The Responsibility and Authority of the Pastoral Office
Submitted by plauer on Fri, 08/06/2010 - 10:49
We Lutherans, myself included, believe that Ordination to the Office of the Holy Ministry does not confer any special grace, ability, or power on the one being ordained. Rather, it is to be a recognition that God the Holy Spirit has put or brought this man into this place and time and congregation/assembly of His people to be the one through whom He, the Spirit, will deliver His gifts through the public proclamation of the Word of God and the public administration of His sacraments of Holy Baptism, Holy Communion, and arguably also Holy Absolution.
Ordination to the Office of the Holy Ministry does, therefore, necessarily put upon the one ordained certain responsibility and authority. Those two always need to go together: responsibility and authority. One cannot (or perhaps I should say "should not" because it is often tried and even more often put into practice) deliver responsibility without also granting the authority necessary to carry out that responsibility.
For example: congregations properly require their pastors to "preach the Word". They designate a place and time for him to do this. He must also therefore be given the authority to do this. He is expected, correctly, to apply the Word of God, to administer the services of God's House, to oversee the teaching and practice of the congregation as being in accordance with the Word of God. While it is correct that the authority here is no more than the authority of God's own Word which the Pastor delivers, this should not be construed to say that everything which the pastor says and does in carrying out this responsibility is open to immediate and unlimited debate or defiance until such time as the pastor is able to convince the hearer of its legitimacy.
An example or two will no doubt be helpful. I'll use a couple examples that are not taken from my own experiences so as to not encourage readers to wonder when this occurred or who the offenders might be. These are not real events.
One day, Pastor Johnson was walking through the sanctuary and came across two high school youth sitting on the balcony steps embraced in a passionate kiss. They were so involved with each other that they did not immediately notice his presence, so Pastor Johnson spoke up saying that this was not appropriate in the House of God. Rising quickly to their feet, the couple immediately defended themselves by saying that they were only talking or that they were just waiting in the dark for the rest of the youth group to come in for devotions. Pastor Johnson knew that they had been doing more than just talking and that the youth group was still on their treasure hunt activity and not scheduled to come into the sanctuary for devotions for another half hour or more. He said, "There's no need to lie to me. What you were doing was inappropriate and now you are sinning more by arguing with me."
I will grant that we could be critical of how Pastor Johnson handled the situation. Perhaps he should merely have cleared his throat or accepted the adolescent (and human) reaction to deny their behavior (isn't that what Adam and Eve did when confronted by God after they ate of the forbidden tree?). Another Pastor might have looked the other way or addressed the situation with the Youth Director. There is probably a time and place to discuss how Pastor Johnson handed the situation.
But that is a distraction from the issue which Pastor Johnson sees. He sees that he is required by His Office to proclaim the Word of God, both Law and Gospel, to the members of his congregation and especially in the sanctuary of the Lord. Does this responsibility give him the authority to confront the couple, to correct them, and to instruct them? Must he give the couple (and later their parents and the Youth Director) a lengthy theological theological explanation of his point and a defense of his authority and the correctness of his actions before he is ... okay, I'll say it ... obeyed? Or does the preaching and teaching office entrusted to him bestow not only the responsibility but also the authority to apply the Word of God as he knows best?
Again, there is ample opportunity to consider whether Pastor Johnson could have or should have handled the situation differently; and there is also an opportunity to teach those involved from the Word of God based upon this circumstance. My question is this: does the Pastor need to explain or defend his words and actions before the authority of his position is acknowledged?
I believe that the Fourth Commandment bestows first upon parents and then upon "others in authority" (as Luther and the Confessions explain at length) the authority to exercise the responsibilities and authority of their offices (as parent, policeman, teacher, judge, and pastor) as best they can, recognizing that everything we fallen creatures do is stained with sin. A citation from a policeman can be appealed to a judge, but there is a place and time and process for that. A parent can take issue with the instruction and methods of a teacher, but it is not while the class is in session. It is appropriate to question the words and behaviors of a pastor; but there is also a place and time and process for that. The appropriate time to raise the issue is after the event has occurred. Yes, you can ask a policeman why he is giving you a ticket; but the time to argue against the ticket is not on the side of the road but in a courtroom. You may ask your teacher why they are sending you to the principal's office, but the place to explain yourself is not in the classroom while a lesson is being taught.
