Rob Zahn's Blog

Rob, you actually touch on a wide variety of issues in regards to ordination/the priesthood of all believers. I have attempted to organize a plethora of different thoughts, and I may have failed. Hence, I am more than happy to continue this dialogue with more guidance as to the desired direction.

I’m uncertain as to whether the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” is the most effective way to address the present brokenness of the candidacy process. Just because we are all ministers of God’s word and work in the world through baptism, it does not necessarily follow that anyone who wants to be a pastor should be one. In fact, even getting our hands around what the “priesthood of all believers” means both in terms of Luther’s teaching and biblical teaching is questionable (see my comments at the end). I hope to argue that the candidacy process is broken in two intertwined ways: biblically and ecclesiologically.

Now, as I read my Bible (which I am assuming that the ELCA is accepting as the guiding authority), I don’t see any mention of entrance, endorsement, approval, a lottery, first call, candidacy committees; in fact, I don’t see a single mention that any “ordaining” is to take place outside of the context of the local congregation. It does not appear that Timothy had to get Paul’s approval for every elder Timothy installed in his church. To argue that these processes are necessary for the “good order of the church” ignores that early church model of church leaders raising up other church leaders and the modern examples of churches all around us that function perfectly well without such systems. These ELCA structures are bureaucratic in nature and have little biblical precedent.

Now, the Bible is clear that those who aspire to church office should meet some tough criteria (c.f. 1 Timothy 3). This is why I disagree with your dismay regarding the “credit checks.” I believe that these are justified in attempting to discern whether or not a prospective pastor “manage[s] his own household well” (1 Timothy 3:4-5). BUT, the key question is who is to judge these things? Is it the role of the church that will call you as a leader or the ‘larger’ church administrative structure that would rather follow the rules woodenly? Moreover, having met me twice for thirty minutes (and then we could include my endorsement interview of another half hour), how is the candidacy committee qualified to judge me based on the criteria for elders/pastors in 1 Timothy 3? Shouldn’t the local church that has taught and nurtured me be the one to make that judgment?

By the way, 1 Timothy 3 is no where to be found in Vision and Expectations. Also, the words “common sense” seem strangely absent from the entire process. Any one with extensive ministry experience should not be forced to go through the same square hole as someone approaching the process with no experience. However, they both should be held to the biblical standards put forth by the time of their “ordination.”

Of course, what complicates things is that the ELCA does not have a clear understanding of ecclesiology. You question, “Should we allow anyone to become the Pastor of a community (church) if that church feels led by the Spirit to call them?” Your question strikes at the lack of ecclesiological clarity that has been offered by modern Lutheran theologians. Most often, I’ve heard that the power in congregations resides in the congregation itself. This, however, is not reflected in that the synod has a heavy hand in the call process. In the Southeastern Synod, for example, the synod use to give three names to the congregation for evaluation at a time, but they now only give one name at a time. Since many call committees favor quickness over thoroughness, a less-experienced, less-qualified pastor could be called only because the local church did not know that the perfect candidate was second in line.

To conclude on a personal note, I believe the process is primarily broken for those outside the norm. While I have met capable ministers that have come from the Lutheran seminaries, that was not the choice for me. As someone who decided to attend a non-Lutheran divinity school (which you may have heard of), I was encouraged by the candidacy committee. “What an opportunity this is for you…how we wish all candidates could spend time at non-Lutheran seminaries,” were their reactions. When it came to the Lutheran year (the additional year that one must spend on a Lutheran seminary campus after having completed their MDiv), they recognized that there was nothing lacking in my academic preparation (and I, in fact, possessed more ministerial experience than anyone coming out of a Lutheran seminary), but they said, “We want you to spend time on the campus of a Lutheran seminary to understand the ethos of the ELCA.” Exact words. Quite frankly, the ethos of the ELCA has nothing to do with the gospel and with salvation. We’d be better pastors if we just forgot that ethos, forgot our ethnic club, opened our Bibles, and preached the gospel. Amen.

Extra material: [According to Timothy Wengert, in his paper “The Priesthood of All Believers and Other Pious Myths” (http://www.valpo.edu/ils/assets/pdfs/05_wengert.pdf), “there is no mention of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ anywhere in The Book of Concord.” In fact, Luther never used the term either. Wengert, after casting off these mistaken notions, paints a more radical picture of what Luther’s thought actually conveyed…at least that is what Wengert claims to do. I disagree that the picture he paints is any more radical than what is presently thought of the ‘priesthood of all believers.’ What I do think is helpful from Wengert’s paper is that he addresses the socio-political context of Luther’s writings on the subject.

