Highland Prairie Lutheran Church

Fillmore County, Minnesota

June 14-22, 1865

Dear brethren in the faith and colleagues in the Ministry! May our merciful God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, grant us all his Holy Spirit, and bless our meeting and our discussions, in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior! Amen.

After the passing of another year the Lord allows us to come together to consult with one another as brothers and to discuss such things which we have to believe can serve for the building up and the advancement of his church among us. This alone is a great blessing from him. But we are challenged to even greater heartfelt thanks and praise when we consider that in his mercy he has brought the disastrous war between our country’s citizens so near to its close in the past year, so that now when peace has returned to the country as much as it has, we can gather with happier hearts and brighter hopes for the future of our beloved country.

However, here too we certainly have to hope with fear and trembling the more we seem to become aware of how little the discipline of the war has bowed people’s hearts in true repentance and faith in the Lord our God.

However, we want to pray to him that he will let both these things serve us and our congregations for good so that we all might learn from them so much more sincerely to love him and his Word, and to trust in him alone, that we might learn to regard all things as filth and detrimental in order to win Christ and to be found in him, and finally that we might learn to offer ourselves willingly with all that we have to the glory of God and to the service of his church.

Among the several important matters which lie before the synod for discussion is also a proposal regarding the synodical constitution. Far too long have we felt the necessity of a close examination and a sweeping change of our synodical constitution taking place. The matter has been before several conventions but its discussion has been put off so that it could be prepared as thoroughly and carefully as possible. We have regarded it as a matter of no small importance, and therefore we have not wanted to be in too great a hurry, but we have tried to produce a piece of work which is as good as it can be by using the means which were at our disposal. The proposal was drafted by two special committees, by the pastoral confeence when it met, and finally by the Church Council. Thus it lies before the synod now as it was adopted by the Church Council for discussion and preliminary approval, so that afterward it can be placed before the congregations for final adoption. In connection with this matter you will certainly also permit me briefly to call the assembly’s attention to a related matter.

We do not belong to those people who expect the salvation of the church from the constitution-question, as it is called. We do not believe that a constitution can create or reform a congregation or a church body. The Spirit of God alone can do that through the Word of the Lord and the Sacraments. Through them he regenerates people’s hearts and works and preserves faith in them. Through faith they have fellowship with Christ and are members of the communion of saints, the true body of Christ and the true church of Christ. All errors, aberrations and imperfections in the church can be corrected and set right only through the Word of God being taught purely and in its entirety, and received and preserved in sincere faith.

Therefore, when people, be it in state churches, people’s churches, or independent churches , turn their eyes first and foremost to the constitution-question and expect a new, glorious future from the adoption of this or that constitution, then people only show in that way how far they have come away from the Word of God, the solid main pillar of the church.

This would certainly show up also in the constitution people might adopt. But even if it were possible that what people produced could not be improved upon, still it would, however, do no good if people trusted in the constitution instead of in the Word of God.

However, that in no way says that it is not important how a church body’s constitution is put together. Just as a church body’s errors, especially in the doctrines of God’s Word about the church and the ministry, will show up in the principles as well as in the form of its constitution, so as a rule will a constitution based on false principles, be seen later to have a harmful effect on a church body’s understanding and life.

On the other hand, since God is a God of order, so will his people also adopt their own ordinances or constitution carefully so that all things can be done in decency and order during their outward course here in the world. Now where the Word of God is proclaimed purely and where its proper authority is acknowledged both as a Means of Grace and as the highest rule and guide for faith and life, there, the above work will all have as its object that the order set down by God himself in his Word is not disturbed or interfered with and that the rules and regulations which are adopted do not conflict with the doctrines of faith revealed in the Word of God, and finally, that neither the use of the Lord’s Means of Grace is restrained and restricted , but is promoted, and neither that the rights which God has given the congregations as well as their pastors in the Word are denied them, because that would also make the carrying out of the duties assigned them difficult, yes, perhaps made impossible.

Naturally this applies where believers unite in a congregation and adopt a constitution for it, but to an even greater degree, where several congregations join together to form what we call a church body, and accept a constitution for it. I say that it applies “to an even greater degree” in this latter instance because the forming of congregations is ordered and commanded by God himself in his Word, and therefore in the proper understanding of the word are an institution of the Lord, a work of the Lord, while the coming together of individual congregations into a larger church body, be it a state church or synods, is not commanded by God. Therefore the necessity of such joining together taking place, as well as also the form, constitution and expansion of such a church body must be dependent upon many external and internal circumstances, and above all, on what may be considered useful and helpful for the individual congregations as well as for the church of God on the whole.

