Saturday, September 9, 2017

We have moved! Our new home is now directly tied to the Gottesdienst website, under the new name Gottesblog.

Sunday, August 27, 2017

A Pastor’s Daily Prayer

At ordination, Pastors promise to be constant in prayer for those who are under his pastoral care. And yet, this seems to be one of the most difficult things to do. On the one hand, we do not know what to pray for as we ought, and on the other hand, the task can seem daunting and time-consuming when we consider our great need and the needs of our people.

Nevertheless, we have promised to do it. And anything that must get done must have a time and place and a plan. Luther is recorded as saying at one point that he had so much to get done that he couldn’t not spend at least two hours in prayer each day just to get it done. If only we had the same inclination.

I have found that “A Pastor’s Daily Prayer” in the TLH Agenda (pages 117–120) to be a helpful daily resource for keeping to a daily regimen of prayer for all. It misses nothing. It includes a confession of our own sin and failings, a thanksgiving for family and brothers in office, requests for God’s help for all members in need, for church officers, for Sunday School teachers, for our seminaries and universities, for the government.

I don’t stick to it word for word every time. Sometimes just beginning this prayer calls to mind specific petitions for family, friends, members, or the church at large, and it is simple to include it at those times. The point is that by beginning and just doing it, brings to the forefront all those things we need to pray for. It’s almost as if, the Spirit is helping us in our weakness, when we do not know what to pray for as we ought, that through these prayers, the Spirit takes our sighs and groans and brings forth prayers to our mediator, Jesus Christ.

So here it is in full:

O Almighty God, merciful Father, I, a poor, miserable sinner, confess unto Thee all my sins and iniquities; especially do I acknowledge my indolence in prayer, my neglect of Thy Word, and my seeking after good days and vainglory. But I am heartily sorry for them and sincerely repent of them; and I pray Thee, of Thy boundless mercy and for the sake of the holy, innocent, bitter sufferings and death of Thy beloved Son, forgive me all my sins, and be gracious and merciful to me. Yea, cleanse me through Thy Spirit by the blood of Jesus Christ, and give me more and more power and willingness to strive after holiness, for Thou has called me that I should be holy and blameless before Thee in love. 
I thank Thee also, O faithful God, for my family, my wife and children, and for all my relatives. Thou hast given them to me purely out of fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me. Preserve them in good health, and give them their daily bread; but above all keep them in Thy grace and in the true confession of Thy name unto the end.  
Thou, O God of all grace and mercy, hast also called me, a poor unworthy sinner, to be a servant of Thy Word and hast placed me into that office which preaches the reconciliation and hast given me this flock to feed. In and by myself I am wholly incompetent to perform the work of this great office; and, therefore, I pray Thee, make me an able minister of Thy Church. Give me Thy Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, of grace and prayer, of power and strength, of courage and joyfulness, of sanctification and the fear of God. Fill me with the right knowledge, and open my lips that my mouth may proclaim the honor of Thy name. Fill my heart with a passion for souls and with skillfulness to give unto each and every sheep or lamb entrusted to my care what is due unto it at the proper time. Give me at all times sound advice and just works; and wherever I overlook something or in the weakness of my flesh speak or act wrongly, do Thou set it aright, and help that no one may through me suffer harm to his soul. 
Glory and honor, praise and thanks be unto Thee, God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all the mercy and faithfulness Thou hast shown to this congregation. Thy Word has not returned unto Thee void, but Thou has here gathered a people that knows Thee and fears Thy name. Give me Thy Holy Spirit, that I may at all times see the good things in this congregation and praise and thank Thee for them. Bless Thy Word in the future, that it may preserve the believers in Thy grace, convert those that are not yet Thine, and bring back the erring and delinquent. Gather Thy people as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and be Thou a wall of fire about Thy congregation.  
Graciously take into Thy fatherly care the sick and the needy, all widows and orphans, and all who are in any trouble, temptation, anguish of labor, peril of death, or any other adversity. Comfort them, O God, with Thy Holy Spirit, that they may patiently endure their afflictions and acknowledge them as a manifestation of Thy fatherly will. Preserve their soul from faintheartedness and despondency, and help that they may seek Thee, the great Physician of their souls. And if any pass through the valley of the shadow of death, suffer them not, in the last hour, for any pain or fear of death, to fall away from Thee, but let Thine everlasting arms be underneath them, and grant them a peaceful departure and a happy entrance into Thine eternal kingdom.  
Furthermore, I pray Thee, Thou wouldst at all times fill the offices of this congregation and its societies with upright, honest, and sincere men and women, who have the welfare of their congregation at heart and are able to help me in my office with their counsel and their deeds. Unite their hearts with me in love for the truth; give them the spirit of prayer for me and for their congregation, so that we may in unity and harmony build Thy kingdom in this place.  
And since hypocrites and ungodly people are often found within the visible church organization, I pray Thee, do not permit Satan to disrupt this congregation through such or to hinder the efficiency of my office. If there a such in our midst, let Thy Word be like unto a hammer upon their hearts of stone. Have patience with them, but if they persist in their unbelief, hypocrisy, and wickedness, do Thou reveal them, so that they may be put forth from Thy congregation. Give me a forgiving heart towards all, and help me, especially for their sake, to speak and act cautiously.  
Preserve and keep the youth of our Church from falling way and joining the world, and keep them from the many sins of youth. Thou, O Lord, knowest how difficult it is to lead the young on the right paths and to divide the Word of Truth with respect to them; do Thou, therefore, give me particular wisdom and skill to be stern without estranging their hearts, and mild and charitable without strengthening them in frivolity and unruliness.  
Mercifully bless the education and instruction of the children, that they may grow up in Thy fear to the praise of Thy name. I commend unto Thee also the nursery of our church, the Christian day school. Hinder and frustrate all enemies of this institution. May I ever regard and accept it as a precious gift of God! Give our congregation able and apt teachers. Preserve them form an indecent and evil walk and conversation. Bless the work of our Sunday school teachers, and help them to lead the little ones into the Savior’s loving arms.  
To Thy grace and mercy I also commend all my brethren in office. Arrest and suppress all discord and dissension. Give me a brotherly heart towards all and true humility, and help me to bear with patience their casual weakness or deficiencies. Grant that they also may act as true brothers toward me.  
Keep and preserve our whole Synod, its teachers and officers, true to Thy Word. Cause the work of our Synod to grow. Guard and protect all members of Synod against sinful ambitions, dissension, and indifference in doctrine and practice. Bless all higher institutions of learning, our colleges, seminaries, and universities. Accompany all missionaries on their dangerous ways, and help them to perform their work. Gather the elect from all nations into Thy holy Christian Church, and bring them at last into Thy Church Triumphant in heaven.  
Grant also health and prosperity to all that are in authority in our country, especially the President and Congress of the United States, the Governor and Legislature of this State, and to all Judges and Magistrates. Endue them with grace to rule after Thy good pleasure, to the maintenance of righteousness and to the hindrance and punishment of wickedness, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  
Hear me, most merciful God, in these my humble requests, which I offer up unto Thee in the name of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, whom, with Thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honor and glory, world without end. Amen. 

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Correcting Some Anti-Antinominanism

There has been a heavy anti-antinomian thunderstorm coming from good confessional writers these days, and heaven knows it has been a welcome rain. We cannot condone sin in the name of the Gospel any more today than they did in the 16th century days of Luther's antinomian nemesis Agricola.

A most recent downpour against the antinomians came in the form of a re-posting, on facebook, of a lecture from the late and revered Professor Dr. Kurt Marquart on the subject. It's from January of 2005 and can be accesssed here. Despite the fact that it's always a safe thing to praise Dr. Marquart, and therefore always treacherous to question what he says, I happen to think that some of what he said was in need of correction. I was there, actually, back in the days when the Symposia were held in the Wambsganss gym. And I responded with a published article in the Easter 2005 issue of Gottesdienst.

