311:189-215.

1 52 INTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWIt docs not help their case to say that all Christians are priests. It istruc that all Christians are priests, but not all arc pastors [Pfarrer].For to be a pastor one must be not only a Christian and a priest butmust have an office [ampt] and a I'ield of work committed to him[hefolhen kir~hspel]. This call [heru/l and command [hcfclh"man-date"] make pastors and teachers.,,lHe does not defend the Office simply through an argument about"decency and order" (as the Bohemian letter, 1523, tends towards), but refersto the requisite "call" and "nlandate" of God which confer the Office. Onceagain he must correct a misundcrstanding of his tcaching, for the priesthoodconferred through Baptism does not yet give the call and mandatc of God topreach publicly. 109Luther leans more and more towards the reception of God's Word inworship as the office of priesthood. Cornrnenting in 1532 on Psalm 45:l 1,"Because he is your Lord, worship Him," he writes:the worship of God is now the adoration of this King .... That meanslaying hold of this King and believing that He is the Son of God,who suffered for us and rose again; moreover, acknowledging Himin reverence, accepting His Word, believing and doing cvcrythingthrough faith in Him, to His glory, so that everything may takeplace, as Paul say\, "in the name of Jesus" (Col. 3:17). In this waywe are all priests, clothed and adorned with the same holiness ofChrist, whom we receive through faith .... 110Similarly, he is prompted by PS. 51: 17 to assert that the "divine sacriricesthat are pleasing to God are a contrite spirit and a humbled heart."'" TheOld Testamcnt is giving him the language to express priesthood in the wayof the Gospcl. "Even confession and thanksgiving is a gift received fromel5ewhere." 112A Teaching Come to Maturity: 1533-Towards the end of 1533 Luther completed another challenge 10 thepope's private masses: The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests108 AE 13:65=CVA 41:2ll.109 Luther notes that Christ would not let the demons He cast out proclaim who Hc was bccause they wcrc notcalled! AE 13:65=li7A 21 If. It is significant that when Luther writes nl this time about The Keys (1530),kre is nu mention at all of the priesthood of believers. He merely emphasizes the correct use of the keys.4E 40:325-77=WA 30":465-507=~~ 4:391-448.110 AE 12:289=WA 4011:595.111 AE 12.403=WA 40":458.1 12 AE 12:402=WA 40":457.

Thornas M. Winger: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE PRIESTHOOD 153(1533).'13 The issue was the aacrlficial nature 01 the mass which justifiedits abominable use in private, and the corrupted ordination which onlyintended to produce such sacrificera. The priesthood of all would provide anantidote again to thesc denials of the Cos el. The Gospel is at stake whenthey rage and rave against Holy Bapli~m~~They boast that their chrismand consecrating produce people more holy than Baptism can accomplish.'l5 Therefore the true priesthood should exalt thcir Baptism in opposition.We have been born of this bridegroom and bride through holybaptism and thus have bccome true clerics in Christendom in thehereditary manner, sanctified by his blood and consecrated by hisHoly Spirit, as St. Petcr calls us in I Pet. 1 [:9] ... [he cites also Kom.12:1, PS. 22:22 and Mt. 12:50]. So we are not only true clerics andpriests according to our right as children but also according to ourright as brothers. 116Luther never identifies what the sacrifice of the cornmon priesthood is.Instead, he uses "priesthood" to describe what a glorious character we havereceived through the Holy Spirit. In most clear terms he states what wasalways the case in the argument with the papacy: there arc no levels ofspirituality within the body of Christ. This is all the more essential so thatone's certainty in the Sacrament be based not on the person of the priest, buton the person and words of Christ.'17Perhaps Luther's most extensive treatment of the true Christian priesthoodis found in his sermons on Psalm 110 (MaylJunc lj35).' l8 He is firstprompted to speak of the pricsthood of all by PS. 110:3, "After your victoryyour people will willingly make sacrifice to you in holy adornment." Goddelivers; His people worship. Thus Luther draws out worship as the receptionof and response to the preaching of the Gospel. Sacrifice is defined as thistrue worship, produced by the Gospel. The "holy adornment" of all priestsis the rec~jption of Christ's gifts, and rclfZection in ~aise which will result inothers being brought into the kingdom of God. Id'.When he deals with PS. 110:4 "You are a priest forever after the order