I, myself, have vacillated in regards to my thoughts on ordination. Is ordination ontological or functional? Does it stamp an indelible character on my being (ontological/Catholic/Episcopal) or does it simply mean do this job (functional/Baptist)? While we as Lutherans have clearly avoided ontological language, is ordination to the public ministry just a function that anyone can do? How does God’s call and the recognition of that call impact who we ordain?

In my experience, 1 Peter 2:9 is often used as the proof-text for the “priesthood of all believers.” Upon closer inspection this proof-text fails to give biblical justification to our modern understanding of the ‘priesthood of all believers.’ 1 Peter 2:9 is most likely an allusion to God’s speech commending Israel to be “a royal priesthood and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). Just as Exodus 19:6 does not exclude the clear commands for the specific functions of the Jewish High Priest on Yom Kippur (c.f. Lev 16), nor does 1 Peter 2:9 discount any specific/God-ordained positions of authority. Furthermore, in the context of the passage, the author’s intention seems more likely to contrast those in diaspora who hold to the cornerstone of Christ with those who have rejected this stone. There is simply no indication that this verse has any authority over how the church is structured and governed. (This verse does, however, indicate that we are chosen, loved, and consecrated to be a holy people before God.)]

Dear Rob,
This homily is entitled: “Being a Christian: What Is It Like?” Please realize the emencity with which I send this. It is my desire to tell the world the importance of their faith in Jesus Christ and what their “tag line” is and what it means.

Most folks that call themselves “Christian” are familiar with the bracelets that have inscribed on them the words, “What would Jesus Do?” I dare say most folks, even if they are not proclaimed Christians, are also aware of the bracelet. But in wearing them we(Christians) are supposedly ready to act as Jesus does and display our Christ-like actions. The bracelet’s anthem rings, hopefully, a bell in their hearts that this wounded world needs so desperately. However, the fad has diminished somewhat and the actions have waned along with the fad. Why?

It may be that we are in tough economic times and the concern for our own well-being is prioritized more so. It may be that the poor, orphaned, widowed, sick, hungry, homeless, and imprisoned, are far too easily forgotten when people are isolated from these circumstances. It may even be justified in one’s mind to be neglectful of such folks because we have “no money or time” without compromising our own private survival. Such philosophies are surrendering to the world and not to the commmands of Jesus.

He tells us, “HOW”, in Matthew 25:31-46. It makes being a Christian seem somewhat easy, but we find it so difficult. What is it really like to be a Chrisitan? How are we to enter into the Kingdom of God? In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus answers those questions quite distinctly and clearly. He factually identifies our entrance to the Kingdom, when he is asked by the relious leaders, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You as a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick or in prison, and come to You? Jesus’ answer is a bit unsettling and most assuredly convicting. He promises
that those on the left, the goats, will be departing from Him and the sheep on the right will be joining Him. The only way to the Kingdom is through Christ Jesus. His answer to the questions are simply a fact, that if, “you have done to the least of these, you have done it for Me.”

So if we really want to do as Jesus would do, then we might take a different view point of the wounded, those that are of the least. Do you see a drug addict and cross the street instead of offering a hand shake? Do you see a family without as lesser because they appear to be lazy and slothful instead of helping in some way? Do you see the imprisoned as dirty and “where they belong” or do you write to prisoners you do not even know and encourage them to love Jesus? Do you feed the hungry? Do you provide for the widow and the orphaned? As Christians we are to see Jesus in everyone we encounter. We are all made in the image of God and our personal circumstances do not change that image one iota.

The way in which we perceive others is the way we justify our treatment of them. We see the drug addict as dangerous and mislead. We see the hungry as lazy and slothful. We see the imprisioned as mentally deranged. We see orphans and widows as misfortunate, but as somebody else’s responsibility to care for. We turn it over to the Salvation Army, Good Will, or some other charity organization that can hardly keep their doors open and be operational. Yet, Jesus sees them as His children all with equal rights to the Kingdom. All people are God’s children. The hymn, “Jesus Loves the Little Children” might be more modern if a new chorus were to be added. It would sound something like this. “Jesus loves the little children. All the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, poor or imprisoned, hungry or alone or maybe not just right. The are precious in His sight.”