The responsibility and authority conferred upon a Pastor or others in authority should also tell us that because these are given we believe that the Pastor has some training and experience to influence his words and actions. Therefore, when the time and place are appropriate for inquiry, we should begin with the assumption or expectation there there is some good and appropriate reason for the Pastor's words and actions. We should expect that pastors, teachers, policemen, judges and parents have some knowledge or experience which has informed and directed their words and actions rather than beginning with the assumption of their error. There is a vast difference between asking for an explanation with the assumption that this is a good and proper one versus assuming that there is no logical, Biblical, confessional or even practical defense. This takes us to the Eighth Commandment which requires us to "put the best construction" on their words and actions before jumping to the worst possible explanation; namely, that the pastor or teacher or policeman is a bully or brute.
I'm all for seeking answers and wanting to learn from a situation. But because of the office given, the Pastor should be obeyed first and questioned later as it should be also for others placed in authority over us. He should also be defended first and condemned later only if he is first shown to have been in the wrong. The office and the commandments require us to do it this way.
I promised a second example, so let's start fresh. This time the setting is in a meeting of the Board of Elders. Pastor Schmidt is concerned about a predominate member of the congregation who has been dating a woman for some time, has set a date for the wedding, but is already living in the same house with his fiance. The question is simple: does Pastor Schmidt need to convince the Elders from the Word of God and the Confessions (or worse, from the political or financial concerns of the congregation, but that would only muddy the point here) ... does Pastor Schmidt need to convince the Board of Elders from the Word of God and our confessional views that the couple should not be married nor continue to receive the Sacrament of the Altar (those could be two separate questions) until they live apart for some reasonable amount of time. I add the bit about the "reasonable amount of time" because it may be impossible for the Pastor and the Elders to agree upon what is reasonable. I think the pastor's own judgment of what is reasonable here may be sufficient due to his knowledge of the couple, the extended family, and so forth which might be inappropriate for discussion in the Board meeting because while their engagement, living arrangement, and wedding are publicly known their sexual needs, for example, would not be publicly known. Therefore, a pastor must be allowed to take into account certain private factors in determining what is 'reasonable.'
But what about that first part -- the part about requiring them to live apart for a time before they can be married and/or continue to receive the Sacrament of the Altar. Certainly both Scripture and our doctrine speak of withholding the Sacrament from impenitent sinners; so there must be some circumstances in which it is correct to do so. And certainly the Scriptures and our Confessions speak about who should be married in the Church (I mean before the altar of God, not merely the church building); so there must be some scenario in which Christian marriage would be denied. What would it be? Again: is Pastor Schmidt required to convince the Board of Elders (and would it require a unanimous decision of the Board) from the Word of God that the couple should be denied Christian marriage and admission to the Lord's Supper before he is permitted to exercise the responsibility and authority of the office entrusted to him? In practical terms, may he proceed with denying the wedding and withholding the sacrament without first convincing the Elders that the Word of God so says?
I believe that the pastor is not only allowed, but should be expected to apply the Word of God and our Confessional stance as he understands them. I believe that the discussion, beyond the Pastor's report, should only arise in the Board of Elders as an individual Elder asks for an explanation or as the couple appeals to the board as the representative of the congregation.
At issue is also the difference between the election of the Board of Elders versus the election of the Pastor. What makes their election to be Elders more authoritative than the election of the pastor by the same congregation? I am not here saying that the pastor should have unquestioned free reign to do whatever seems best to him. He should be able to support his words and actions from the Word of God when asked, at a place and time and setting which is appropriate for that discussion. Let the Board of Elders place the discussion on their agenda or schedule a meeting to learn from the Word of God. Let the Elders request that the pastor schedule a proper Bible study on the topic to inform the whole congregation. But I believe that the pastor has not only the authority but also the responsibility to exercise the duties of his office until such time that the congregation determines to overrule him -- not the Board of Elders or a parent or an individual member but the congregation which elected him to be their pastor. If that should happen, then the ball is back is the pastor's court to decide whether or not he has been convinced by the congregation and/or can continue to serve in a congregation which believes differently than he does on that issue. But that would lead us into another issue; namely, when to come to that decision and how to make that decision.