154 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWof Melchizedek," he conccntrates almost exclusively on the priesthood ofChrist. Christ as priest has three f~mctions: teach and preach, sacrifice, andpray - acting as an interinediary between God and men. Preaching the Gospelis thc true priestly olfice, and this is passed first of all to the apostles andtheir successors. Christ gives His gifts through the Office of the Ministry. Incontrast to this picture is the abomination of the papal sacrifice. In this wayhe arrives at the priesthood of all (almost as an aftesthought).'20 Christ isthe only priest, yet He graciously bcstows priesthood on us. "But He is theonly one, and He must be the only one, who brings us to God by His priestlyoffice and shares the office with us. ... Thus we all as I have said before, havebccome the priest's children through apti is in.'^^^^ This priesthood must beasserted because of the papal abomination. Finally Luther maintains thesornewhat paradoxical assertion that the priestly work is "teaching, sacrificing,and praying," yet only those in the Officc may "prcach, teach, andrule." 122When preaching on John 14-16 (Mar-July 1 ~ 3 7 Luther ) ~ ~ drew ~ theexcrcise of priesthood under the hits of faith (Jn 15:8). The priestlysacrifice is the honour of God. Rut the works of the second table also honourGod. ThereTore d1 of a Christian's works are priestly. "This not only praisesour works as good fruit on earth; but it also elevates thcm toward heavenand offers them to God as sacrifices acceptablc to Him for His spccial honorand His highest ser~icc."'~~ Ultimately the entire priestly worklrid officeis the worship of God, which takes place continuously through one's entirelife. Priesthood can be described just like worship: receiving the gifts of Godand extolling Him in praise. T1 is this life of faith which Luther finds inAbraham as priest:... We declare that those are true priests who believe the Word ofGod, offer the sacrifice of praise and of the cross, and do not walkabout in long garments but walk about in the gifts and jcwels of theHoly Spirit: faith, patiencc in dcath, and the expectation of anotherand bctter life.I2'120 "Thls is enough-perhaps too much-on this verse. However, \ce ought 10 make 5ome r-emarka abuui ille wayin which we Christians, too. are priesis." AE 13:329=l17A 41:208.121 AE 13:330=WA 41:207.122 AE 13:332=Wr141:210.123 AE 24=WA 45 465-733.124 AE 24.243=WA 45.683.125 Lrch~ws on (;EIIP.W 22: 1 1 (1 540- l). /\E 4: 122=W24443:223f,

Thonias M. Winger: CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE PRIEC;THOOD 155Priesthood is the Life of FaithIt is not surprising that the common priesthood should receive finaltreatment in the Sermon at the Dedication of the Castle Clzur-eh in Tol-ga~i(5 Oct. 1544),'~~ a classic exposition of Luther's theology of worship Thisis worship: hat our dear Lord Himself may speak to us through his holyWord and we responci to Him through prayer and praise." i27 The text wasLk. 14:l-11, involving the proper use of the Sabbath. In the Old Testamentthere was a particular day for wosship, and a particular people to be priests.But now we are all priests, and our worship is not confined to a particulaltimeor placc. We are priests "so that all of us should proclaim God's Wordand works at every time and in every place, and persons Eram all ranks, races,and stations may be cspecially called to theThis is to provethat as priests we rmy choose what day and place to worship, and we havcchosen Sunday in this new church. Thus the "proclamation of God's Word"is what goes on in divine service. The place of the Minister is to "preach tothe whole congregation" so that the priests may tale their place and "cometogcther to hex God's Word and to respond to him by calling upon himtogether, yaying for every kind of need, and thanking him for benefitsreceived." 29Summary and Cancl~~sionsThis is the most dangerous part of a study of Luther: to attempt to pullit all together. This coi~clus~nn on principle must be brief. One must refrainfrom trying to organize all of the ways which Luther uses thc thesis: "we areall priests." Hc said what he said when he said it. The purpose of eachreference WC havc tried to bring out. Ultimately, there is little change inLuther ' S understanding of thc priesthood of all. Yet as the controversieschanged and the Scriptures taught hi~n, some discernible developmentappears. Let us proffer a tentative hypothesis.In the easly twenties Lut her used the common priesthood to counter theGospel-destroying claim of the papists that their anointed clergy were in adifferent spiritual class before God and men. At various timcs Luthcr madesome very strong statements about the peat I ights or all believers. Foremostwa\ the preaching and tcaching of the Word, for it was this wh~ch they lackedunder the papacy. They needed the Gospel. However, once there were lnot e