“You did it for Me!” Those five words should ring out in your mind every time an opportunity enters your life to serve another. You should automatically see Jesus in every person. It is not without caution that I say these things. I realize some folks are not to be trusted and some are not very nice, but the fact is that we are to trust Jesus. What is your heart saying to you? Listen and hear the message of the Holy Spirit. Go, serve them, I will be your helper. That paraphrase is what we should consider first, before rushing to judgement about others. Jesus is first optomistic about folks. He gives all the opportunity to unite with Him and His love.

We are not to judge in a way that will offend or destroy the image of Jesus in us. We are called to bring others to Christ. We are to treat others as Jesus treats us. We are to love our neighbors. There is a true story I would like to relate to you. Two boys, both 8 years old were serving mass at their respective Catholic churches. One boy lived in the far Eastern Europe and the other lived in the far Western U.S. Both lost their grip on a crystal chalice. It broke loudly and embarrassingly on the marble floors of each church. The Eastern European boy was scoled unmercilessly by the arch bishop of his church and aske not lt return ever again. The American boy was asked by his arch bishop where he intended to go to school. The boy, being of sound mind and body and somewhat of a diplomat, said, “Why I am going to Spaulding Academy, sir.” No, no, no, I mean what collage, said the arch bishop. The boy said he had not thought about it. Well, said the arch biship, you are going to seminary and receive a doctrate in theology and become an arch bishop just like me. He went over to the boy and hugged him and told him he could serve mass in his church anytime.

Now that story seems just one of contrasting lives for the two ordinary boys. But it does not end there. You see, the boy in Europe, well, he was Joseph Stalin. And the boy in America, well, he turned out to be Arch Bishop Sheen. It just may be that the way in which you treat someone will determine their future. It certainly will determine yours in the eyes of the Lord. Jesus sees the good in all of us. Our iniquities are cast far away and forgotten. As far as the East is from the West. He does not wish to be the procurer of discipline and judgement. He wishes us to be obedient to His word and loves us. God’s wrath is only to keep us straight. It is always for our own good. That is another way we know He loves us.

If we are to carry the name of “Christian” it should be with its definition in mind always. “Little Christ” is what the word means. We are to act and perform much like Christ as possible. The love that God gave us is unsurmountable. In His ony Son’s death and resurrection, a price we can never repay, we have the assurance of everylasting life. He does not ask us to repay the debt of our forgiveness. He does not ask us to bargain for it. He gives it of His free grace through faith in Jesus. The only thing He asks of us is to obey His word and if that is not done easily, ask for His forgiveness and repent. We are to trust in His directions and commands. We are to be attempting lto emulate Jesus at every opportunity. We simply have to be faithful to what He says.

Luke, in Chapter 25…tells us of the parable of the Good Samaritan. In it Jesus identifies who our neighbor is. He explains of a “certain man” who was apparently beaten and robbed by thieves and left for dead. Some “very good” Christians came upon the man and offered no assistance. But a Samaritan gave the man aid and shelter. The priest and the Levite, pillars of the society and church, left the man to die, but the Samaritan, a lesser citizen by Jewish standards, pick the man up and nursed him back to health without regard for race or identity. We are to act in a similar manner. We should not judge our reaction to assist by race or circumstance. We are to trust in the message laid on our hearts my the Holy Spirit.

Are we hanging ourselves because we do not display a Christ-like attitude to “all the people, all the time’? NO! God has provided us with the same opportunity that Christ gave the two thieves on the cross. However, we have an evern greater chance to display the love of Jesus. The thieves were already condemned to death. We are alive in Jesus. We have the golden opportunity to displya His love and forgiveness to others that is so precious to us. God has forgiven us for our short comings. He has sent His only begotten Son to die and rise again for our debts. We are invited to live in peace and comfort forever. He welcomes us into His private living room as His children, His family. We are the recipents of the greatest gift of all tiime.

However, we are not to take this gift for granted. We are to adjust our attitudes to accompany the thoughts and processes that Jesus had toward the down and out, the widowed, the orphaned, the imprisoned, and the lost. And then, just maybe, we can boast a little with a tear in our eyes and a smile on our faces, when He says, “Welcome home my good and faithful servant.” Amen!