The early Missouri Synod theologians, such as C.F.W. Walther and Francis Pieper taught that the Office of the Ministry was conferred only through the divine call, not call and ordination. The Missouri Synod teaching is found in the Brief Statement of 1932, which states: “Regarding ordination we teach that it is not a divine, but a commendable ecclesiastical ordinance. (Smalcald Articles. Triglot, p. 525, paragraph 70; M., p. 342.)”[1] Pieper, who authored the Brief Statement, explained this in the third volume of his Christian Dogmatics. He wrote, “It is Christian teaching that God has commanded the calling of men apt to teach into the public ministry which Christ instituted. But the public ordination of these men according to a formal ritual is no more than an ecclesiastical arrangement which is based on the example of the Apostles.”[2] By this Pieper means that ordination is an adiaphoron. It is neither commanded nor is it forbidden by God. It’s simply good apostolic practice which the church may or may not employ.
The Lutheran Confessions have a much higher view of ordination. Philip Melanchthon writes in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
But if ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has God’s command and glorious promises, Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise, Is. 55:11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please. If ordination be understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry, and is present in the ministry. (Ap XIII.10-12)
If ordination is understood as applying to the office of the ministry, then it isn’t a human institution at all. The ministry is commanded by God and God makes many promises in the Scripture to work through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, all of which is carried out by the pastor. Ordination doesn’t give grace to the man who receives it, as Rome teaches. Ordination commits the ministry to the one being ordained—the ministry through which God promises to work in the Church.
Martin Chemnitz explains in his Enchiridion. ordination “is nothing else than the kind of public testimony by which the call of that person who is ordained is declared before God and in His name to be regular, pious, legitimate and divine.”[3] He also writes, “By that rite, as by public designation or declaration, the ministry is committed in the name of God and of the Church to him who has been called.”[4] In the next generation, Johann Gerhard says the same thing. “Ordination is the public and solemn declaration or testifying of the call; through ordination the ecclesiastical ministry is committed to a suitable person called by the church to that ministry.”[5] What all this means is that ordination is simply the public attestation of the divine call and commits the ministry to the one called. Since it’s part of the right understanding of a divine call, it shouldn’t be neglected or omitted. The same can be said of the examination of the candidate for ordination. St. Paul tells Timothy in several places that pastors must be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:24). This requires an examination of their doctrine. He also tells Timothy, “Do not lay hands on anyone hastily” (1 Tim. 5:21), implying that He had commanded Timothy to ordain men whom he had examined as “able to teach” and divinely called. Examination, call, and ordination all go together.
The unity of examination, call, and ordination can be explained by way of an analogy from the Lord’s Supper. The Formula of Concord states that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper consists of three actions: consecration, distribution, and reception. All three make a faithful celebration of the Lord’s Supper. A willful omission of a part of the overall action can invalidate the entirety. There are three actions which make up the singular celebration of the Sacrament. This can be an analogy for the unity of the “actions” of being called into the office of the ministry. The call consists of three actions: examination, call, and ordination. All three “actions” should be performed. A willful omission of one of the parts compromises the unity of the action. All of this is simply an analogy to make the point that these three things are part of the proper understanding of a divine call. Just as we don’t pin down the precise moment in which the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood, neither do we pin down the exact moment of conveying of the office within the three actions since they are a unity.
Where does the laying on of hands fit into the proper understanding of a divine call? In the Apology Melanchthon collapses the rite of ordination with the ceremony of laying on of hands. Lutherans in the Age of Orthodoxy would make a sharper distinction between ordination and the laying on of hands. Chemnitz teaches that the laying on of hands is an Old Testament custom which the Apostles retained in Christian liberty “as a thing indifferent and helpful for teaching many things.”[6] Similarly, Gerhard cites David Chytraeus:
The ministry of the ordained is not effectual because of this rite [of laying on of hands]. Rather, the ministry avails and is the power for salvation to everyone who believes [Rom. 1:16] because of divine ordination. The rite of the imposition of hands is added to a public declaration of the called person so that the announcement may become more clear and so that this rite may draw attention to certain duties.[7]
The laying on of hands is a ceremony which is an adiaphoron, an indifferent thing which is neither commanded nor forbidden in Holy Scripture. It’s simply apostolic custom. Using the analogy of the threefold sacramental action in the Lord’s Supper, the laying on of hands would be analogous to making the sign of the cross over the elements during the consecration.
The LCMS collapses ordination and the laying on of hands into one action and deems that one action to be an adiaphoron. They say it really shouldn’t be omitted, but allow it to be, especially in the case of synodically-sanctioned “lay-ministry.” For Missouri, ordination cannot confer the office upon a man since it is an adiaphoron. However, there is a distinction between the rite of ordination and the ceremony of laying on of hands, ordination being part of the proper understanding of the call, the laying on of hands being an adiaphoron. Call and Ordination simply belong together, as they did for Paul and the first Lutherans, and just as they are placed together in the Common Service each week when the pastor pronounces Christ’s absolution by virtue of his office as a “called and ordained servant of the Word.” If ordination is an adiaphoron and isn’t part of the divine call into the office, then it has no business in the absolution which has Christ’s command.
[1] Brief Statement Of The Doctrinal Position Of The Missouri Synod, (St. Louis, MO: Concordia), Paragraph 33.
[2] Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics. Vol.3 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1953), 116, n27.
[3] Martin Chemnitz. Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion. trans. Luther Poellot (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1981),36.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Johann Gerhard, On the Ministry, Vol. 1, trans. Richard Dinda, (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2011), 209.
[6] Chemnitz. Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion, 36.
[7] Gerhard, On the Ministry, Vol.1, 210.