1 56 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWevangclical preachers there was less need to press the right to teach. Theproblems with the clandestine preachers around 1530 probably pulled Lutheraway from this point. More strongly, however, Luther was compelled by thetexts he studied, especially from the psalms, to see the pricsthood in thecontext of worship. Though not inherently incornpctent to teach, its Gospelposture towards the Word was one of reception. The priesthood was fulfilledwhen the laity heard God's Word with faith and responded in prayer andpraise, and sacrificial living in their vocation.Thomas M. W~nger, U l990 g/-uduate of Concordia Lutheran TheologicalSeminary, St. Catharirzes, Ontario, is currently completing doctoral studiesa1 Cn~7rnrdza Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

BOOK REVIEWSThe Penguin Principles: A Survival Manual For Clergy Seeking Maturityin Ministry. Belasic, David and Schmidt, Paul M., Lima, Ohio: C.S.S.Publishing Co., 1986. 83 pages, paper.This helpful and amusing book is co-authored by two veteran pastorswho played a large part in my Christian faith and entrance into the HolyMinistry. Belasic was my boyhood pastor and Schmidt was from a sistercongregation. The former is now Eastcrn District President of the LC-MSand the latter is Mission Executive of the NW District, LC-MS. This bookis rightly referenced under the rubric of pastoral care becausc it providesrelevant assistance for the pastor to takc better care of himself and, as aresult,of his congregation also. In thc foreword, Lyle Schaller suggests that mypastor without faults would find little use for this volume. He also suggcstsvarious uses for it including: congregational lay leaders, seminary graduates,and seasoned pastors. As one reads the book it is evident that the publishermarketed it for use bcyond the scope of LC-MS and LC-C (one clearexample: reference to female clergy). Do not let this hinder your use or theinsights this work contains.Six principles are discussed in the same number of chapters. Eachchapter contains a mixture of serious and humorous anecdotes from congregationallife, a seasoning of relevant Scripture, and a wealth of pastoralinsight and application. Chapters conclude with reflcclionldiscussion questions.This pastor-turned-professor has led lay, pastoral, and seminarygroups through each of the chaptcrs. The results were consistent: a deeperunderstanding, appreciation and celebration of God's grace in the ups anddowns of the parish ministry. Without commentary, here is a listing of theprinciples shared by these two pastors who very much enjoyed their yearsin the parish:1. The Five Percent PrincipleDespite the pious things we say at any given time, less than five percentof any group of people in the Church is operating with purely Christianrnotiva~ion. The other ninety-five percent is asking: "What's in it forme?" (Thanks be to God for the five percent!)2. The lnverse Insight PrincipleMost of the time, in the world ol the Church, things are not what theyappear to be!3. The Ecclesiastical Friction Principle

LUTHERAN TIIEOLOGICAL REVIEWThere is a fsiction in the Church that burns up enormous energy,consumes endless hours, smothers creativity, impedes progress, andoften creates quite a bit of heat!The Creative Ignorancc PrincipleIn the ministry it is bcttcr not to know some things, even if you havcto forget them forcefully!The Tweaking PrincipleThey'll only do it to you if you let 'em!The Pastor PrincipleThe ultimate weapon for pastors is a "tough love" that looks beyondthe irritation of the moment and, in the strcngth of Christ, loves peopleas they are. SEHGeneration to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue.Friedrnan, Edwin H. N.Y., London: The Guilford Press. 1985. 319 pages,cloth.Dr. Friedman brings 25 years of experience in systemic family therapyto this volume that deals with individual families as well as the church family(i.e., the congregation). He shares his experience working with laity andclergy of Jewish and Christian backgrounds. As mcntioncd before, this bookwas used in Pastoral Theology class. It was also a text for Pastoral Care classin thc Doctor of Ministry programme. This dual use suggests its applicabilityto care-giving in areas such as Tamily counselling, congregational leadership,and clergy self-care.Four sections make up this 12 chapter book:I. Family Theory (The Idea of a Family, Understanding Family Process).11. The Families within the Congregation (The Marital Bond, Child-Focused Families. Body and Soul in Family Proccss, Whcn thc ParcntBecomes the Child, A Family Approach to Life-Cycle Ceremonies).111. The Congregation as a Family System (Family Process and OrganizationalLife, Leadership and Self in a Congregation, Leaving andEntering a Family).IV. The Personal Families of Clergy (The Immediate Family: Conflictsand Traps, 'The Extended Family: Its Potential for Salvation)There is a wealth of information in thc first two sections which lay outin a very orderly fashion the theory and practice of family process therapy.Especially helpful are the stories/case studies Friedman uses to illustratefamily process terminology.

