I am very much looking forward to Fr. Harrison's revised translation of Kirche und Amt. Those of us with subpar German, limited time, or both will benefit greatly from a faithful, scholarly translation of the work which is supposed to be the "voice of our church" on the topic that continues to plague contemporary Confessional Lutheranism. Word on the street is that the currently available translation is inaccurate - and beyond any doubt, a vast majority of the folks who pressed the "yes" button at the 1998 [correction: 2001] Convention hadn't read the thing anyway. (But that's how legislative bodies work these days - ever heard of the Patriot Act or Obamacare?) Therefore, Fr. Harrison's time is well spent in getting this into the hands of the Synod.
For my own part, I become more and more convinced that what we really need on the topic of Church and Ministry is a bold ad fontes back to the Confessions and the Confessional writers, their influences, their historical context, etc. My own study in this regard leads me to believe that there was a definite divide between Luther on the one hand and Chemnitz on the other when it came to Church and Ministry and that this divide at the beginning has reverberated down the centuries. Walther made a heroic attempt to reconcile these two strains of thought. I am not convinced that he succeeded - but hitherto I have been frustrated in making a thorough study of the question due to the lack of a scholarly edition/translation of Kirche und Amt. Bring it on!
+HRC
"Word on the street is that the currently available translation is inaccurate"
ReplyDeleteThe currently available translation is Prof. J. T. Mueller's Church and Ministry (CPH, 1987, 366 p.). Regardless of which street corner the rumor was heard, Martin Luther states: "But if we gossip about another in all corners, and stir the filth, no one will be reformed, and afterwards when we are to stand up and bear witness, we deny having said so. Therefore it would serve such tongues right if their itch for slander were severely punished, as a warning to others."
"... and beyond any doubt, a vast majority of the folks who pressed the "yes" button at the 1998 Convention hadn't read the thing anyway."
And pressing the buttons in 1998 would not have done any good. They had three more years to "read the thing" before pressing the relevant buttons at the 2001 convention where the Synod reaffirmed its commitment to C.F.W. Walther’s "Church and Ministry" in RESOLUTION 7-17A - To Affirm Synod’s Official Position on Church and Ministry (see 2001 Convention Proceedings, pp. 172-173)
Herr Vehse,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the correction on the year - it was 2001 when a bunch of people voted for something that they hadn't read.
Regarding Mueller's translation - have you found it to be a faithful translation? My German is not facile enough to judge - so I have leaned on the advice of others I know with that skill set. I think this is a position that most would consider both wise and just.
+HRC
Herr Vehse,
ReplyDeleteOh - and do you think Fr. Harrison is wasting his time in preparing a new English edition?
+HRC
"... it was 2001 when a bunch of people voted for something that they hadn't read."
ReplyDeleteIf this were true, it would be a shameful indictment of such Missouri Synod pastors as well as the quality of delegates congregations send to the conventions.
"Regarding Mueller's translation - have you found it to be a faithful translation?"
From five English translations of C.F.W. Walther's Nine Theses on the Church and Ten Theses on the Ministry one can see that J.T. Mueller's 1962 translation is really not significantly different from translations by August Graebner (1897), W.H.T. Dau (1938), Theodore G. Tappert (1972), and John Drickamer (1981). A side-by-side comparison table is here in Appendix II. The original German theses are in Appendix I. The 3rd Edition of Kirche und Amt is here.
in his review (Concordia Theological Quarterly, 52-4, Oct. 1988, pp. 311-313). Prof. Marquart (1934-2006), who was fluent in German as was Mueller, noted half a dozen minor flaws, but concluded: "Despite such relatively minor blemishes, [Mueller's translation] as a whole is overwhelmingly valuable, and will result in great benefits to the church if taken seriously, especially by our public ministry today."
And even if one claims there is a significant translation error here or there, where do the mistranslations occur? In the theses themselves? As I noted previously, one can go to the links and compare the several translations or the original German to see there is no significant difference. Of the Scriptural references or excerpts from the Lutheran Confessions provided by Walther? A number of other English translations of Scripture or the Confessions have been independently available even when Mueller translated these. Of the writings of Luther? Many of these had also been translated into English and published by others at that time. Of other Lutheran theologians? If by this time, the support for a particular thesis was not already well established, would a mistranslation by Mueller in an excerpt of one of the many Lutheran or early church theologians cause a thesis to be overturned?
