Hermann Sasse, The Lonely Way: Selected Essays and Letters, Volume 1 (1927-1939), "Church Government and Secular Authority According to Lutheran Doctrine" (1935), p. 222, CPH, Saint Louis, Copyright © 2001.

In 1851 synod-in-convention adopted the twenty-one theses on church and ministry advanced by C.F.W. Walther in The Voice of Our Church in the Question of Church and Ministry (hereafter referred to as Church and Ministry) as the official doctrine and position of our church body on the subject. These theses were affirmed as such as recently as the 2001 synodical convention.

This document states, "It is to this true church of believers and saints that Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and it is the proper and only possessor and bearer of the spiritual, divine, and heavenly gifts, rights, powers, offices, and the like that Christ has procured and are found in His church" (Part One, "Concerning the Church", Thesis IV).

But what is this "true church" of which Walther and our doctrine speak? (See Matt. 16:15-19; 18:15-20; and John 20:22-23.)

To whom and of whom is Jesus speaking in these passages, that is to say, who comprises and constitutes the Church? [Since Jesus vows to build His Church on the solid rock of Peter’s confession (Mt. 16:18), revealed to him and to all fellow confessors by Jesus’ Father, everyone who from the heart shares this confession with Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, comprises and constitutes the Church.]

By what distinctive possession and singular activity are they such? [The possession of the Holy Spirit and, with Him, God’s peace, God’s calling and sending, and the God-given, God-blessed confession of Christ and confessing the same.]

With what are they entrusted and what authority and power, privilege and responsibility are theirs as a result? [They are entrusted with the keys of the kingdom whereby the members of the Church are authorized and given the privilege and responsibility to forgive and retain sins at Christ’s bidding.]

"It is to this true church of believers and saints", then, we confess in our doctrine of Church and Ministry, "that Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and it is the proper and only possessor and bearer of the spiritual, divine, and heavenly gifts, rights, powers, offices, and the like that Christ has procured and are found in His church" (emphasis mine).

Is this an apt definition of the Church? Does this "true church" consist of "believers and saints" alone? Are they, as such, the "only possessor and bearer" of the rights and responsibilities of the Church and her membership?

Jesus asserts that it is upon this confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", and through faith in it, which is to say, faith in Him, a confession and faith prompted and given by God, no less; it is upon this rock that Jesus builds His Church.

The words of commendation which Jesus addresses to Peter in the singular in Matthew 16:17-19 He addresses in the plural to all His disciples who stand with Peter in this faith and confession in Matthew 18:18. Jesus declares with what His disciples, all His disciples, are entrusted, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what authority and power, privilege and responsibility are vested in them accordingly, that is, the command and therefore the duty to forgive the sins of penitent sinners and retain those of the impenitent so long as they do not repent—along with the God-given means to do so. For this we disciples of Jesus receive the Holy Spirit from Jesus. To this we are called and for this we are authorized and empowered. And it is as good and efficacious when we do it in Christ’s stead as if God Himself were doing it, as indeed He is through His Church who speaks and acts on His behalf and by His leave.

Jesus assures us, therefore, that whatever we bind in this manner is bound in heaven and whatever we loose is so loosed. Of this sacred trust Walther writes, "Here Christ attests what power those have who with Peter are built on this rock, namely, those who believe on Him and confess this faith of their heart with their mouth, or briefly expressed, His true church, His holy, believing congregation, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Part One, Thesis IV).

C.F.W. Walther defines "this true church" as the congregation (Part One, Thesis I), that is, the minister and the hearers (Part Two, "Concerning the Holy Ministry or the Pastoral Office", Thesis IX.C).

Thesis VII (Part Two) of Church and Ministry, and our public teaching in the matter, furthermore states, "The holy ministry is the power, conferred by God through the congregation as the possessor of the priesthood and all church power, to exercise the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office in the name of the congregation."

Does this dovetail with what God’s Word has to say on the subject of Church and Ministry? For instance, is the Office of the Ministry of divine or human origin? Suppose we see. . . (Cf. Jer. 3:14-15. God’s confrontation of shameless Israel and His call to repentance. . . 14 "Return, O backsliding children," says the LORD; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.)