BOOK REVIEWS 159Thesc terms give us a "handle" by which we might better grasp thevarious realities and roles of family life with which we are challenged in thefamilies of parishioners, and our own personal family, and in the family wecall the congregation. Before using this book as a classroom text, this readerstudied and discussed its contents with a pastoral counsellor for personal andpastoral purposes.When was the last time you had a genuine "ah-ha!" experience in whichyou finally understood and were equipped to deal with an elusive andnagging issue in your personal and congregational life? This book is filledwith such "ah-ha's." This is parlicult~rly true of the third and fourth sectionsof this book as the author deals with congregational ministry and clergyfamilies. The genius of this volume is the author's ability to name, explain,and help a religious leader deal with key issues (e.g. fear, guilt, anger) thatcan begin in one's family of origin and be projected into the congregationalfamily onc serves as pastor. One result of this naming, explaining, andhelping process is the equipping of stronger and more cffcctive pastoralleaders. The following is a sampling of the kind of questions addressed:How might 1 be happiet in minislry than 1 am at presentr?Why do some issues/people really bother me and why is it a recurringproblem for me?How can I be stronger and more effective in times of conflict?How might I not do things I honestly do not want to do or need to dobut lead others to do them effectively?How can I succcssfully deal with that one particularly challengingperson/board/committee?Why do 1 run away Irom certain issues/people and how might I betterrespond?Why is it that fear, gullt or anger so often are the mottvating factorsfor things I do in ministry?How can I be strong in leadership and tender in care-giving at the sametime?How might I better understand and defeat the common frustratingfeeling or "TT 1 don't do it, it won't get done"?How might a better understanding of family process in my family oforigin, my congregational family and tny personal family better equipme as a person and as a pastor?This is a book profitably read at the outset of public ministry. However,it is probably more apprcciated by onc experienced in the challcngcs and

160 LIJTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWjoys of ministry. Personally and professionally this volume is a valuable tool.SEHUser Friendly Churches: What Christiarzs Need to Know Abozlt theChurches People Love to Go To. Barna, George. Ventura, California: RegalBooks, 1991. 191 pages, cloth.This unusual book is written by the founder and president of BarnaResearch Group, a full-service marketing research company in Glcndalc,California. The author has conducted extensive rcscarch for organizationslike Visa, The Disney Channel, Focus on the Family and the Billy GrahamEvangclistic Association. He has written four other books dealing wrlh theChurch entering into the Suture ol a rapidly changing world. When 1 frrstpicked up lh~s volume 1 was sceptical. It appeared to be an example of (forlack of a bettei name) a "church growth gimmick book" willing to lay asidetheology for pragmatics. Upon closer examination followed by use inclassroom evangelism teaching, this sccpticism was erased. Bcforc cntcringinto the stimulating and challenging 17 chapters of the book, the authoraddresses the above issue and sets forth the theme of hl\ research based onhundreds of growing churchexWhat is a user Sriendly Church? It IS a Church that is in touch withthe needs of thore ~t wants to serve. None of the successful churcl~esdescribed in this book is interested in being user friendly in the senseof compromising the gospel or the historic faith of the Church justto make friends with the age. Each of these churchcs affirms thcgospel of Christ boldly and without apology. But they are equallyfirm in their Intent to listen to the audience they target, and to meetcontemporary Selt need a\ the gospel cfrrects.The author continues th~s argument In the introduction by underscoringthe truth, "You cannot hope to have a growing chulch that also has substance~f you rely only on the methodology to create spiritual depth and stayingpower. Reliance solely upon methodology leads to an unhealthy church."The Barna Research Group concentrated its study on hundreds ofchurches that met two criteria: 1) the congregation had to be growingnumerically by at least 10% per year (worshlp attendance). 2) The churchgave ample evidence that ~ts people were growing spiritually. This book doesnot set forth a plan fol mmstry all ale encouraged to imitate. It is adescription of the char.acteristics that there healthy, growing churches hadin common. The author quickly points out that imitation is thc quickcst routc