Also, in his Preface Prof. Mueller acknowledged the assistance, counseling, and research of Dr. Lewis Spitz, Prof. Lorenz Wunderlich, and Rev. August Suelflow. And after more than two decades there still has been no formal request from a synodical member to the LCMS Commission for Doctrinal Review to remove the doctrinal certification from Mueller's book, which is still being sold by CPH.
"Oh - and do you think Fr. Harrison is wasting his time in preparing a new English edition?"
Just as there are multiple translations of the Lutheran Confessions (or of many of Luther's writings), a new translation of Walther's Kirche und Amt will provide another good opportunity to view from the perspective of the new translator what the Missouri Synod reaffirmed in 2001 as the "definitive statement under Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions of the Synod's understanding on the subject of church and ministry."
Another translation of Walther's Kirche und Amt was done by W.H.T. Dau. An abridged version is included in Walther and the Church (Wm. Dallman, W.H.T. Dau, and Th. Engelder, Ed., CPH, 1938). In his introduction of Walther's theses, Dau writes:
ReplyDelete"Church and Ministry is a polemical essay. However only once, on the title-page, Walther names his immediate opponent. Throughout the treatise there are numerous refeences to outcroppings of clerical autocracy in the history of the Christian Church, chiefly Romanism and Romanizing tendencies in Protestantism, but nowhere is there a studied, systematic discussion of their tenets. They are introduced simply for the sake of illustration." [p.51]
"The charge has been hurled against the Missouri Synod that its position on the points in controversy was unscriptural and un-Lutheran. Evidently, then, the rebuttal must come out of the Scriptues and the Lutheran Confessions. Accordingly, Walther first sets up theses - nine for the doctrine of the Church, ten for the doctrine of the Ministry - in which he has crystallized detailed points of doctrine whch are affected by the conroversy." [p.52]
"Walther is a thoroughly German writer, and the German which he writes is a poser. Few of the pesent generation of his professed followers do understand him any longer. To make him talk intelligent English and to speak idiomatically in our tongue, his ponderous, formidably involved clauses have had to be taken apart wherever this was at all feasible. However, in every instance Walther's connectives have been reporduced, so that there is never a conscious deviation from the logic in his constructions.
"Another difficulty whch the translator encountered - and the reader will encounter - is this: Walther's proof-texts are quoted from Luther's German Bible. This differs from the English King James Version, as everybody knows who has had to work with both renderings. The construction of the terms in a given clause is not always identical in both versions. Idiomatic words and phrases of the German Bible, in which Luther made God talk German to his Germans, have not always their exact counterparts in English. Luther's Hausehre in Ps. 68:12 is poorly rendered by "she that tarried at home"; "hearing" in Rom.10:17 for Luther's "Predigt" weakens Walther's argument; etc., etc. It is a question whether Jas. 3:1 in Thesis I on the Ministry really proves as readily in the English version what Walther wants to prove. If there were space, this matter would deserve a special chapter.
"Happily, in no instance except Joel 2:23 is the essence of Walther's argument affected by these differences. Also the English text of the Scripture supports his reasoning fully. What he taught in German is just as true in English; only the expression of his thoughts is not always as catching, captivating, charming, in our vernacular as it is assuredly in Luther's." [pp. 55-56]
"My own study in this regard leads me to believe that there was a definite divide between Luther on the one hand and Chemnitz on the other when it came to Church and Ministry and that this divide at the beginning has reverberated down the centuries."
ReplyDeleteThat appears ominous until one looks at the support Walther used. In Walther and the Church (CPH, 1938, pp. 54-55), W.H.T. Dau lists the writers C.F.W. Walther quotes in the sections, "Witnesses of the Church in the Private Writings of Its Teachers." Of the 34 Lutheran theologians, Martin Luther was quoted 133 times; thirty-three other Lutheran theologians were quoted over 150 times. These include Gerhard (65), Chemnitz (18), Quenstedt (13), Dannhauer (12), Carlov (9), Balduin (8), Baier (5), J. P. Carpzov (5), Huelsemann (5). Twenty-eight other Lutheran theologians were each quoted 4 times or less. Over ten early church fathers were quoted.
"Walther made a heroic attempt to reconcile these two strains of thought. I am not convinced that he succeeded."
The evidence that for 160 years the Missouri Synod has officially held Walther's Kirche und Amt as the definitive statement under Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions of the Synod's understanding on the subject of church and ministry indicates that any such perceived differences in "strains of thought" are likely adiaphorous.