Here it is:

The Third Use of “Gottesdienst
Burnell F Eckardt Jr.
Gottesdienst, Easter 2005 (Liturgical Observer)
Gottesdienst, Gottesdienst, Gottesdienst!  Such a popular word among us Lutherans this has become, and all to the glee of us editors of this journal.  In January, Professor Kurt Marquart gave a lecture on “The Third Use of the Law as Confessed in the Formula of Concord” at the 2005 annual Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions on the campus of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana (to see it online, go to In it, he sought to “deconstruct” what he calls “the linguistic myth that the German word Gottesdienst means God serving us in Word and Sacrament.”  In fact, said he, “the word means nothing of the sort. It simply means worship. The genitive is objective, not subjective.”  How delighted was I to see heads at once turning in our direction to get our reaction.  Delighted, I guess, in a rather vain sort of way, because it suggests to me that this journal has succeeded to some degree in debunking even Dr. Marquart’s definition, simply by virtue of our popularity.  Why, Gottesdienst does not simply mean worship!  It simply is, as everyone knows, the name of this journal!  Who cares what else it means!
But seriously, folks—that is, you whose heads were turning, and anyone else whose head might by now be turning—Dr. Marquart’s definition is indeed the common one, and the term with that definition is of course a very common word among the Germans.  Yes, he’s right: Gottesdienst simply means worship, and you can’t really make the case that when Germans use that word they really mean “God serving us.”  OK, but so what?  Is it somehow impermissible to propose a better etymological meaning, so that the term can serve us well in our catechetical stress on divine grace and monergism?  Have we erred if we choose to ascribe the subjective genitive to Gottes (God’s) with respect to dienst (service)?  That is to say, Gottesdienst, taken purely and without respect to usage, does beg the question whether we are referring to our service toward God or to the service which God renders toward us.  And while it is true that common usage accepts only the former, some of us like to take advantage of the etymological opportunity provided by the ambiguous nature of the genitive to catechize our people regarding the heart of worship, namely, that it is primarily all about God’s service to us in Word and Sacrament.  So what’s wrong with that? 
For what it’s worth, Philip Melanchthon happens to be one of us who subscribes to this “linguistic myth,” in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession: “Faith . . . is perfectly confident with respect to this, namely, that God makes a present and gift to us, and not we to Him, that He sheds upon us every treasure of grace in Christ . . .  Faith is the worship [Gottesdienst], which receives the benefits offered by God” (Ap IV, 49 [Trigl 134-135], emphasis mine).  Or again, “faith justifies and saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only because it receives the promised mercy.  And throughout the prophets and the psalms this worship [Gottesdienst] . . . is highly praised” (Apol IV, 57 [Trigl 136-137], emphasis mine).  To be sure, Gottesdienst is also used by Melanchthon according to Dr. Marquart’s common definition, but for him to look askance at any alternative definition with a dismissive “nothing of the sort” seems a bit of an overreach, to say the least.
Dr. Marquart himself cites a number of passages from Luther which employ a wider definition than the common one, as the Reformer calls labor and service to the neighbor a kind of Gottesdienst.  Does he honestly think Luther’s usage here was the common definition? 
But Dr. Marquart’s sights, I think, are on a bigger target than abuse of terminology.  First he quotes Luther, “There is hardly a greater sin than the laborious and invented divine worship [Gottesdienst], which happens with howling and growling in all churches and monasteries” (St. Louis edition 19:1138).  Then he follows with “Why is this important? There is a very real danger that people form the impression that what is really important to God is liturgical falderal and pomp and circumstance in church, and that their own daily labours in their temporal callings are trivial and unworthy by comparison.” 
Say what?  Liturgical falderal and pomp? 
Now I begin to wonder.  Maybe after all he does have Gottesdienst in mind, not according  to the common (first) use, nor the alternative etymological (second) use, but the third use we most commonly employ (as in, “Have you renewed your Gottesdienst subscription yet?”).
I mean, just what sort of liturgical falderal and pomp does he have in mind?  Bowing and scraping, perhaps?  Genuflecting, that is, as we do, before the Body of Christ?  That sort of falderal and pomp?  You know, the falderal and pomp of the Magi before the Christ Child?  Or smells and bells, maybe?  Incense?  Like what the Magi gave Jesus, or what Isaiah saw in his vision?  That sort of falderal and pomp, h’mmm? 
Now since we at Gottesdienst (third use) seem to be getting tarnished with Dr. Marquart’s careless brush, it behooves me to speak up.  Since everyone knows (see above) that we speak routinely about things liturgical, and since we are also routinely blamed for dealing in falderal and pomp, though usually under other similarly flattering designations such as, most commonly, “high church,” we need to make a defense of our kind of liturgical falderal and pomp.
“High church” is really a misnomer, for a number of reasons, not least because our churches usually don’t employ thurifers, subdeacons, and deacons, and they often have no idea of the difference between “Low Mass,” “Sung Mass,” and “High Mass.”  Not that we have any problem with High Masses, mind you; actually we find that kind of falderal and pomp quite fine, and wish there were more of it, because it’s the kind that tells us that when we are in church, there is something very important, something otherworldly going on here.  I’m reminded of the envoys St. Vladimir sent to Byzantium in the late tenth century, who returned with the amazing report that they could not tell if they were in heaven or on earth during the liturgy.  I suppose someone could snort that it was only liturgical falderal and pomp, but I find myself reticent about sneering at dignity, especially since I have seen it for myself, and am well aware that it was the expected and common kind of liturgy throughout most of Christendom for centuries. 
But most people who live in post “enlightenment” days now have the curse of anti-liturgical worship hanging heavily over them, especially in America, and find themselves very comfortable and content with pole buildings for churches, bare brick or whitewashed walls, corpus-less crosses (if any), large projection screens replacing altars, rock bands replacing organs, and pastors vested in gowns of academia or in business suits.  That’s the sacrilegious milieu with which they have learned to feel at ease, and anything which departs from this new norm is likely to strike them as falderal and pomp.  Well, excuse me for bad taste, but I’ll take the falderal and pomp any day of the week.
That falderal and pomp, at least our version of it, exists for the sole purpose of giving honor to Christ, and calling attention to His presence.  When we are in church, we are coram Christo—before His throne—and we will surely benefit when our ceremony makes us more instinctively aware of this, that we might be the more ready and eager to receive there His inestimable gifts.  You don’t adorn the court of the Queen of England in rags, and you certainly don’t bedeck the Church of God with junk.
Besides, I suspect that the “howling and growling” Luther had in mind is not at all the same as the falderal and pomp to which Dr. Marquart refers.  The monks, after all, were guilty of works of supererogation, thinking themselves holier by virtue of their many prayers and fastings, that is, in view of their kind of Gottesdienst, which is the common (first) use of the term.  They could have benefited from the alternative etymological (second) use, to say nothing of this journal’s (third) use (as in, “Brother John, have you seen the latest Gottesdienst yet?”).  Why, come to think of it, the common (first) use may well have contributed to the very howling and growling referenced
in Luther!  I say, let’s have more, not less, of the second and third uses of Gottesdienst.
It turns out, though, that Dr. Marquart’s preference for the first use of Gottesdienst seems in line with his complaint, which appears to be at the heart of his paper, in which he assails what he calls modern “antinomians”: “Sometimes we are told that sanctification is best left to itself, that conscious attempts to please God lead to hypocrisy, and that if we just preach the Gospel, sanctification will happen automatically. No, we are not automata.”  But just who is saying that we are?  We of the falderal and pomp camp?  Are we the “antinomians” he is chiding?  He doesn’t say.  And, well, maybe we aren’t in view here, but no one else is mentioned, which is what has me a bit nervous, even if Dr. Marquart insists that his use of Gottesdienst is only the common (first) use, which would at least rule out any direct reference to us (third use, as in “I just can’t wait to receive the next issue of Gottesdienst”). 
In any case, and for the record, we certainly aren’t going around saying Christians don’t need to hear the law, nor are we averse to exhorting to love and good works, which, Dr. Marquart notes, “require conscious effort, not unthinking, automatic compliance with inner instincts!”  We are not those who, according to his remonstration, “think one should not frighten or trouble the people,” or who say, “Listen! Though you are an adulterer, a whoremonger, a miser, or other kind of sinner, if you but believe, you are saved, and you need not fear the law. Christ has fulfilled it all!”  That’s not us, I can tell you.
On the other hand, I do question one thing he said: “It is true that the Law ‘always accuses.’  But this refers to the chief, or second use of the Law, which cannot be separated but must be distinguished from the third use.” 
I’m not sure I understand this.  Can we decide which of the Law’s three uses come into play at which time?  Can we say, “OK, folks, I’m preaching third use now, so you can calm your conscience”?  (R: “Whew, that’s a relief!”)  I never thought of the multiple uses of the law to be like the multiple uses of a kitchen gadget.  I’d be more inclined, therefore, to leave the saying alone, without qualifications.  Always means always.  Come to think of it, if you say (rightly) that the third use of the law is its application to Christians, then must you not also say that the law precisely in its application to Christians accuses them, and that, always?   What, don’t you think that “the New Testament exhortations to love and good works [which] require conscious effort, not unthinking, automatic compliance with inner instincts” are accusing us, even as encouragements?  They sure prick my conscience!  The new man in me certainly doesn’t need them; he’s already obedient; but the sinner in me just as certainly does, lest he get the upper hand.  He must be drowned anew, by daily contrition, so that the new man arises, etc., as the Catechism also says.
I think we have to leave it at Lex semper accusat!  The law always accuses, period.  It always accuses because I am always a sinner as well as a Christian.  The “automatic compliance” is, as a matter of fact, always in the inner man, which needs no command but is already obedient; yet since the inner man is never all there is to the Christian, who remains simul iustus et peccator (there’s the rub), therefore he needs constant exhortation.  And that is exactly what the third use of the law is all about.  It does not direct the new man, because he needs no direction—anyone who denies this fails to see just who the new man really is—but it certainly exposes the Old Adam for the phony he is, and forces him into compliance, quite against his will.  No one is only new man, however, and therefore lex semper accusat.  Semper. 
So just who is the new man, then?  It is Christ Himself, conceived and born within us through the Holy Spirit.  And how does the Spirit do this?  By Word and Sacrament, that is, the second use of Gottesdienst
Honestly I doubt that Dr. Marquart meant specifically to criticize Gottesdienst (third use, as in, “Have you seen the remarks in Gottesdienst about Dr. Marquart’s lecture?), but I also hope these remarks will, er, deconstruct the myth that all we care about around here is the childish thrills of smells and bells.  And my fear is that this indiscriminate bludgeoning of phantom antinomians, coupled with an undefined complaint about too much falderal and pomp going on, will have the undesirable effect of producing condemnation of precisely the kind of Gottesdienst whose main purpose is the preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the Blessed Sacraments, at which, yes, we will all do well to bow and bend the knee; for these alone are the means through which faith is kindled and enflamed, faith, which is “the highest Gottesdienst” (Apol III [IV], 10 [Trigl 158-159]).

