BUT! A Footnote! "It is clear from background information in the District President’s correspondence that this request does not pertain to questions about the service of “licensed lay deacons,” but about lay men “commissioned” by the congregation to carry out certain functions of pastoral ministry, such as public preaching and regular sacramental administration."
So the CTCR has at least said that it's not right, excuse me, "appropriate," for some laymen to pretend they are pastors. This is a step in the right direction. Dare we read into this carefully parsed statement a general tendency on the current CTCR to look afoul of the "licensed lay deacons" as well? After all, they Synod is only a collection of congregations. If a congregation can't "commission" somebody to pretend to be a pastor, then why can a bunch of congregations "license" a guy to do so?
Perhaps this fine statement from the systematics faculties is finally having its effect.
The upcoming District conventions will see several memorials to the Synod to get rid of lay ministry. The time to restore the Augsburg Confession in the Missouri Synod is now. Will the current leadership step forth boldly to do this? Oremus.
+HRC
Or perhaps we are restoring lay ministry, that is, service to one's neighbor through one's vocation. As a lay person I rejoice in the "ministry" God has granted me as father, husband, citizen, employee, etc. Additionally, I also rejoice in the ministry that God provides through his called and ordained servants (my pastors) at my congregation.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems is that even in the positive or hopeful statements, say, the CTCR statement linked above, language is employed which is, in my view, unfortunate. For example, its use of the phrase "public ministry." True, the Ministry is public, but the phrase implies there is another type of ministry. A "private" one? This might be what our good Flacius has in mind with his comment above, the sentiment of which I appreciate, by the way, but I do think it is dangerous to drift away from classic Lutheran language, which speaks rather of the "Church's Ministry" (ministerio ecclesiastico). One's calling as father, school teacher, etc, is holy and important, but is in no way a ministry.
ReplyDeleteI think another danger in the "public ministry" language is that it falls into the WELSian notion that there is a difference between a general "public" ministry and a more particular "pastoral" ministry. This too is hardly classic Lutheran.
If there are two types of ministry, they are 1. the civil ministry (more obvious to non-American ears for whom "ministry" is more common nomenclature than among us) and 2. churchly ministry. Both are by nature offices served on behalf of and for the public, the whole body (of the civil realm in the one case or of the body of Christ in the other case).
Deacon,
ReplyDeleteI agree that "public ministry" has been a very problematic term in the Missouri Synod's history. Pieper, for one, is an advocate of just the sort of "private ministry" that makes every Christian a preacher and administrator of each and every sacrament in just the same way that called and ordained ministers are, except privately. See his section on lay baptism for all the lurid details.
What is the history of the term "public ministry"? I must confess that I do not know. . .
+HRC
I don't either. Some practices are so venerable that their origins merit being obscured in the immemorial past; whereas some, by contrast, merit only to be completely lost to history. This falls into the latter category.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the AC XIV matter, to be sure, let me state for the record that while I have a higher view of the diaconate than some evidently have (I see, eg., a qualified & limited preaching role for the diaconate, which I do not see for the "vicar), the vast majority of LC-MS men who call themselves "deacon" today, the so-called "lay deacon," in no way, shape, or form perform true or valid sacramental ministry. It is a scandal. In exactly what world does it agree with the Symbols to have these men suppose to celebrate the Holy Eucharist? The CTCR gives up any hope of being taken seriously when it implicitly accepts such customs.
Deacon,
ReplyDeleteQuite true - but I am hoping that we can interpret the CTCR's move here as "damning with faint praise." In the letter of what they have said, they have simply passed over the "licensed lay deacons [sic]" in silence and condemned other lay men pretending to be pastors.
What is the spirit of what they are saying? That the licensing program is AOK? Or that it is wrong?
Either way, this triennium is the time to restore AC XIV in Missouri. With the systematics faculties' 2007 statement the Synodical facade of unity cracked. With the election in 2010 we have someone is office the 1st VP's office who is on long and public record against "lay ministry." In 2012 several districts will, Dv, send in memorials against it. It's Time.
+HRC
+HRC
Alas, the Missouri Synod is so hopelessly American that it cannot see across the pond at all, while, as I understand it, fellow confessional Lutherans over there have been routinely ordaining deacons for longer than America even existed.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the faculty statement is a most hopeful document regarding AC XIV.
One hopes that your positive interpretation is acurate, Father, & I am not here to argue against it. Nevertheless, I think it is good and (to use a CTCR term) appropriate that the CTCR's (& Synod's in general) shortcommings on this issue be clearly spelled out somewhere in the public (another LC-MS term) realm.
ReplyDeleteSo, eg., although the request (over a year old, by the way - don't you love the bureaucratic pace of things) by the SW District mentions certain particular cases or settings (house church, small group, or cell group) the CTCR could have taken this as a very apt occasion in which to speak on the issue beyond the parameters of the request.
Here's an example of open and blatant violation of AC XIV not mentioned in the three scenarios above: the professors who preach in chapel at CUW who are not ordained. Many think it is hardly a problem to the degree reached by the women who have preached at CSP. Many think it is not a problem since this is not a "church." Isn't it, then, perfect case for clartification by the Church? Such cases as this, or the "licensed lay deacons," which are now long enough standing customs (and sanctioned at official levels), are not likely to be broached by Synod entities, such as a district, and yet they merit being addressed.
Just another thought: why do both the question to the CTCR and the CTCR's answer couch the issue with the qualifier that only the "regular" execution of ministerial duties are appropriately reserved for those ordained for them? That is, what are the irregular situations in which it is totally okay for lay folk to step into the role of the Ministry? Is this their code for the "lay licensed deacons"?
ReplyDeleteI think their mentioning emergency baptism by a lay person is the key to understanding what the opposite of "regular" is.
ReplyDeleteThey also ought to speak against unordained vicars "consecrating" while on vicarage. I don't know how things are at CTS, but when I was at CSL a huge chunk (maybe over half) of my classmates were made to do this on vicarage. That action, no doubt, teaches young men that ministry by the unordained is "appropriate" louder than any faculty statement to the contrary ever will.
ReplyDeleteH.R.: But the "regularly" language is specifically modified by this:
ReplyDelete"viz. the public proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments."
Also, later in the document, the specific point is made that
"the CTCR understands that 'administering the Sacraments' is not speaking of any exceptional circumstance, such as the Baptism of someone who is dying. Rather, it is understood to refer to the regular, public administration of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in and on behalf of this 'house church'."
I may have just answered my own question. Sorry about that. On the other hand, a clarification, from the same entity that wrote the document, about what exactly it thinks is acceptable exercise of the Pastoral office by someone not a pastor (what is all included in what is not "regular" but acceptable) would have been, and would be, good, so that we need not merely deduce such things from them.
ReplyDeleteFr. Hayes,
ReplyDeleteYes, this is an absolute scandal and both seminary faculties should, in my estimation, frankly be ashamed that they send young men out there and allow this to happen. The excuse is that the authority to prevent this resides in the office of DP. And surely, those folks should stop it as well. But the seminary has the power to stop sending vicars to places where this has happened.
+HRC
They could at least tell outgoing vicars not to consecrate. Qui tacet consentire videtur...
ReplyDeleteBut if they did that, they might be called upon to back up the students. . .
ReplyDeleteAs for the vicars consecrating... Nothing good can come from it. Half of us end up hating the office and the other half end up angry.
ReplyDelete