Fr. Curtis,
ReplyDeleteI believe that Luther was divided against himself on Church and Ministry, depending upon whether you ask the early Luther or the late Luther.
Early Luther is interested in wresting from the Papacy the right to ordain bishops, and returning it to the Church. Thus in early Luther you will especially find statements to the effect that even school marms are preachers of their own schools.
Late Luther is concerned with defending the ministry against the "sneaky preachers" and enthusiasts, who come in where they are not called, claiming to have a Word that the Spirit did not speak, and taking up an office that God did not give them. Thus there especially you find him defending Augustana XIV, and insisting that that every Christian's right to the pastoral office does not mean that every Christian has the right to preach, but that that none can take away from the Church the right to call and ordain pastors.
To answer the question as to whether Mueller is a faithful translation - I cannot say as a whole, but at the crucial point, Ministry Thesis VIII, I can say without a doubt that Mueller's translation is not only inaccurate, but intentionally misleading.
ReplyDeleteHe had no way to justify Missouri's compromised position on the question of the office of schoolteacher, and therefore he took a very narrowly defined function which Walther describes as: "school teachers who have to teach the word of God in their schools" (as Dau accurately renders it -- I have the German and I have checked it) and simply translates: "Christian Dayschool Teachers", thus elevating a helping office to the status of a branch office (to use Chemnitz's terminology, since I find the term "auxiliary office" horrendously ambiguous, mixing together offices of divine and human origins into one big witch's brew).
Thus Walther's intentionally amorphous position on the status of the Schoolteacher (which we might call late-Walther) continued to win out. A pity, because had Lindemann and Reinhold Pieper stood firm against Walther on this point, perhaps much confusion in the bronze-age would have been avoided. There were other voices as well, such as E. W. Kaehler, who in his 1874 theses cut through the muddy swamp that the auxiliary office doctrine had become.
Herr Vehse,
ReplyDeleteCome now. Let us not pretend that the Synod has its house in order on these questions. Was the Synod following Walther when it said no female school teachers or when it now says female school teachers are OK? Was it following Walther when there was no allowed "lay ministry" or is it now following Walther when it approves of laymen consecrating the Supper? Etc, etc.
+HRC
Fr. Diers,
ReplyDeleteMy suspicion is that Luther was actually quite consistent - and then consistently ignored by Chemnitz, Gerhard, and the Wittenberg faculty in the two centuries following his death. I have spoken here of my evidence: Luther's Quasimodo geniti sermons (now available in English as Vol. 69 in the AE) and the Wittenberg faculty's denial (1674) that laymen can either consecrate the Sacrament or pronounce absolution in exactly the same way as ministers.
This is an obvious contradiction. My study is ongoing, and I hope someone beats me to it because I will probably never get around to putting together a thorough study but the most interesting question for research, it seems to me, would be this: an honest comparison and contrast between Luther and Chemnitz on the minsitry, specifically when it comes to laymen conducting the sacraments. I don't believe this has ever been done. Walther's plan is to cherry pick the dogmaticians and string isolated quotations together. There is a place for that, but it is also a systematizer's trick to cover up any contradictions in the tradition.
+HRC
I can say without a doubt that Mueller's translation is not only inaccurate, but intentionally misleading."
ReplyDeleteYou may, but such a claim has not been substantiated. Here are the relevant sections from Thesis VIII, by Walther, Dau, and Mueller.
Walther, 3rd Ed., p. 342: "... das höchste Amt ist das Predigtamt, mit welchem auch alle anderen Aemter zugleich übergeben werden; jedes andere öffentliche Amt in der Kirche ist sonach ein Theil desselben oder ein Hilfsamt, das dem Predigtamt zur Seite steht, es sei nun das Aeltestenamt derjenigen, welche nicht im Wort und in der Lehre arbeiten (1. Tim. 5, 17.), oder das Regieramt (Röm. 12, 8.), oder das Diakonat (Dienstamt im engeren Sinn), oder welche Aemter nur in der Kirche besonderen Personen zu besonderer Verwaltung übergeben werden mögen. Die Aemter der Schullehrer, welche Gottes Wort in ihren Schulen zu lehren haben, der Almosenpfleger, der Küster, der Vorsänger in den öffentlichen Gottesdiensten u. s. w. sind daher sämmtlich als kirchliche heilige Aemter anzusehen, welche einen Theil des Einen Kirchenamtes tragen und dem Predigtamte zur Seite stehen."