Monday, August 14, 2017

What Does "The Gospel Must Predominate" Actually Mean?

Walther’s Law and Gospel was not written by Walther. (Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible. Trans. Christian C. Tiews. Ed. Charles P. Schaum. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010) The book was written from notes that his students took. Walther was lecturing, outside the classroom, in a somewhat casual setting. He did not set out to produce a careful dogmatic treatment of Law and Gospel but was simply issuing a sort of pep talk to the boys before he sent them into battle. He was dying and frail. He was also deeply mourning the loss of his wife. He felt heaven’s shadow upon him and was eager to depart. That brought clarity to Walther. He knew what mattered and he wanted to drive it into his students. His purpose in the lectures was to get them to preach the Gospel.

Walther had taken stock of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. He had sat in the pew on Sunday mornings. He feared that her preaching was not up to snuff, that it leaned toward legalism, that his students did not quite know what they were getting into, and maybe even that they had too much right doctrine and not enough practical application. Thus he made one last ditch effort to send out his last crop of students as those dedicated to the doctrine of justification who would, above all else, preach the Gospel.

It is admirable goal. The lectures are a blessing to us. The book that came from them is a true treasure. It is, however, like all good things, subject to abuse. If it is taken out of context or simply used as a source for pull quotes, it might well mislead us into Gospel reductionism or a bias against dogmatics as being “of the law” or of thinking that we can see into men’s hearts and know exactly when to apply the Law or the Gospel. So also it might give us the false impression that the proper distinction between Law and Gospel is a task that we can master.

I don’t mean this as a critique of what Walther wrote. I think what he wrote is beautiful and right. I love and use it. I mean this as a critique or a warning of how Walther has sometimes been used and mis-read.

By way of example, one of Walther’s phrases that is most helpful and which is also often pulled up as a kind of buzz word or slogan comes from his last and summary thesis: "You are not rightly distinguishing Law and Gospel in the Word of God if you do not allow the Gospel to predominate in your teaching" (Walther, 455).

I suspect that every pastor in the LCMS is familiar with this thesis and the idea behind it. The Gospel must predominate. This is Walther’s entire concern. He wants his church body to be built upon the doctrine of Justification because he wants to be the Church of the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord, the Church that knows the Catechism by heart and makes a quia subscription to the Book of Concord of 1580. That, of course, is not all spelled out in the  lectures. We learn that from Walther’s many other writings, but we need to keep it in mind.

In Thesis XXV Walther is talking about preaching but he also has in mind the entirety of the pastor’s ministry. He doesn’t much use the word justification though he does quote Augsburg IV. For the most part, not just here but throughout the lectures, he simply talks about the Gospel, the Good News of our reconciliation to the Father by the death and resurrection of the Son that is received by faith. Preachers don’t proclaim justification. They proclaim the Gospel. Ministers aren’t ministers of justification but of the Word.  Proclamation effects justification. The Gospel then, as justification, must do more than simply drive all of our doctrine, practice, and preaching. It must be the goal and purpose of our work. This is entirely correct. Walther’s admonition is well put and needs to be held before us at all times.

But if we don’t read this lecture carefully and take it in context as what it is meant to be, but instead only hear the words “the Gospel must predominate” we might get the mistaken impression that Gospel predomination means Gospel domination and Law subjugation, that is that the Law is not even necessary or that the Law is a negative reality that we must pass over quickly. We might even think that the more Gospel words and phrases a sermon has, and the less Law it has, the more beneficial and Lutheran it is.

In fact, in this lecture, Walther gives a long quote from Luther as an example of how to preach good works according to the Gospel and it is full of Law. Luther preaches the Gospel not simply for the forgiveness of sins, but also to change the hearts of the hearers so that they would do good works. It is important that we notice that this is in the middle of the lecture that extols the virtues of Gospel predomination. For he does not mean Gospel as license or Gospel that abrogates the Law and removes the need for instruction. The Luther quote used by Walther speaks directly to these false idea that Christians don’t care about the Law and morality:

They would change their tone if they landed in this prison. When they stand at the left hand of the Judge, and anguish and terror get hold of them, they will experience what this prison means. Therefore, this is not a sermon for people’s flesh and blood, as if they were given freedom to do according to their desires. But the point of Christ’s ascension and His rule is to make sin captive, to prevent eternal death from putting us in shackles and keeping us there.

Now, if sin is to be made captive, I – a believer in Christ – must live in such a way that I am not overcome by hatred and envy of my fellow humans or by other sins. Rather, I must fight against sin and say, “Listen, sin! You want to stir me up to become angry, to envy, to commit adultery, to steal, to be unfaithful, etc. This I will not do.” Likewise, if sin wants to assault me from another angle and fill me with terror, I must say: “No, sin. You are my servant, and I am your lord. Have you never heard what David sang about my Lord Jesus Christ, ‘You ascended on high,’ etc.? Until now, you have been a hangman and a devil to me. You have taken me prisoner. But now I believe in Christ and you will be my hangman no longer. I will not permit you to accuse me, for you are prisoner of my Lord and King, who has put in the stocks and cast you beneath my feet.”

Understand this matter correctly: By His ascension and by the preaching of faith, Christ does not mean to rear lazy and sluggish Christians who say, “We will now live according to our pleasure, not doing good works, remaining sinners, and following sin like captive slaves.” People who talk in this way do not have a right understanding of the preaching of faith. Christ and His mercy are not preached so that people should remain in their sins. On the contrary, this is what Christians doctrine proclaims: The prison should release you – not so that you may do whatever you desire, but so that you will sin not more (Walther, 461-462).

Walther then goes on to tell the students some people will abuse the Gospel and take false comfort in it apart from actual repentance and faith. They will claim to use the Gospel as an excuse to remain in their sins and not change. Those people, says Walther, will go to Hell, but the students should not try to keep them from Hell by more Law preaching. They should preach the Gospel and take the risk that it be misheard or misappropriated for it is the Gospel that changes hearts. The preachers should, as Luther did, warn their hearers. They should preach the Law sternly and call for repentance and a change, but they should also preach the Gospel and suffer the consequences, leaving it in God’s hands.