I would say that within the clergy of my denomination and especially among the congregations of my denomination, the answer to this question is answered differently. While we do not want a "dictatorial" pastor, we cannot survive long with a clergy without authority. The question is not whether or not clergy have any authority. There are two questions: (1) where is that line of authority, and (2) how should we proceed when that authority is called into question. I realize that the Word of God, the Lutheran Confessions, our Synod, and our congregations have addressed these things formally, but do we know what these things say and about this and do we put them into practice?
Ordination to the Office of the Holy Ministry does, therefore, necessarily put upon the one ordained certain responsibility and authority. Those two always need to go together: responsibility and authority. One cannot (or perhaps I should say "should not" because it is often tried and even more often put into practice) deliver responsibility without also granting the authority necessary to carry out that responsibility.
For example: congregations properly require their pastors to "preach the Word". They designate a place and time for him to do this. He must also therefore be given the authority to do this. He is expected, correctly, to apply the Word of God, to administer the services of God's House, to oversee the teaching and practice of the congregation as being in accordance with the Word of God. While it is correct that the authority here is no more than the authority of God's own Word which the Pastor delivers, this should not be construed to say that everything which the pastor says and does in carrying out this responsibility is open to immediate and unlimited debate or defiance until such time as the pastor is able to convince the hearer of its legitimacy.
An example or two will no doubt be helpful. I'll use a couple examples that are not taken from my own experiences so as to not encourage readers to wonder when this occurred or who the offenders might be. These are not real events.
One day, Pastor Johnson was walking through the sanctuary and came across two high school youth sitting on the balcony steps embraced in a passionate kiss. They were so involved with each other that they did not immediately notice his presence, so Pastor Johnson spoke up saying that this was not appropriate in the House of God. Rising quickly to their feet, the couple immediately defended themselves by saying that they were only talking or that they were just waiting in the dark for the rest of the youth group to come in for devotions. Pastor Johnson knew that they had been doing more than just talking and that the youth group was still on their treasure hunt activity and not scheduled to come into the sanctuary for devotions for another half hour or more. He said, "There's no need to lie to me. What you were doing was inappropriate and now you are sinning more by arguing with me."
I will grant that we could be critical of how Pastor Johnson handled the situation. Perhaps he should merely have cleared his throat or accepted the adolescent (and human) reaction to deny their behavior (isn't that what Adam and Eve did when confronted by God after they ate of the forbidden tree?). Another Pastor might have looked the other way or addressed the situation with the Youth Director. There is probably a time and place to discuss how Pastor Johnson handed the situation.
But that is a distraction from the issue which Pastor Johnson sees. He sees that he is required by His Office to proclaim the Word of God, both Law and Gospel, to the members of his congregation and especially in the sanctuary of the Lord. Does this responsibility give him the authority to confront the couple, to correct them, and to instruct them? Must he give the couple (and later their parents and the Youth Director) a lengthy theological theological explanation of his point and a defense of his authority and the correctness of his actions before he is ... okay, I'll say it ... obeyed? Or does the preaching and teaching office entrusted to him bestow not only the responsibility but also the authority to apply the Word of God as he knows best?
Again, there is ample opportunity to consider whether Pastor Johnson could have or should have handled the situation differently; and there is also an opportunity to teach those involved from the Word of God based upon this circumstance. My question is this: does the Pastor need to explain or defend his words and actions before the authority of his position is acknowledged?
I believe that the Fourth Commandment bestows first upon parents and then upon "others in authority" (as Luther and the Confessions explain at length) the authority to exercise the responsibilities and authority of their offices (as parent, policeman, teacher, judge, and pastor) as best they can, recognizing that everything we fallen creatures do is stained with sin. A citation from a policeman can be appealed to a judge, but there is a place and time and process for that. A parent can take issue with the instruction and methods of a teacher, but it is not while the class is in session. It is appropriate to question the words and behaviors of a pastor; but there is also a place and time and process for that. The appropriate time to raise the issue is after the event has occurred. Yes, you can ask a policeman why he is giving you a ticket; but the time to argue against the ticket is not on the side of the road but in a courtroom. You may ask your teacher why they are sending you to the principal's office, but the place to explain yourself is not in the classroom while a lesson is being taught.