It is God who gives His sheep shepherds according to His own heart. Thus, it is God who has instituted this holy office. Therefore it is of divine not human origin and, consequently, a divine and not a human institution. Walther distills the divine institution of the holy ministry from Christ’s call and installation of the apostles into that Office (cf. Matt 10 [Jesus calling, authorizing, empowering and sending the Twelve to preach and teach and otherwise minister in His name by means of His Word]; 28:18-20; Luke 9:1-10 [parallels Matt 10]; Mark 16:15-16 [15 And He said to [the Eleven], "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned"]; John 20:21-23 [cf. Sc. Page]; 21:15-17 [Jesus’ restoration of Peter]), as well as the calling and sending of the 70 disciples in Luke 10:1-22. Then, in this regard of the divine source, substance and nature of the ministry, there are all the passages in which those placed into office through some other means than directly by God are represented as having been appointed by God through the respective God-given means (such as, Acts 20:28 [The Apostle Paul speaking to the Ephesian Elders. . . 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God^[c] which He purchased with His own blood]; 1 Cor. 12:28-29 [27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues] and Eph. 4:11-16 [11 And He Himself [the exalted Christ] gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.).

It is clear from these passages, then, that 1. the Pastoral Office is of divine not human origin, 2. that it is established and authorized by God to preach and teach God’s Word and administer His Sacraments, and that, by virtue of divine institution, it possesses as well the right of spiritual jurisdiction, namely, forgiving and retaining sins, or the Office of the Keys, and 3. that, after the apostles, it is conferred by God through means, namely, through the call of the calling congregation (Part Two, Thesis VI.A) and 4., therefore, that Walther and our dogma are justified in confessing, "The holy ministry is the power. . .to exercise the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office in the name of the congregation"; and further, "The public ministry has the power. . .of spiritual judgment" or jurisdiction (Part Two, Thesis V); further still, since this divine institution has been entrusted by God with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, conferred upon it by the congregation who possesses said keys originally and immediately by divine right, "The pastoral ministry is [necessarily] the highest office in the church, and from it stem all other offices in the church" (Thesis VIII); and finally, "To the ministry of the Word, according to divine right, belongs also the duty to judge doctrine, but laymen also possess this right. Therefore, in the ecclesiastical courts and councils they are accorded both a seat and vote together with the clergy" (Thesis X).

How, then, can synod Resolution 8-01A , on the basis of a summation of core values, conceptual assumptions and ecclesiastical supervision principles, mandate, "Charges that could lead to expulsion of a member from the Synod can be brought only by one with supervisory responsibilities for that member" [emphasis mine] ( Convention Proceedings 2004, "8. Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution", Introduction, p. 162)?

Jesus commands all Christians, regardless of station, ecclesiastical supervisor or otherwise, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone" and, if to no avail, "take with you one or two more", again, regardless of status, ecclesiastical supervisor or no, "that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’", and finally, if still to no avail, "tell it to the church" (Matt 18:15-17a) not the ecclesiastical supervisor! If this is so, as indeed it is, by the mouth of our Lord Himself, exhibiting not so much as a hint of partiality with regard to person or estate but wholly fair and impartial, where does synod-in-convention get off circumventing Christ’s evangelical arrangement and legalistically favoring the alleged offender’s ecclesiastical supervisor with this responsibility exclusively?

This ecclesiastical supervision principle, this core value and conceptual assumption, and the principles, values and assumptions proceeding from it, namely, "The action to commence expulsion of a congregation or individual from membership in the Synod is the sole responsibility of the District President who has the ecclesiastical supervision of such member" (Convention Proceedings 2004, Bylaw 2.26, p. 166); and, "The action to commence expulsion of a District President or an officer of the Synod from membership in the Synod is the sole responsibility of the synodical President who has the ecclesiastical supervision of such member" [emphasis mine] (Bylaw 2.27, pp. 169-170); and, "The action to commence expulsion of a synodical President from membership in the Synod is the responsibility of the District Presidents of the Council of Presidents, who collectively comprise the ecclesiastical supervision of all the respective Districts of the Synod" (Bylaw 2.28, p. 178); these aforesaid principles, values and assumptions, do they mesh with God’s Word and our doctrine of Church and Ministry drawn there from, or nullify the same?

Derived, presumably, from the Church and her Ministry whose origin and essence is divine and not human, do the principles, values and assumptions here delineated, whose origin and essence is human and not divine, and whose power is delegated to these human entities by human not divine right, do they or do they not abrogate God’s clear Word and usurp Christ’s unequivocal command, "Tell it to the church!" Do these ecclesiastical supervisors, alone or principally, constitute the Church which Jesus addresses and which the Scriptures and our public doctrine confess? Are these human principles, values and assumptions and this man-made office of ecclesiastical supervisor what Christ had in mind when He exclaimed, "Tell it to the church!"?