If Walther’s words were taken apart from his long example, which he claims is proper Gospel predomination and Gospel motivation for good works, and apart from his other lectures, let alone his many sermons and other writings, we might misunderstand Walther to mean that the Law wasn’t needed as a warning to the hearers or that the preacher should make no attempt to be clear in their distinction between Law and Gospel but should simply preach the sweet words of the Gospel without concern for how they were received. We might think that Walther’s attempt to comfort his students with trust in the Holy Spirit’s promise to work through the Gospel meant that no warnings were needed or even that men couldn’t fall away or abuse the Gospel. This is not Walther’s meaning or intent.

The example he gives from Luther includes much law. It even has “must” language and descriptions of fighting against sin or being damned. Walther doesn’t see this as contradictory to the Gospel or Legalism but actual Gospel preaching. To say that Christ did not mean to rear lazy and sluggish Christians is not only an accusation against our fallen flesh. It does not forgive sins. It is not the Gospel. It is the Law. But besides being and accusation, it is also a description of what the Gospel promises and gives. In forgiving our sins, the Gospel gives us the Holy Spirit who fights against sin and unbelief in us and gives us the strength to fight with Him. Conversion is monergistic.

Before man is illuminated, converted, reborn, renewed, and drawn by the Holy Spirit, he can do nothing in spiritual things of himself and by his own powers. In his own conversion or regeneration he can as little begin, effect, or cooperate in anything as a stone, a block, or a lump of clay could. (SD. II. 24. Tappert)

But sanctification is synergistic. Christians learn from the Law what is good and what God wants and by the Gospel they desire to fulfill it and to cooperate with the Holy Spirit:

From this it follows that as soon as the Holy Spirit has initiated his work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that we can and must cooperate by the power of the Holy Spirit, even though we still do so in great weakness. (SD. II. 65, Tappert).

The Luther quote from Walther teaches by example how the Christian is to think and speak as a Christian. The Christian learns to say “Listen sin! You want to stir me up to all sorts of evil. This I will not do,” and again: “Sin you are my servant. I am not yours.”

Later in his lecture when Walther says that “whoever is engaged in this preaching of the pure Gospel and thus directs people to Christ, the only mediator between God and people, he, as a preacher, is doing the will of God (Walther, 466)” we must understand that the pure Gospel is not only the fulfillment of the Law but also is defined by the Law. There is no pure Gospel apart from the Law and no service is done to hearers if they are not warned and instructed by the Law along with being accused. Thus Walther says that this preaching of the Gospel is the “genuine fruit” of true prophets “by which no one is deceived or duped (Walther, 466).” Those who mishear or misunderstand our preaching of the Gospel as license to sin, and likewise those preachers who preach to itchy ears and ignore the warnings and instructions of the Law, have not heard the pure Gospel.  Walther wants to comfort his students with God’s promises. He wants to teach them to leave this in God’s hands and trust the Gospel At the same time, Walther in no way wants them to ignore the dangers of sin or to make no attempts to address it. The example from Luther and  the deep and varied examples from the body of Walther’s own preaching shine with true God-pleasing and accurate Gospel predomination.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Gottes News

Big changes are coming to Gottesdienst in the coming months, fortuitously coinciding with our 100th issue anniversary in December.

We've been in touch with a web designer and at long last we are looking at streamlining our resources and overhauling our ship.

Our regular website and this blog will be brought under a single umbrella, as well as our facebook page. We hope to have an online store too.

One of the things we'll be working on is more automation of the mundane stuff, to enable us to spend more time on the theological/liturgical stuff. We'll be seeking ways to encourage as many subscribers as we can to let us maintain their subscriptions online (using credit cards, etc.).

This will cost us, of course, so if you'd like to help us out, we'll gladly accept your (tax free) donation.

Meanwhile, we are still soliciting notes from people who might have something to say in our 100th issue. If you'd like to say something, drop us a line.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Have you...

seen The Video?

The buttons were going like hotcakes at the Institute on Liturgy, Preaching and Church Music last week.  Even if you can't get your hands on one of our buttons, you can click, watch...and share The Video!

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Give Attention to the Public Reading of Scripture: I Timothy 4:13: Lectors, Pastoral Stewardship, and Gender Considerations

by Rev. John A. Frahm III

St. Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy in I Timothy 4:13, “Until I come, devote yourself [singular] to the public reading of Scripture, to comforting, to the teaching activity.”   Άναγνώσει [reading] means not simply to read quietly to one’s self (or study) but reading out loud, the public reading of Scripture.   It bespeaks the oral delivery of Holy Scripture.  David Scaer comments on the significance of the orality of Scripture:

When Paul spoke of faith coming from hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:14), he most likely was referring to the public reading of the Scriptures (see also 1 Tm 4:13), perhaps to Matthew and Luke and some of his own epistles.  Most of our New Testament was first given orally as sermons, which were transcribed into what we know as the Scriptures.  So distinguishing the oral from the written word may be a distinction without a real difference.  A public reading of the Scriptures in the church or elsewhere is a proclamation of the gospel able to create faith and on that account should be done with reverence and clarity.  Spoken aloud or read privately, the Scriptures and discourses based on them, that is, sermons, homilies, and devotional writings, are all means of grace.[1]

Given the focus of what Scaer suggests above, this should not be taken to say that there is not a difference between the canonical Word of God and proclamation derived from, based upon, and normed by the canon of Scripture (sola Scriptura; cf. also Formula of Concord, Rule and Norm).  The canon provides the “skin,” if you will, for the living (but unchanged) body of doctrine.   Controversy may bring out refinement in the way doctrine is confessed in a precise way, but it does not change the doctrine (Jude 3).   Brevard Childs notes in regard to the term “canon”:

The Greek word κανών with its Semitic cognate originally signified a reed, then a tool for measurement and linear rule.  The term developed in two directions in subsequently acquiring a figurative sense.  On the one hand, it signified a norm, standard, or rule within both a grammatical and religious context.  Thus, one finds the term in church usage since the middle of the second century as the ‘rule of faith’ (κανών τής πίστεως). On the other hand, the term was used to describe a list, a register, or catalogue, and was used for mathematical and chronological tables.  In this sense the term was used by Eusebius in his ‘canons’ of the Gospels which were tables establishing the Gospel parallels.  As is well known, in the middle of the fourth century the term canon was applied to the collection of sacred scriptures for the first time.[2]

Scripture is the unnormed-norm in the church and source of teaching.   It does not change.  Exhortation and teaching, or preaching and catechesis, flow from Scripture since it is God’s written, and canonical Word.  The canonical word norms whatever is put forth in catechesis, worship, preaching, or alleged prophecy or revelation from those claiming charismatic status or leadership.

In this passage from I Timothy 4, “reading” is put in sequence prior to and yet with exhortation and teaching.  St. Paul uses the word “πρόσεχε” which means “pay attention to” or “give heed to” or “to devote oneself to”.  The imperative, active, singular of this verb directs Timothy in particular to take care of what Paul is saying.  It is incumbent upon Timothy as pastor to take up this matter.

At the very least one must conclude from this passage that the reading of Holy Scripture in the Divine Service must be done well with understanding given to communicating the meaning of the inspired text for the sake of the Church.   Far from the I Timothy 4 text is the misguided notion of recruiting people to read in order to simply promote “participation” in the chancel.  Biblically that motive is nowhere connected to the public reading of Scripture.  The liturgical reading of Holy Scripture is not merely a matter of delegation, sharing duties, or simply getting the text read – a purely pragmatic point of view. 

What also can be definitely concluded from the text of I Timothy 4 is that the liturgical reading of God’s Word is an aspect of pastoral responsibility.  The called and ordained servant of the Word is given oversight and stewardship of the mysteries of God (I Corinthians 4:1-2; Hebrews 13:17).   In other words, he has much to say about how it is done, and by whom.   This activity would also include the selection of texts (lectionary).   One wonders why many parishes have “worship committees.”

Now two key questions arise.   Given the clear pastoral responsibility for the public liturgical reading of Scripture, may a designated layman, under pastoral oversight, read a selection from the lectionary for the day (for instance the Old Testament Reading and/or Epistle)?    A secondary question also follows, IF the answer the first question is “yes” in some form, may a woman read such a text in the liturgical setting or are there additional considerations from Scripture in regard to gender?