BOOK REVIEWS 161to doom. Principles in ministry are illustrated and discussed in ordcr thatthey might be Lransl'erred and adapted to the congregation in which othershave been called to serve. The author has chosen not to reveal the names ofthe churches from which these principles were derived. This seems to be afurther substantiation of his desire that unhealthy mimicry does not happen.We may have some discomfort in the author's choice of certain terms(e.g., "felt nccd", "audience", marketing", etc.) If, however a pastor steepedin the rich tradition of Word and Sacrament Ministry can read through thescterms, much can be learned by the finding of the research represented in thebook. As is true with any new material, one must "chew the meat and spitout the bones."A key question seems to he: Are we willing to learn from thosc of otherChristian traditions? Are we in the LC-C interested in better reaching peoplewith the saving Gospel, as well as keeping and nurturing them in ourcongregations? Adding and keeping souls for the Kingdom is the rnajorpurpose ol' the ministry to which God has called us. Research has dernonstratedthat the majurily of Christian churches in North America are eitherstagnant or declining in size. This book builds on the fruits of growingchurches' hard-won insights. There is no need [or pastors to cngagc in themost costly and time consuming form of research (trial and error) forpurposcs of outreach. If you plan to buy one new book dealing with outreach,this is the one to buy. After reading and teaching its contents, I suggest thefollowing uses:I. The pastor rhould read and study its contents.2. He might then loan it out (or purchase a copy for) key lay leaders anddiscuss it with them.3. The church council, evangelism, or board of elders could be ledthrough it by pastor either at regular monthly meelings or in a retreatsetting.4. The "final" result could be a shared vision of changes to be made orprinciples to employ in the congregation's outreach and nurture plan.Here are five OS the seventeen principles (chapters and their majorthemes:- Exposing the Sacred Cowse No aspect of the ministry can be grantcd an excmption fromrigorous review and evaluation.Lack of the above means the church is susceptible to dctcriorationdue to negligence.

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWIf something is not working, scrap it and quit wasting timeand energy that could be better directed to outreach and nurture.- There's No substrtute for. a Real Leaderl A strong pastor is one who takes charge without breaking thespirit of those who wish to be involved.l He can remain in focus without being the focus of the church.l He is agreeable but also confrontational.*He admits to making bad decisions but will not make the samebad decision twice.- The Power of A Positive Attitudel Don't be content to simply get a job done.l Do it right or don't do it at all.l Strive to do it superbly.l A congregation led by a pastor modelling positive attitudeshas a contagious spirit attractive to others.- You Can Only Do So Muchl The importance of a specific vision of ministrylpurpose foreach congregation, clearly enunciated by the pastor and understoodand supported by the people.l Do one thing (or a few things) ~ ~ery well as a congregation.l If people in your community were asked to identify the oncor two unique qualities of your church, what would thosequalities be?- Whal User Frwndly Churc.hcs Do No1 Dol They do not limit God.l They do not beat a dead horse.l They do nut humiliate visitorsl They do not insulate themselves from the community.l They do not avoid confrontation for the sake of the Gospel.l They do not base all actions on precedent.l They do not take the safe route. SEHPastoral Theology. Edited by Norbert Mueller and George Kraus. St. Louis,Mu.: Concordia Publkhing House, 1990.