When the Scriptures and our public doctrine define the Church as the congregation of believers and saints, or the ministers and the hearers, irrespective of status, be it ecclesiastical supervisor, clergy or lay, and the aforementioned action limits this power solely to the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor, do these man-made regulations not annul Christ’s evangelical directive, and especially when all hearings and avenues of appeal are populated by, you guessed it, panels and panels of District Presidents, and them alone? Bear in mind, their decisions and those of their peers, members of the CCM and CTCR, are, finally, final. Ultimately their opinions, human opinions, are beyond appeal, review, amendment, reversal or annulment. And you thought the only absolute rule, as the sole source and norm of all doctrine and practice, was the Word of God! Are these human opinions, then, like the Scriptures, infallible and therefore inerrant? Humans, being only too human, do err. Therefore, human opinions can and do err. And finally, mind you, the accused has no jury of peers when the accused is clergy or lay—for his ecclesiastical supervisor is sole judge and jury. And, as such, his judgments are final.

This high-handedness is particularly evident when, as is the case, the action to commence expulsion of a District President or an officer of the Synod, or indeed a synodical President, is much more rigorous and restrictive than that of a congregation or individual, suggestive at the very least of a haughty hierarchical spirit which is neither biblical nor evangelical, much less Christian, but wholly legalistic and this-worldly, smacking of impious partiality, uppity one-upmanship and cronyism, notwithstanding the disclaimer, "The District Presidents are not, as has been suggested, a ‘closed group’ or an ‘old boys club’ or ‘foxes guarding the chicken coop’" (Ibid., Introduction, p. 164). Methinks they disclaim too much!

The autocratic, self-serving nature of ecclesiastical supervision as characterized here shows its hand most emphatically when this elitism is compounded with the one-sided principle of "evangelical supervision", namely, "Those elected to supervise are to supervise; those not elected to supervise are not to supervise" (Ibid., p. 162). What is more telling is this, "A word search of the Constitution and Bylaws reveals that in every case, ecclesiastical supervisors are identified as the President of Synod and the District Presidents, in some cases with the assistance of the Circuit Counselors" and these alone. And again, concerning the authoritative nature of officialdom and its dictates, "The opinions of both the CTCR and the CCM must be followed in all cases" (Ibid., p. 163).

Are pastors—no mention of "ecclesiastical supervision" or supervisors in Scripture, or the Lutheran Confessions, or our public doctrine of Church and Ministry drawn there from (do a word search and you will see), only in synodical resolutions and bylaws and judgments by synodical ecclesiastical supervisors and their colleagues, such as members of the CTCR and the CCM—are pastors not given by God to His flock for this very purpose, to supervise His sheep and watch over their doctrine? Is this not why they are called bishops, i.e., overseers accountable to God for their oversight, not overlords lording it over the fold?

What are we to make of 1 John 4:1 in this regard? [1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.] (Cf. 2 John 10-11 [10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [the doctrine of Christ], do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds]; 1 Thess. 5:12-13 [12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.)

How neatly this "evangelical supervision" abolishes God’s evangelical command, directed toward the whole Church, ministers and hearers alike, not solely or even principally ecclesiastical supervisors, "Test the spirits, whether they are of God"! (Would these "evangelical spirits", one wonders, pass the test?) How presumptuously the human principle does away with Christ’s evangelical principle that His sheep are to judge their shepherds, as His shepherds are to judge His sheep!

The author of this study believes that the human principle of ecclesiastical supervision as set forth by Resolution 8-01A and the reality of ecclesiastical supervisors it evidences nullifies and vacates our synod’s biblical and evangelical doctrine of Church and Ministry. As such, it arrogates to said ecclesiastical supervisors the rights and responsibilities accorded the congregation, that is, the minister and the hearers, by God, conferring them upon the District Presidents and the President of Synod (Bylaws 2.26, 2.27 and 2.28) by human right and counter to God’s Word and our public teaching, and usurps those privileges which the congregation and ministry hold by divine sanction. This contradicts the spirit of the Preamble of the synodical Constitution which cites the example of the apostolic church (Acts 15:1-31), which in turn addresses such divine entities as the church and its churchly offices of apostle and elder and the apostolic council at Jerusalem, not offices of human origin such as ecclesiastical supervisors and their vaunted supervision.

What is more, in elevating an office of human origin over the divine institution of Church and Ministry, this resolution compromises Article II and clouds its intent. Besides falling short of the purpose and function of Article III (particularly Items 8 and 9) the resolution in question fails to honor and uphold Article VII in letter or spirit. Thus out of order it disorders and subverts the Constitution and is, consequently, unconstitutional. It is the conclusion of this author, therefore, that Resolution 8-01A is null and void and is to be vacated as of no effect. On the other hand, this author affirms, as thoroughly biblical, evangelical and confessional, the teaching of our beloved church

on Church and Ministry as set forth by C.F.W Walther in The Voice of Our Church in the Question of Church and Ministry and adopted by synod-in-convention in 1851 (and affirmed by the 2001 synodical convention) as the official doctrine and position of our church body on the subject.