Is the reading of assigned canonical Scriptures (from a lectionary) in itself a public act of teaching in its chief sense?   If the answer is in the affirmative, then it would seem what we hold to from Scripture as summarized in Augsburg Confession XIV would rule lay readers out:

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called [rite vocatus/ordentlicher beruf].

The AC in Article XIV speaks of the pastoral office, the one Christ-instituted office of Word and Sacrament.  Augsburg Confession, Article XIV does not directly deal with the reading of Scriptures as a direct issue.   Since they are not exhaustive, the Lutheran Confessions may not answer every aspect of the question at hand.  So, more discussion is needed beyond the 16th century.

In the early church finding someone who was skilled in reading a text is not as common as it is today.  Early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament did not feature spacing or punctuation such as is found in modern presentations of the original biblical text.   Readings of Scripture were lengthy by our standards.  Also, with a lack of a public address system, there were some physical characteristics needed to project the voice understandably through the worship space, whether in a house church or basilica.  But this speaks to skill sets and not to the theological question at hand.

Is the reading of Scripture per se distinguished from teaching as an authoritative act of exposition and proclamation?   Our chief text at hand would seem to support this conclusion:  “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to the teaching activity.”   The general thrust of teaching in the New Testament would be the explanation and proclamation of a text to a hearer, rather than simply the reading of a text.  Thus reading (άναγνώσει) is not in itself the same thing as teaching (διδασκαλία).  While they cannot be disconnected, since the teaching comes from the text, they are neither synonymous.[3]  The liturgical use of Scripture deals with canon and lectionary; preaching and catechesis involves much more.  Certainly inflection, pauses, volume dynamics, and such can help convey the meaning of the text or distract from its meaning.  Yet this is not yet what is in mind in terms of teaching in the New Testament.[4]   As in the case of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch, teaching comes in the application, explanation, and proclamation of a text (both in catechesis and preaching).  In the case of Phillip his teaching was evangelistic in nature and context and not an ordinary parish situation.   One can see distinction between reading the Scriptures and teaching in Acts 13:13-15:

13 Now when Paul and his party set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem. 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. 15 And after the reading [άναγνώσιν] of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren [άνδρες αδελφοί], if you have any word of exhortation [λόγος παρακλήσεως]  for the people, say on.”

The Christocentric (Christ-centered) exegesis and catechesis of the Old Testament by our Lord on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24) is emblematic of teaching and preaching being more than simply the quotation or reading of Holy Scripture alone.   Such is the case with the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 and the sermons on mountain and on the plain.    The sermon of Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2) is illustrative of the distinctive marks of Christian preaching.   The character of the New Testament Church is apostolic and canonical rather than relying upon ongoing prophetic utterances of a direct nature.   The canon of Scripture marks the starting point of proclamation and the test of its faithfulness.  This is important to note in light of early church Montanism, modern charismatic movements, or other forms of individual or corporate enthusiasm in modern Christianity.  Yet with such recognized and done the faithful sermon is the Word of the Lord, just as holy absolution is also the pronounced Word of God, which is just as valid and certain in heaven also as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself.  Scripture is of no private interpretation (2 Peter 1; Acts 2:42).  In regard to the early church’s challenges in dealing with the relationship between a proper use of the canon of Scripture (and the rule of faith) in relation to preaching, Brevard Childs elaborates:

It soon became evident that much turned on the context from which one viewed the material.  Irenaeus complained that the Gnostics took bits and pieces of the gospel which, when correctly ordered, depicted the king, but they made a picture of a fox or dog from the same pieces (adv. haer. I.9.4).   They operated from the wrong context.  They had no true concept of the whole.  He therefore appealed to the church’s rule-of-faith, the regula fidei.[5]

While the authority of the pastoral office is found in the Word of God, the nature of the office is not so much found in quotation or recitation, but in the proclamation, catechesis, and predication involved in the application, exposition, and oversight that flows from the Word of God.   As Jesus says, “He who hears you hears Me.  He who hears Me hears Him who sent Me.”   They are ambassadors of Christ, His representatives who are sent by Jesus in similar manner as the Father sent His Son into the world.  Jesus is the Word who became flesh and made His dwelling among us.  Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the express image of the person of the Father.   And it is in the proclamation and teaching of the Word that children are begotten of that divine Word and in the washing of water with the Word.   The office of the keys expresses this in direct fashion, as the goal is to give life in the divine forgiveness of sins, even as the binding key of the law is used penultimately when there is manifest impenitent sinner who is not yet contrite for the good news.  Yet the preaching of the called and ordained servants of the Word is a dynamic (Romans 1:16) that flows from the canon of Scripture understood according to the rule of faith (Galatians 1; Acts 2:42; 2 Peter 1:21; Matthew 16).  This is illustrated in the theological examinations, ordination vows, and installation vows.

While the reading of a text is not particularly teaching in the strict sense, there is an aspect of text selection (choosing pericopes or references) which is related to teaching.  The use of a lectionary is a discipline for teaching the whole counsel of God in an orthodox way.   The selection of texts is not to be done for riding hobby horses, promoting programs or movements, or to steer the church into a “personal vision.”   It is the Lord’s church and the whole counsel of God is to be taught and proclaimed for the sake of the flock (Acts 20:27-28; Matthew 28:19-20).  The selection of texts or a lectionary certainly comes under the domain of pastors as stewards of the mysteries of God (which includes but goes beyond the sacraments in the narrowest sense).   This goes along with the call to the office and the requirement that such men be “apt to teach” and holding the apostolic faith with purity.

This brings up another consideration.  Are the inspired Scriptures all considered the same?   Are they simply to be regarded as a flat plain, or as a book with peaks and different uses.   Even a basic examination of the Bible would give the impression that its books are not all of the same type and use.  The book of Psalms, for one example, is certainly unique within Scripture in its intended prayerful liturgical use as evidenced in Temple , synagogue and church history.   David Scaer (among others) contends that the Gospels are also unique in their design and early use as authoritative catechesis.[6]   This is why preaching has historically preferred to be based upon the Holy Gospel pericope for the day, while not being legalistically required to do so.  The Gospels certainly are the focal point of Scripture in terms of the Christocentric fulfillment of the Old Testament and as witness to the salvific work of the incarnate Christ for the life of the world in the cross and the empty tomb.   Hence among the various distinctions among the books of Scripture, the Gospels stand out as a mountain peak.  Hence the historic liturgical ceremonial surrounding the reading of the Holy Gospel in the Divine Service of Holy Communion is without direct parallel except for the consecration of the Holy Supper itself in the second peak of the Divine Service order.  Thomas M. Winger writes:

Jesus is Himself the Father’s act of communicating with us.  In Him God speaks to us.  That is what John means [in John 1:14, when he says that the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us].   He’s referring to Jesus as the one who speaks to us from God.  And that is very much in line with what we Lutherans primarily mean when we speak of the “Word of God” as a means of grace – we mean that Word of preaching and of Scripture which is proclaimed aloud to people in order to create faith.[7]

Charles J. Evanson also notes in regard to the relationship between the Holy Gospel selection of the day and the sermon within the liturgy:

The Gospel is the principal reading in each service, and will ordinarily serve as the foundation for the preaching when the congregation gathers on the Lord’s Day.  Traditionally, Sunday preaching in the Lutheran Church has been based upon the Sunday Gospel to a far greater degree than is the case in other churches using the pericopal system.  This practice is based on the understanding that preaching in the chief service serves to interpret the Gospel and bring it into the present moment.  The preacher “says what the Word says” to those whom the Word has gathered here and now, to hear it with open hearts and receive it into faithful hearts.  The Old Testament serves as preparation and the Epistle for admonition and example.[8]

In regard to the usage of the Gospels, David Scaer describes the liturgical context:

Singing the alleluia before the Gospel and standing to hear the Gospel read affirm that all four Gospels are Jesus’ teachings.  Rather than speaking of four Gospels, it is better to speak of one Gospel in four versions, all of which preserve the words of Jesus.  In the early church, the reading of the Gospel was the catechesis and the sermon, though there is good reason to believe that the one who read the Gospel provided additional commentary.  Modern churches distinguish among Bible classes, sermons, and catechetical instruction.  Each occurs at a different time and before a different audience.  First Timothy 4:13 suggests that reading a Gospel, preaching, and instruction all belonged to the first part of the service in the early Christian church.  Luther’s Large Catechism is an example of how sermons that were originally delivered orally soon became “catechesis” for the priests and their congregations.[9]

In the early church the reading of the Gospel was often given to a deacon (who was not regarded as synonymous with the presbyter or bishop), whereas the Epistle would be assigned to a lector (reader)[10] or subdeacon.[11]  (Here some Lutherans would want to argue that a deacon is a pastor in the way Lutherans speak of pastors, others disagree.  We will not engage the topic of the historic diaconate directly here.)  In the Eastern Orthodox churches the reader is considered the second highest of the minor orders.  There the reader is responsible for the Old Testament and Epistle lections and chanting Psalms.  Here is where a lay-cantor could receive some consideration for liturgical responses.