BOOK REVIEWSl63When within the LC-MS a book is produced called Pastoral Thrology,the temptation is there to compare it with the classic Pastordtheologic ofC.F.W. Walther or the book by the same name by John C. Fritz, a volumethat was the textbook for many pastors still active in the ministry today. Thisreviewer will rcfrain from making such comparison, but rather will attcmptto review the volume from the vicwpoint of one who must assist in thepreparation of men Sor the pastoral ministry in our Synod.Why a new book on pastoral theology? We recognize that if such atextbook is to be of help to pastoral candidates, it must address the lifesituations in which the church finds itself in its day. The theological principlesmust remain the same, must be Biblically based and consistent with thepublic doctrine of the church, yet they must often be applied to differentsiluatiorls Srom those faccd by the church in the past. As the church continuesto study the Word of God and its Confessions, it grows in its understandingof that Word and learns to apply it in a manner more faithfully and consistently.New situations a~ise in the church and society that must be addressedpastorally. There is not a word about euthanasia in the pastoral theologiesof Walther or Fritz, yet the questions must be addressed today. In their daythe whole conccpt was abhorrent to the medical profession and to Westernsociety. The church must speak to a host of other problems that confront itas never in the past. The introductory chaptcr in the book states this well inthe statements: "In a sense, there is little if anything which is new in thecanons of pastoral theology. Pastors have always been called upon to applythe means of grace, in corporate and individual settings to the needs andconditions of thc people of God entrusted to their care. What has becomenew is that certain aspccts have assumed a greater need to be addressed."The contributors and editors havc been faithful to the principle enunciatedin the introductory chapter that, "Effective ministry depends totallyupon the means of grace which alone create and sustain life in Christ." "Thesource of ministry is God himself, and its standard is God's own Word, whichthc pastor cannot approach in 'academic freedom' as the modern worldirnderstands it. The Confessions of the church are taken seriously as they areapplied to the practicalities in the performance of the pastoral ministry.The concept of having different contributors address current issueswithin their special cornpeterlcies is a sound onc, but it docs create theproblem of unevenness in style and in treatment of subject matter. This isprobably the book's most serious weakness, but the inanner in which thesubject mattcr is dealt with more than makes up for the weakness.The title of the first chapter in Unit 11, "The Office of the Public

164 L1 JTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWMinistry," would seem to indicate that the major emphasis would be theOffice itself, the "Predigtamt," its uniqucncss. institution, relationship to theApostolic Officc, purposc, ctc. Why was this not done? There are only twosentcnces in two differenl paragraphs that even indicate that the Office o-Fthe Public Ministry was instituted by God and must be distinguished fromthe ministry of all Christians.Apart fsom a brief discussion of the different terms employed in Scripturefor the functions of the Office and the uniqueness of the ApostolicOffice, the chapter deals mainly with the Call into the Public Ministry. Ofthe five quotations from thc Confcssions, three deal with the necessity or acall.The remaining chapters in this unit are clear, concise, consistent andvery practical. One observation that needs to be made is in regard to thedivorce of a pastor in chapter 2. All the reasoning given as to why "veryrarely can the restoration of a divorced pastor to the public ministry bejustified," is based on the ability of the pastor to be effectivc. Does notScripture have anything to say in this rcgard when it speaks of "the husbandof one wifc" (I Tim. 3:2)'!A very important point is made in chapter 4. The three paragraphs 011page 47 ought Lo he stressed again and again to both pastors and congregations.The sooner congl-egations stop acting as corporations who need to beinterview prospects for the job, and the sooner pastors stop acting ascandidates for jobs, the sooner the "hiring and firing" syndrome of pastorswill pass from congrcgational life.Chapter 6 seems to be out of sequence. All 01 Unit I1 deals wilt1 thePastoral Ministry, its institutions, call, and qualiCications of pastors. Thischapter discusses the matter of how a pastor ought to deal with secular andquasi-religious organizations. This would seem to be more appropriatelydiscussed in Unit IV, and at greater length.The first chapter of Unit I11 is well written and the subject matter istreated with the importance and scriousncss that it deserves. The importanceof the Luthcran liturgy cannot be overemphasizecl. The church can onlyimpoverish itsell when it cleparts from sound Lutheran worship. This chapterought lo be read again and again by every pastor and congregation.In chapter 4 on page 98 the statement "those who commune at theLutheran altar are those who are in complete confessional agreement andfellowship with the other communicants" is misleading. I do know whcthcrI am in complctc confessional agrccmcnt with the teachings of the church,but 1 do not know whether 1 am in agreement with every other communicant.