Dau, p. 79: "The highest office is the ministry of preaching, with which all other offices are simultaneously conferred. Therefore every other public office in the Church is merely a part of the office of the ministry, which is attached to the ministry of preaching, whether it be the eldership of such as do not labor in the Word and doctrine, 1 Tim. 1:15 [sic], or that of rulers, Rom. 12:8, or the diaconate (ministry of service in the narrow sense) or the administration of whatever office in the Church may be assigned to particular persons. Accordingly, the offices of school-teachers who have to teach the Word of God in the schools, of almoners, of sextons, of precentors in public worship, etc., are all to be regarded as sacred offices of the Church, which exercise a part of the one office of the Church and are aids to the ministry of preaching."
Mueller, p. 289-90: "Hence the highest office is that of the ministry of the Word, with which all other offices are also conferred at the same time. Every other public office in the church is part of the ministry of the Word or an auxilliary office that supports the ministry, whether it be the elders who do not labor in the Word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17) or the rulers (Rom. 12:8) or the deacons (the office of service in the narrow sense) or whatever other offices the church may entrust to particular perons for special administration. Therefore, the offices of Christian day school teachers, almoners, sextons, precentors at public worship, and others are all to be regarded as ecclesiastical and sacred, for they take over a part of the one ministry of the Word and support the pastoral office."
First, there is no indication in any of the Prefaces to the 2nd or 3rd editions that Walther change his statements in Thesis VIII on the Ministry. Thus the Early Walther = Late Walther.
Secondly, as with Walther and with the translator, Dau, Mueller is talking about parochial school teachers (Schullehrer) who do (one would think!) "teach the Word of God" to their pupils in Lutheran schools, under the administration of the pastor. These teachers are grouped with almoners (church social workers), sextons (custodian of the church and sacristy, bellringer), and precentors (cantors, choir directors).
Finally, it is not really surprising that those who are not in the Missouri Synod do not agree with the doctrine of the ministry as understood by the Missouri Synod.
Rev. Curtis,
ReplyDeleteCome now. Let us not pretend that this thread and the comments up to your 8:15 PM post have focused on the Synod having its house in order or the Synod allowing female school teachers or of laymen consecrating the Lord's Supper. Was this thread not started with mentioning the "antique bronze" commemorative Walther medal? Did it not transition into discussing President Harrison's translation of Walther's Kirche und Amt? And have not the subsequent posts dealt with the unsubstantiated claim that J.T. Mueller's translation was "inaccurate," and the claim of being "not convinced that he [Walther] succeeded" in reconciling the "strains of thought" of Luther and Chemnitz?
Yes, it's time once again for another exciting edition of. . . "EARLY LUTHER -- LATE LUTHER!" Today, let's look at what Dr. Martin Luther had to say about who can give absolution to a contrite sinner.
ReplyDeleteFirst - in his sermon on John 20:19-31 preached on the first Sunday after Easter, in 1522 at Borna, EARLY LUTHER states:
"Here the power of absolution is given to all Christians, although some, like the Pope, bishops, priests, and monks, have appropriated it to themselves alone. They say publicly and shamelessly that this power is given to them alone and not to the laymen as well. But Christ is speaking here neither of priests nor monks. on the contrary, he says: 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost .' This power is given to him who has the Holy Ghost, that is, to him who is a Christian. But who is a Christian? He who believes. He who believes has the Holy Ghost. Therefore every Christian has the power, which the pope, bishops, priests and monks have in this case, to forgive sins or to retain them... To be sure, all of us possess this power; but no one except him who was chosen by the congregation to do so should presume to practice it publicly. In private, I certainly may use this power. If, for instance, my neighbor comes and says: My friend, I am burdened in conscience, speak a word of absolution to me; then I am at liberty to do so. But in private, I say, this must be done."
And now [drum roll], in his sermon on the John 20 text on the first Sunday after Easter, 1540, in Dessau, LATE LUTHER states:
"But who can express what an unspeakable, mighty and blessed comfort it is that a human being can with one word open heaven and lock hell to a fellow mortal? For in this kingdom of Grace Christ has founded through his resurrection, we do indeed nothing else than open our mouth and say, I forgive thee thy sins, not on my account, nor by my power, but in the place of, and in the name of, Jesus Christ, for he does not say: ye shall forgive sins on your own account, but: 'I send you, as my Father hath sent me.' I myself do not do this of my own choice or counsel, but I am sent by the Father. This same commandment I give to you unto the end of the world, that both ye and all the world shall know that such forgiveness or retaining of sin is not done by human power or might, but by the command of him who is sending you. This is not said alone to the ministers or the servants of the church, but also to every Christian. Here each may serve another in the hour of death, or wherever there is need, and give him absolution."