It does appear when one examines the terminology for various orders and functions between the churches of east and west from the early church to the medieval era that there has been some flexibility in nomenclature as it is attached to certain duties, especially as one considers deacons on down into the minor orders.[12]   But it would not seem that we should make the early church or any era a “golden era” in clarity in regard to the understanding of the major and minor orders of servants in the church.  “Multiplication of ministry” is a problem not only seen among Church Growth gurus today, but it was also seen in the medieval Roman Church.   In his Examination of the Council of Trent, after noting that Lutherans do not “outrightly reject or condemn the distribution of these ranks” of holy orders, Martin Chemnitz observes concerning the “downward delegation”(my term) and decay in the orders, especially in the medieval church of the West (as so much religious “button-pushing”):

But this we justly and deservedly rebuke in the papalist orders: 

They retain and usurp titles without the reality, and the benefits of the titles without the duties; for when they had thrown the duties of the canonical ministry of the Word and sacraments out of their great churches into the small and lowly chapels in the parishes, where one or two were compelled to perform all duties of the ministry, they themselves retained the empty titles without the duties of the ministry.  Nevertheless they did not retain them as empty titles, but retained the names of the orders on account of the fat allowances.  Bishops no longer taught, presbyters did not administer sacraments to the people, offerings were no longer contributed since the churches were sufficiently endowed.  What need was there then for either deacons or subdeacons?  The custom of putting out the catechumens, the penitents, and the possessed had already long lapsed.  What is the use, therefore, of doorkeepers?  There is no need of a special sacrament of order for the shutting the doors of the church, chasing out dogs, and sweeping the floor.  The readers do not read in order that people may understand; the cantors do not lead singing in order that people may sing along.  Therefore they do not have the kind of readers or cantors which were in the ancient church.  They do not have the gift of casting out demons; what therefore is the order of exorcists among them?  The servants of the bishops and priests are horsemen and soldiers; nevertheless they argue much about the sacrament of the order of acolytes.  Therefore not a single rank or order of the true ecclesiastical ministry is found in that office among the papalists, such as were in the apostolic and ancient church, but they have only the empty titles.[13]

We can see that the medieval era is not going to be particularly instructive for us, except in negative examples.  The Lutheran Church of the 16th and 17th centuries had an up-hill battle in bringing sound theological order out of the decay of medieval Roman Catholicism and while avoiding the new chaos of the radical protestants (Anabaptists et al).  In his classic study on the office of the holy ministry in the Lutheran Confessions, Arthur Carl Piepkorn writes of the diaconate and minor orders:

By the 16th century the diaconate had become a purely vestigial state in the “course of honors” (cursus honorum) without any real function in the church in the Holy Roman Empire.  The term diaconus/Diakon in the Lutheran documents of the 16th century (for example, Ap 13, 11 German) must be understood as referring to ordained priests serving as curates or assistants to the rector of a parish. The Symbolical Books were even less under constraint to discuss the lower orders of the clergy.  These too had by the 16th century become only nominal stages in the process of becoming a priest.[14]

In the early church the use of readers or lectors was such that not only pastors were reading Scripture in the liturgical assembly.   In the earlier centuries of the church, before the implementation of a shorter selection of lectionary texts, longer sections of Scripture were read (for perhaps an hour or so) and so an argument for doing so in the name of good decorum, order, and saving the vocal chords of the presiding pastor could be made without too much trouble.   This being said, the selection of lectors was not simply a matter of a sign-up sheet in the narthex or encouraging “participation” and “self-expression” among the baptized, and certainly not as a means of encouraging church growth or getting inactive parishioners to show up for Divine Service.  The selection of readers is not to be done in such a merely utilitarian manner.  One is in the presence of the living God among angels, archangels, and all the company of heaven.  It is not a casual or trivial matter.  Kenan B. Osborne points out the concern about this sort of thing in the early church:

In De Praescriptione haereticorum (41, 6), Tertullian mentions lectors: “Therefore, someone [among your heretical group] is an episkopos today and tomorrow another person is; today one is a deacon, and tomorrow he is a lector; today someone is a presbyter and tomorrow he is a lay person.”  In this passage, Tertullian is not advocating a mix-up of duties; rather, he is taking to task the heretics for creating this kind of a ministerial situation.  In all other places, Tertullian mentions only: episkopos, presbyter, and deacon.  Consequently, it seems unlikely that Tertullian considers the lector part of the “clerical state.”[15]


While it certainly is not necessary today for a variety of reasons, the implementations of an order of readers or lectors could be done within biblical and confessional understanding.  Yet with this being said, it is not something to be done simply for the sake of “participation” or self-expression of piety or faith.  The reading of Holy Scripture in itself in the context of Divine Service or other public worship of the congregation (including Matins, Vespers, weddings, funerals, seasonal services, etc) is distinct from but not separate from exhortation and teaching (i.e. authoritative preaching and catechesis).   This is clear in St. Paul’s inspired instructions to Pastor Timothy in I Timothy 4.  There is today a contextual difference between the liturgical gathering of the Church for Word and Sacrament vs. shared reading in a classroom context.   The liturgical setting is a high expression of the marks of the church (see Augsburg Confession, Article VII, XXIV).

The use of a corps or order of lectors, while considered laity, is not simply a matter of having volunteers or a sign-up sheet.  In an average-sized Lutheran congregation, certainly not many would be needed, if used at all.  They must be those who are able to read well, project the voice, and have some essential understanding of the text being read.  They most certainly ought to be baptized, communicant members of the congregation of that local fellowship and its larger fellowship (synod, etc.).   Therefore, such factors as increasing congregational participation (getting people more active), nostalgia, family relations, are quite beside the point where churchly approval of lectors is concerned.  In this regard, while we would not use the term “ordain” in regard to lectors, a public recognition or installation of such would not be inappropriate or wrong, given their public assisting status.

The lector/reader is under direct supervision of the pastor loci (local pastor).  The pastor is to train and oversee this extension of his own work as steward of the mysteries of God (I Corinthians 4:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; Romans 10:14-17).   The lector/reader is to be expected to be thoroughly catechized and a regular student of Scripture and engaged in an ordered prayer life of piety and repentance and not an inactive church member by any means.  Summarily to quote a theological observer from the Lutheran Church-Canada seminaries’ theological journal addressing I Timothy 4:13:

This bit of apostolic instruction serves, then, to remind us that the public reading of the Sacred Scriptures is a pastoral responsibility, possibly delegated, but not light to be undertaken.  The “how” and the “by whom” deserve serious consideration.[16]

PART II – Gender Considered With Regard to Lectors/Readers in the Divine Services

It is not true that whatever is given to a male layman may also be given as a task to a female member of the laity.   The oft-repeated assertion that whatever is given a male layman may be also given to a female member of the laity is unfounded in Scripture and ignores both the “order of creation” as it is called and the inspired apostolic prohibitions against women speaking in the ecclesiastical assembly (especially in the liturgical context).  Whether something is a pastoral duty or not a pastoral duty is not the only consideration in who is or may be given a particular task, especially in the liturgical context or in church oversight.

At least two key texts are to be considered in regard to the question of whether women may serve in a parish order of lectors/readers:

I Timothy 2:11-14 -  11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. [ESV]

I Corinthians 14:33-38 - 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.  As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.  [ESV]

The text from I Timothy 2 we learn that St. Paul is speaking of a churchly context, especially the context of a liturgical assembly. We are not simply here talking about being in a “church building” since that would have been an anachronistic notion to read back into the time of St. Paul and St. Timothy. In I Timothy 2, the men (males) are specifically instructed to pray and make intercession with uplifted hands. And following this are the instructions given in regard to women of the church (modesty, good works, chastity, motherhood).