The responsibility and authority conferred upon a Pastor or others in authority should also tell us that because these are given we believe that the Pastor has some training and experience to influence his words and actions. Therefore, when the time and place are appropriate for inquiry, we should begin with the assumption or expectation there there is some good and appropriate reason for the Pastor's words and actions. We should expect that pastors, teachers, policemen, judges and parents have some knowledge or experience which has informed and directed their words and actions rather than beginning with the assumption of their error. There is a vast difference between asking for an explanation with the assumption that this is a good and proper one versus assuming that there is no logical, Biblical, confessional or even practical defense. This takes us to the Eighth Commandment which requires us to "put the best construction" on their words and actions before jumping to the worst possible explanation; namely, that the pastor or teacher or policeman is a bully or brute.
I'm all for seeking answers and wanting to learn from a situation. But because of the office given, the Pastor should be obeyed first and questioned later as it should be also for others placed in authority over us. He should also be defended first and condemned later only if he is first shown to have been in the wrong. The office and the commandments require us to do it this way.
I promised a second example, so let's start fresh. This time the setting is in a meeting of the Board of Elders. Pastor Schmidt is concerned about a predominate member of the congregation who has been dating a woman for some time, has set a date for the wedding, but is already living in the same house with his fiance. The question is simple: does Pastor Schmidt need to convince the Elders from the Word of God and the Confessions (or worse, from the political or financial concerns of the congregation, but that would only muddy the point here) ... does Pastor Schmidt need to convince the Board of Elders from the Word of God and our confessional views that the couple should not be married nor continue to receive the Sacrament of the Altar (those could be two separate questions) until they live apart for some reasonable amount of time. I add the bit about the "reasonable amount of time" because it may be impossible for the Pastor and the Elders to agree upon what is reasonable. I think the pastor's own judgment of what is reasonable here may be sufficient due to his knowledge of the couple, the extended family, and so forth which might be inappropriate for discussion in the Board meeting because while their engagement, living arrangement, and wedding are publicly known their sexual needs, for example, would not be publicly known. Therefore, a pastor must be allowed to take into account certain private factors in determining what is 'reasonable.'
But what about that first part -- the part about requiring them to live apart for a time before they can be married and/or continue to receive the Sacrament of the Altar. Certainly both Scripture and our doctrine speak of withholding the Sacrament from impenitent sinners; so there must be some circumstances in which it is correct to do so. And certainly the Scriptures and our Confessions speak about who should be married in the Church (I mean before the altar of God, not merely the church building); so there must be some scenario in which Christian marriage would be denied. What would it be? Again: is Pastor Schmidt required to convince the Board of Elders (and would it require a unanimous decision of the Board) from the Word of God that the couple should be denied Christian marriage and admission to the Lord's Supper before he is permitted to exercise the responsibility and authority of the office entrusted to him? In practical terms, may he proceed with denying the wedding and withholding the sacrament without first convincing the Elders that the Word of God so says?
I believe that the pastor is not only allowed, but should be expected to apply the Word of God and our Confessional stance as he understands them. I believe that the discussion, beyond the Pastor's report, should only arise in the Board of Elders as an individual Elder asks for an explanation or as the couple appeals to the board as the representative of the congregation.
At issue is also the difference between the election of the Board of Elders versus the election of the Pastor. What makes their election to be Elders more authoritative than the election of the pastor by the same congregation? I am not here saying that the pastor should have unquestioned free reign to do whatever seems best to him. He should be able to support his words and actions from the Word of God when asked, at a place and time and setting which is appropriate for that discussion. Let the Board of Elders place the discussion on their agenda or schedule a meeting to learn from the Word of God. Let the Elders request that the pastor schedule a proper Bible study on the topic to inform the whole congregation. But I believe that the pastor has not only the authority but also the responsibility to exercise the duties of his office until such time that the congregation determines to overrule him -- not the Board of Elders or a parent or an individual member but the congregation which elected him to be their pastor. If that should happen, then the ball is back is the pastor's court to decide whether or not he has been convinced by the congregation and/or can continue to serve in a congregation which believes differently than he does on that issue. But that would lead us into another issue; namely, when to come to that decision and how to make that decision.
I would say that within the clergy of my denomination and especially among the congregations of my denomination, the answer to this question is answered differently. While we do not want a "dictatorial" pastor, we cannot survive long with a clergy without authority. The question is not whether or not clergy have any authority. There are two questions: (1) where is that line of authority, and (2) how should we proceed when that authority is called into question. I realize that the Word of God, the Lutheran Confessions, our Synod, and our congregations have addressed these things formally, but do we know what these things say and about this and do we put them into practice?