Tune in again next time for another thrilling adventure of. . . "EARLY LUTHER -- LATE LUTHER!"
Herr Vehse,
ReplyDeleteI asked you some straightforward questions. All readers would benefit from your straightforward answers. Please review the questions and answer them.
And I answered your implied question about why I thought there was a disagreement between Luther and various Lutheran dogmaticians on the Ministry. See more here:
And Fr. Diers provided some evidence of the merits or demerits of the CPH translation of Kirche und Amt.
So, what we have here is you avoiding the questions asked to you about points you bring up while other are happy to respond to the points you bring up. That does not make for a useful conversation.
So, again: has the Synod really been following Walther for 160 years as you claim? What about the contradictions I mentioned above?
And, FWIW, I also anticipated your response to Fr. Diers: I also believe that Luther is consistent on this point. But it is equally true, and clearly so, that Lutheran dogamticians did not follow him. See here: http://gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2009/09/luthers-works-volume-69-and-exegetical.html
So: when was the MO Synod Waltherian? Today with lay ministers and female school teachers? Or yesterday, with no female school teachers and no lay ministers?
+HRC
PS: I forgot to put in the first link, but it is the same as the second link I did remember to put in. . .
ReplyDelete+HRC
Rev. Curtis,
ReplyDeleteYou previously asked me two questions dealing with your initial, unsubstantiated claims and my responses to those claims. I answered those questions and substantiated my answers with excerpts from references and links. Your next two questions to me began with a condescending, "Come now. Let us not pretend that the Synod has its house in order on these questions." Nothing in your thread to that point or in my previous responses discussed or implied anything about the Synod having its house in order on these questions. Furthermore your two "out of the blue" questions had nothing to do with accurate or inaccurate translations of Walther's Kirche und Amt or dealing with two alleged "strains of thought." The two question didn't even have anything to do with antique bronze commemorative medals.
Nor have I claimed "the Synod really [has] been following Walther for 160 years"; I stated the "Synod has officially held Walther's Kirche und Amt as the definitive statement... on church and ministry." Even though you officially vowed to hold the Scriptures as the written Word of God, you probably would not claim you have been following the Scriptures perfectly in your lifetime. Similarly I do not believe the Synod has been following Walther's Theses on Church and Ministry perfectly in the 160 years it has officially held Walther's Theses.
And now you magnamiously claim these were "straightforward questions. All readers would benefit from your straightforward answers."
Rather than spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to put Luther's "best construction" on such a claim, I will simply answer the two questions.
1. Was the Synod following Walther when it said no female school teachers or when it now says female school teachers are OK?
Insofar as the Synod says a female school teacher carries out her duties as an extension of the office of parent, the Synod is not in disagreement with Walther; insofar as the Synod says a female school teacher carries out her duties as an extension of the Office of Public Ministry, the Synod is not in agreement with Walther.
BTW, according to this 2006 source, the first women school teacher in the Missouri Synod was Elizabeth Damm (d. 1865), who started teaching in 1852, the year Kirche und Amt was published.
2. Was it following Walther when there was no allowed "lay ministry" or is it now following Walther when it approves of laymen consecrating the Supper?
I agree with the following: "Though we are not all called into the public ministry yet every Christian may and should teach, instruct, admonish, comfort, and reprove his neighbor from God's Word whenever and whereever he is in need of it, just as parents must teach their children and servants or anyone his brother, neighbor, fellow citizen, and the like. For a Christian may teach and exhort from the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, etc., anyone who is ignorant, weak, and he who is so instructed should receive it of him as God's Word and confess it publicly.... Behold, in such a way every Christian has and exercises his priestly works, But in addition to this there is the pastoral ministry that teaches and inculcates doctrine publicly, and for that we need ministers and pastors." [Martin Luther, "Second Exposition of Psalm 110", 1539, St. Louis Edition, 5:1036]
In the sense of this statement, the laity are ministers, but do not have a call to the office of public ministry. Furthermore, from this statement, AC. XIV, and Walther's theses on the Ministry, the laity are not to consecrate the Lord's Supper.