Notable in the I Timothy 2 text is the fact that the reasons for Paul’s inspired prohibition against women teaching the church publicly are twofold: a reason before the fall into sin (order of creation); and one illustrated in the fall (the woman being deceived by the serpent). Yet even the second answer is rooted in the creation of man and woman. Adam was formed first and then Eve. That is a simple biblical fact. Eve was formed from the rib of Adam. She is analog to the Church as Adam is to Christ (see Ephesians 5). That is a great mystery – especially in the fact that the two become one flesh - a union of two which are complementary. Eve’s existence is derived from Adam. Of course, all individual men henceforth now come from their mothers, but in the Church the relationship being set forth corporately is Christ and His Bride, the Church (and the beginning of the new creation).

The second reason given by St. Paul is that, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” To Adam was given the Word of God directly concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the prohibition of eating its fruit. It was Adam’s oversight and proclamation of that word from God which entailed part of his vocation as husband and preacher. The serpent went to the woman, to Eve, to bring the wedge of doubt, the deception of the lie, and to feed the sinful desire. The rebel fallen angel, Satan, enticed the woman to turn from God.[17] (Therefore God’s holy angels are not indifferent about a woman speaking in the liturgical assembly of the church, since this intimately involves the ongoing battle between the holy angels of God and their arrogant, murdering and lying enemies, the fallen rebellious angels, led by Satan, whom we call ‘demons’ or evil spirits [see I Corinthians 11:10; Hebrews 12:18-29; Revelation 12; Isaiah 14:12-21].)

The nature of the temptation was to question the Word of God, and Eve doubted, added to the Word of God, and disobeyed the commandment of God and then gave the fruit forbidden to be eaten to her husband who was with her. He said nothing, she said too much. The one thing needful is to listen to God’s Word in His presence, as the account of Mary and Martha reminds us. Faith is receiving from God in His means of grace and trusting His promises and the all-sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.

The point here is not that women are somehow more susceptible to temptation or deception than men, but rather than Eve should have deferred to her husband rather than engaging in a dialogue with Satan. The issue should have been submitted to Adam, the one to whom God gave headship and responsibility as his vocation. So the point here is not that Eve was “bad” but that her failure to submit the trouble to Adam is the issue. In other words, both points Paul makes have to do with the order of creation. Both points are indicative of the reality of both genders in God’s good creation. Paul is admonishing them to order church life accordingly because of God’s design in creating man and woman. Even at this not all men are qualified to teach or exercise authority in the church, as the qualifications for office indicate in the pastoral epistles of St. Paul. Distinctions between men and women in the Divine Service are observed primarily because of the order of creation. Distinctions between males in the liturgical context are observed primarily in terms of whether or not one holds the office of pastor. The appeal to the order of creation for man and woman makes clear that Paul is not simply addressing an episode of pastoral concern in the church of his time, but is applying a universal principle rooted in God’s design of His creation.

The text from I Corinthians 14 is also grounded largely in the context of public worship (liturgical) gatherings, as chapter 14 and much of I Corinthians is addressing that context of church order, theology, and practice. In the context of charismatic assertions of prophecy and expressions of using apparent gifts, Paul reminds them of his apostolic authority and the Spirit’s clear testimony regarding order in the church and the order of creation. Again the context of “church” here is chiefly the liturgical assembly as any such buildings would be house-churches at this early point in church history. So we are not talking about what we would call today “church buildings” but rather the liturgical assembly for worship, and secondarily general oversight of the congregation. It is also clear from St. Paul’s words in I Corinthians 14 that appeals to an internal call by God (feeling or desire) or the desire to exercise one’s “spiritual gifts” is not sufficient to overturn the order God Himself has established:

Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, for He is the Spirit of Truth, who spoke by the prophets. The speaking that the Apostle disallows here is authoritative speaking, which extends to but is not limited to preaching a sermon. The Greek term here may be used as a synonym for the giving of a sermon (see Matthew 9:18; Acts 18:25; 2 Corinthians 2:17).[18] Authoritative teaching is an exercise of divinely given authority, which includes but is not limited to preaching for the benefit of the church. As Kriewaldt notes regarding v.36-38:

…women are to be silent and not speak because anyone filled with the Spirit would have to admit that what Paul is saying is really a command of the Lord! Paul had access to Christ’s commands outside of Scripture (see, Acts 20:35; 1 Thess. 4:5; cf. John 20:30; 21:25). One of these commands prohibited women from teaching in the churches. This interpretation of the text, as already mentioned, has been consistently applied for sixty generations by the Church. It is presumptuous for us living in the twentieth century to change or disobey the command of Christ. According to many of the Church Fathers, it is heretical and sectarian to do so.[19]

The Church, like the Virgin Mary, says in reply to the Word of God, “Let it be unto me according to Thy Word” as she said in reply to the holy angel Gabriel who announced that she would bear Jesus, the promised Messiah. Often the Mother of our Lord is described as treasuring the words and events of the Gospel and pondering them in her heart. And again, like Mary, the Church simply says, as she said deferentially at the wedding in Cana, “Do whatever He [Jesus] tells you.” The one thing needful for all is to sit at Jesus’ feet and hear His saving Word, which is Spirit and Life. It is about receiving rather than doing. Properly speaking the Church is not the Bride of Christ talking to herself, but rather the Bride listening and receiving from her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ the Lord, the savior of the Body. This understanding is also found in continuity with the early church. William Weinrich notes with regard to proto-charismatic heretical movements of earlier centuries a concern relevant to today:

Fourth-century Latin opposition to women teaching in the church was probably occasioned by a Montanist-like revival named "Priscillianism." The sect was popular with women, and to give them an official function it seems to have imported from the East the title of "deaconess," which until then was not known in the West. In their commentaries on Paul, "Ambrosiaster" and Pelagius both express the view that it is contrary to the order of nature and against apostolic injunction for women to speak in an assembly of men. Ambrosiaster is especially harsh in his attitude. In view of Priscillianism church councils also condemned the public teaching by women and reiterated the apostolic prohibition against women speaking in the church. The Council of Saragossa (380 A.D.) warned Catholic women not to attend Priscillian meetings where women might give readings and teach. The Council of Nimes (396 A.D.), reacting to reports that certain ones were admitting women to the "Levitical ministry," rejects such a practice as an innovation "contrary to apostolic discipline" and not permitted by the ecclesiastical rule.[20]

What is offered in the gifts of Word and Sacrament in the Church is done from the Lord to His Bride. The sacrificial acts of offering, praise, confession, prayer are of the royal priesthood of the baptized done together as the body, the people of God, rather than chiefly as individual free agents (a priesthood – ίεράτευμα). This implies access into the divine presence and the privilege of calling upon His holy name, now understood in terms of Holy Baptism. But “priest” is not a term applied to a clerical office in the New Testament (pastors). It does not imply any Christian does any of the pastoral duties.[21] David Scaer writes concerning the assertion of a right to liturgical duties simply because of faith or Baptism:

The fundamental fault in any argument that sees every Christian entitled to become a minister is the fusion of the doctrines of justification, sanctification, and ministry. Where ministry is seen only as an exercise of faith, any obstacle to ordaining women is removed. Without in any way diminishing the foundational importance of Baptism as “the first and most important sacrament, without which the others are all nothing,” it does not take the place of any other sacrament or rite, including ordination. Arguments for the ordination of women pastors based on the universality of Baptism are at best contrived, a conclusion which some of them may have reached.[22]


The conclusion of the crucial New Testament texts for the question at hand of whether women may serve in an order of readers/lectors in the Divine Services of the Church must be answered in the negative. Women may not serve as readers/lectors publicly in the liturgical context of the Church. The order of creation, the Scriptural apostolic directive to remaining silent, and not exercising authority over a man in the church hold. Public teaching, exhortation, and reading of Scripture are excluded from the duties that women may undertake in the church, especially in the liturgical context. The contribution of women in the liturgical context is with the congregation primarily, as it is with most men who are not holders of the office of the holy ministry. The quiet, godly service is supportive of the Lord’s work for the sake of the Church in that place. Prayer, praise, the life of repentance, bringing and offering of thanksgiving, lending one’s talents to the care of God’s house and its arts, music, and other gifts certainly also serve as priestly sacrifices of a member of the royal priesthood of the baptized. But as our Lutheran Confessions remind us, faith itself, to believe God’s Word is the highest worship of the Triune God. The liturgy is first and foremost God’s service to us, our response is second, in God’s order.