BOOK REVIEWS 165The reason given for thc practice of a close communion is a very weak one:"We do not wish to allow those who arc not membcrs of our confessior~alfellowship to be misled or confused by their participation in the sacramentat our altar." Is there no Scriptural and confessional reason for thc practiceof close or closed communion?There have been some concerns raised by some knowledgeable Christiansconcerning two matters dealt with in chapter 5 of Unit IV. The two areorgan donations and living wills. Much more study and deliberation needsto be done before a positive statement can be givcn such as in this treatment.On what basis in chapter 7 is the statement made, "In a typical Lutherancongregation, at leat 30% of the members may he adversely affected by drugdependency"? Is this based on a scientific study within the average Lutherancongregation?Why, in chapter 1 of Unit V, is not God's command for sexual puritypresented as the first and most important rcason for Christian people to keepthemselves sexually chaste? In the treatment of this matter it seems as if allother human reasons for sexual abstinence outside of marriage arc theprimary ones, and, by the way, it is also God's will. "In addition to beingdisobedient to God's command and false in its assumptions, a qualitativedifference separates marriage and sleeping together."A disproportionate amount of space is devoted to the two chaptersdealing with marriage - fully one tenth of thc entire book. A concern that Iraise is this, that while the mutuality of life between husband wife is givenits rightful due and the divine creations oS human sexuality and the purposeof marriage so beautifully expressed, the whole concept of the headship ofthe man in the marriage is just passed over with an ambiguous statement that,"The husband's headship has been qualified in and by Christ, by the wayJesus meets and trcats sinners in order to save them."With such a well written treatmcnt on the liturgy in Unit 11, one wonderswhat is meant by this statement: "Worship services can be designcd withfamilies in mind." Are not all regular services to be geared to family'! Doesthat mean that as congregations worship according to good Lutheran liturgicalpractice this is not worship with the family in mind?In thc scction on artificial conception, rather than leaving the questionsopen as to whether it is morally and ethically defensible when the gamete inartificial insemination is not of the husband, the footnote at the bottom ofpage 203 ought to be par1 of the text itself.There is the possibility of serious misinterpretation in chapter 3 in theopening paragraph. Sexual intercourse during the dating process and living

166 LUTI-IERAN TIIEOLOGICAL REVIEWtogether seem to be placed in the same category, then the quote froni Lutherseems to be applied to this situation. Luther says that "this lying together insccrct in anticipation of betrothal cannot bc rcckoned as whoredom, for ittakes place in the name and with thc intention of marriagc." This he says isdifferent from whoredorn. If we want to apply this quote to the "niodcm"situation, then the 1eaz;t we can sap ih (ha( the live-in couple are not guilty ofwhoredom. However, Luther speaks about a couple who are "lying togetherin secret" and are in anticipation of matrimony. This is far different from acouple who profess to be Christians living openly in sin. Surely only the Lawmust bc brought to bcar in this situation. Statistics bear out that most couplesin live-in situations are not living in anticipation of matrimony.The chapter on the problems of self-love is a good Law-Gospcl pastoralapproach. Woweves, the secliun on power, sex abuse, incest, and rape coverstoo big a problem to be dealt with in two brief paragraphs. It has becomeevident in the last several years that sexual abuse, incest, and rape are muchinorc common even among congregation members than one imagines.Pastors must lcarn how to minister to the abused as well as the abusers.When the word "mission" is used in Unit V1 in such an all-encompassingway - from Goct'h mind 10 create Adam and Eve to the justifying work ofJesus in conversion in the inclivitlual heart to the people of God living asGod's people on earth doing good works, then the wosd has lost all meaning.In this instance the word means whatever the author wants it to mean. Thisbccolncs cvident when the quotations from the Confessions on page 238,which spcak of thc necessity of good worla in the life of the regenerate, are~~sed by the author to say that mission is the responsibility of the wholechurch.One of the most serious problems racing our church is how to relate tocongregations and other entities in other church bodies. The temptation tocompromise our confessional stance for expediency's sake or for publicrelations in a community, presents great spiritual danger and creates tensionsamong fellow mcmbcrs in thc confcssional fellowship. One would havewishecl that there would have been a chaptcr dcvoted to Unionism andChurch Fellowship in lotlay's age. But alas, nothing! Very unfortunatc. J.K.

BOOK REVIEWS 167Steven E. Hurold is Assistant Prnfessor of P~.mctic.al Thrlology at CoilcorcliaLutheran Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta.John I!or~olc, now retired ,from full-time parish ministry,, is a4junl.tprofessor of Practical Theology at Concodia L~itheran Theologicul Sevninary?St. Cat/iarir?es, Ontario ancl chairman ofthe Con~mission on Theologyund Clrurrh Krlutiov~s of 7'hr L,~.i/he,wn Church-C(xnod(x.