What we here suggest is that if there are to be readers/lectors in a Lutheran congregation is that they be well-instructed males (exclusively), active in the congregation, who are continuing prayerful students of the Scriptures and sound teaching, reverent in the liturgy, with a good speaking voice, of good reputation, and who receive thorough training from the local pastor, and are recognized by the congregation as an order or corps of lectors set apart. Some might even suggest a public installation rite before the congregation in the Divine Service. It may be advisable that such men wear a plain alb with no other insignia. This is in keeping with the fact that the Lutheran Church does not consider herself to be a new church but the old, apostolic church cleansed from accretions that are neither evangelical nor catholic.

If lectors are to be used it is fitting, orthodox, and strongly urged that pastors retain reading the Holy Gospel pericope in the Divine Service. Any laymen or ordered readers/lectors should only be given an Old Testament and/or Epistle text for reading in the liturgy. It is not within the limitations of this paper to address techniques and liturgical ceremonial in detail. That will be left to other essays or authors.

Lectors certainly are not necessary today on a regular basis, but in many cases they might be utilized seasonally or for other occasions (or emergencies). This might also suggest their use in liturgical processions, including holding the Bible, lectionary, or book of the Gospels for a Gospel Procession in the midst of the congregation. If a pastor and congregation elects to use them, such men should take the task very seriously with all due churchly training and attitude. As with all things in the house of God, lectors should serve with dignity, decorum, and good order for reverence in the presence of the Holy God and His Bride, the Church.

Rev. Frahm is pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Boulder Junction, Wisconsin

[1] David P. Scaer.  Law and Gospel and the Means of Grace: Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics Volume VIII (Saint Louis: The Luther Academy, 2008); p.114
[2] Brevard S. Childs.  The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. (Philadelphia: Fortress Pres, 1985); pp.24-25
[3] The reading of Scripture does not require an emergency circumstance for its verbal delivery in , as Luther admonishes the head of the household (hausvater) to teach the Small Catechism in his home, which includes the use of Scripture.  This is also evidenced in the well-known section of the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (para 67) in the Book of Concord:   “For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift which in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul also testifies to the Ephesians when he says, Eph 4:8: He ascended, He gave gifts to men. And he enumerates among the gifts specially belonging to the Church pastors and teachers, and adds that such are given for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Hence, wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. Just as in a case of necessity even a layman absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another; as Augustine narrates the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after Baptism then absolved the baptizer.”
[4] For discussion of synagogue use of Scripture reading and preaching see Alfred Edersheim.  The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah – One Volume Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1971, 1986); Part One, pages 443-450.  Edersheim notes that seven readers were called upon to read from the appointed scrolls in Sabbath services, fewer at other times.   “According to the Talmud, a descendant of Aaron was always called upon first to the reading, then followed by a Levite, and afterwards five ordinary Israelites.  As this practice, as well as that of priestly benediction, has been continued in the Synagogue from father to son, it is possible still to know who are descendants of Aaron, and who Levites” [Part I, p.444].  The majority of readers were not likely to be the preacher as this was usually an ordained Rabbi or a Haggadist.
[5] Childs, p.28
[6] David P. Scaer.  Discourses in Matthew: Jesus Teaches the Church.  (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004); pp.9-84
[7] Thomas M. Winger.  “The Spoken Word: What’s Up with Orality?” Concordia Journal. April 2003: Volume 29, Number 2 (Published by the Faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO), pp.143-144
[8] Charles J. Evanson.  “The Service of the Word,” in Fred Precht (ed.) Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993); p.416
[9] Scaer,  Discourses in Matthew, pp.12-13
[10] According to the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Second Edition), edited by Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999); p.973, “The earliest references to scripture reading give no indication of a special order assigned to this task (Justin, 1 Apol. 67; Tertullian, Apol. 39). Tertullian makes the first use of the noun “reader” (Praescr. 41).  Hippolytus prescribed that “the reader is appointed by the bishop giving him the book, for he is not ordained” (Trad. Ap. 12; cf. IV Carthage, can. 8) but the Apostolic Constitutions 8.22 provided for ordination by prayer and the laying on of hands.  The fullest account of the reader as a distinct office in the church is found in the Apostolic Church Order 19: “For Reader, one should be appointed, after he has been carefully approved; … of a plain utterance, and capable of clearly interpreting, mindful that he assumes the position of an evangelist.” 
[11] According to The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, edited by Paul Bradshaw (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002); p.278, “There is no clear evidence for the existence of the office [of lector] before the third century.  Justin Martyr speaks of ‘the one who reads’ (First Apology 67.4), as does the Second Letter of Clement (19.1), usually dated mid-second century; but neither may have had an appointed official in mind:  the function could have been exercised by different members of the congregation in turn, as was the Jewish practice, where the individual was handed the scroll from which to read (see Luke 4.16, where Jesus reads in the synagogue).  However, in the third century Tertullian implies that he did know of a formal office of this kind, Cyprian makes frequent reference to lectors in his correspondence, and they are also mentioned in Rome.  In Eastern traditions, a lector was appointed by being handed the book from which he was to read, a custom later copied in parts of the West…”
[12] One difficulty in grappling with major and minor orders of “clergy” is the usage of the word “clergy” in the context of the various orders and offices.   There is the one Christ-instituted office of bishop-presbyter, which later was differentiated by one term being used as supervisory over another in polity.  The problem of the diaconate in the early church is also much debated.  Is a deacon in the early church an “assistant pastor” or an “assistant to the pastor?”  For Lutherans this makes all the difference in the question.  We will not propose within the context of this article to answer that question.  However in dealing with orders of clergy, the difference could be one of the one-Christ instituted office (pastor) vs. other “religious vocations” (hence the use of the word “clergy” from “kleros” [call]).  The episcopacy and presbyterate (parish priest or pastor) is quite a bit clearer.   Bishops or presbyters are pastors in Lutheran terminology.  In some instances deacons are pastors in post-reformation Lutheran terminology, but not always.  This seems to be a contrast from the early church.
[13] Martin Chemnitz (trans. Fred Kramer). Examination of the Council of Trent – Volume 2.  (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978); p.688
[14] “The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church” in Michael P. Plekon and William S. Wiecher eds.  The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn   (Delhi, New York: American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 1993), p.59
[15] Kenan B. Osborne, O.F.M.  Priesthood: A History of the Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church.  (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988); p.195
[16] Roger J. Humann.  “Give Attendance to Reading.”  Lutheran Theological Review (Spring/Summer 1989: Volume I, Number 2); pp.3,4
[17] In regard to I Corinthians 11:10 (“For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”) Gregory Lockwood writes:  The best suggestion is that Paul refers to the holy angels, who are present in Christian worship.  The Corinthians knew from the Greek Bibles that it was “before angels” that they sang their psalms (LXX Ps 137:1 [MT/ET 138:1]).  The church father Chrysostom challenged his congregation:  “Don’t you know that you are standing in the midst of the angels?  With them you are singing, with them you are chanting, and do you stand there laughing?”  Likewise, Christians today confess in the liturgy that it is “with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven” that “we laud and magnify your [God’s] glorious name. …”  If the women of Corinth thought little of causing offense to the men, they should consider that their departure from the created order was also an offense to the angels, who never fail to carry out the role God assigns them for the benefit of his saints (Heb 1:14).  [Concordia Commentary I Corinthians.  (Saint Louis:  Concordia Publishing House, 2000); pp.374-375]
[18] Peter Kriewaldt. “I Corinthians 14:33b-38, I Timothy 2:11-14, and the Ordination of Women” in Matthew C. Harrison and John T. Pless. Women Pastors?  The Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective. [1st Edition] (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2008); p.47
[19] Kriewaldt, p.49
[20] William Weinrich. “Women in the History of the Church: Learned and Holy, but Not Pastors” in John Piper & Wayne Grudem (eds.) Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism  (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991, 2006); p.275
[21] See Thomas M. Winger. “The Role of Assisting Minister in Lutheran Worship” in Paul. J. Grime, D. Richard Stuckwisch, and Jon D. Vieker (eds.) Through the Church the Song Goes On: Preparing a Lutheran Hymnal for the 21st Century. (Saint Louis: Commission on Worship of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, 1999); pp.177-181
[22] David P. Scaer.  Baptism: Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics Volume XI.  (Saint Louis: The Luther Academy, 1999); p.73