The communion of God, the Christian Church, is, of course, properly speaking, invisible, since it consists of believers in whom the Holy Spirit has worked faith, which is invisible, through the Word. But it is, however, recognizable by the Word of God and the Sacraments which he has commanded are to be proclaimed and administered publicly. And just as God creates believers through these Means of Grace, so he gathers these believers around the public preaching ministry in an external congregation for mutual strengthening in the one saving faith and in the mutual confession of that faith. And just as it would be sin on the part of believers if they would not seek to establish and support the public preaching ministry among themselves, so it would also be sin if someone would not stay with this preaching ministry and the orthodox congregation which gathered around it. Because the Lord says, “He that hears you hears me; and he that despises you despises me,” (Lk. 10:16) and again, “Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is,” (He. 10:25). I well dare suppose that most people among us agree on these things. But it is another matter with respect to the merging of several congregations into a larger church body, a synod, or the like. And it isn’t merely with respect to what can be the best form and constitution for such an organization that more or less different opinions show up. No, it is with respect to the nature and essence of the organization as well of the meaning of the ordinances and regulations adopted by such an organization that views go in opposite extremes.

If we are not going to make a mistake which in the long run can have the most unhappy consequences for our congregations now that we are together to discuss a suitable ordinance or constitution for our church body, or if at any rate we are not going to waste our time in discussions and disputes which could be avoided, then it will be of the highest necessity that we recognize in the clearest possible way, and keep that importance in mind, which according to the Word of God must be ascribed both to the organization of the individual congregations which we call a synod and the regulations and ordinances adopted by it, together with finally also the shape of the church which it brings about.

That our understanding of these matters was extremely weak when our synod was founded fourteen years ago and the synodical constitution was prepared which we are now considering revising, we confess all too willingly. But neither was it so surprising.

Much rather, we have God to thank for it that it was as widely tolerated as it is, but even more, because he led us to a much more correct and clearer understanding also in these matters so that the flaws which certainly are to be found in our old constitution did not lead to the blunders which one might have expected, but rather was helpful toward guiding our practice according to one of the more correct principles. We of course all came over here, lay people as well as clergy, utterly inexperienced in such matters, and we came from our fatherland where the situation of the congregations’ complete immaturity, no less than the situation of the church as a state church so naturally had to produce the greatest confusion in our understanding of precisely these points.

Now where the rights and the power which God has given his church in his Word, for example, the power of the keys, and with it the right to install and remove pastors, practice church discipline, stipulate ceremonies and the like, have been transferred to the prince and exercised by him down through the centuries partly through worldly advisors, partly through pastors and bishops as royal functionaries, as has readily been the case in the state churches; furthermore, where the prince, so far from recognizing his right to exercise only such authority as has been turned over to him by the congregations, which therefore must always have the right to take it back and to exercise it themselves, much rather, claims it as something which is due him according to divine right (iure divino) whether as the supreme bishop (summus episcopus) or as ruler; where now to this a legislative assembly, parliament or the like, which does not once need to confess the faith or belong to the congregations, has the power to give all kinds of laws and edicts for the congregations which also should be obeyed by them for God’s sake pursuant to the Fourth Commandment, there it is very natural that the concepts of congregation, church and church government become confused, yes, entirely false.

Then when people break from the ties of the state church so that the life of the congregation can take shape and develop freely, the old notions will, however, assert themselves, and people will try as best they can to carry them over into the new, freer situation. Thus we find the error very widely spread that the church which is talked about in Scripture, the church which the Lord of the church calls his bride and to whom he gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power and the rights which are connected with them, is not and cannot be the individual congregation but only a group and combination of them, be it now as a state church, people’s church, or synod, which therefore alone is due the name “church.” These churches of “the church,” as they readily are called everywhere, are regarded then also as an institution and work of the Lord, commanded by the Lord as superior to the individual congregations, with a power and authority over them which is supposed to be given by the Lord himself. A congregation’s refusal to accommodate itself to “the church,” or its disobedience to the Word of God, is thought to be a breach of the Word commanded by God, yes, even as a defection from the orthodox church and the orthodox faith.

Over against this error it is of the highest importance to recognize that every congregation which has the Word of God and the Sacraments, even if it is ever so small, yes, even if there are only two or three believers, true children of God, to be found in it, that it is, however, for their sake who lie concealed in it as the true, invisible church, a church of God and the lawful holder of all the power and authority which Christ has earned for and has given to his church. This is altogether evident from Matthew 18:17-20.

Here the Lord says, “Tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto you as a heathen and a publican.” How significant he thinks that is is evident from verses 19 and 20 where the Lord says , “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” But when he also says now in verse 18, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” then, with that, he is giving every visible congregation the power of the keys.

In the next place, while as I said before, we must acknowledge that the forming of congregations is God’s command and God’s work, and voluntary submission to and joining an orthodox congregation, everyone’s absolute duty, thus on the other hand the individual congregation’s joining a so-called church body is nowhere commanded or required in the Word of God. Not doing it would therefore not be a sin for the individual congregations which are involved, when circumstances and the needs of a congregation might persuade it not to join. Even less would it entail their exclusion from the Church of Christ. On the contrary, such congregations would each for themselves possess and properly be able to use the authority of the church which Christ has acquired for his entire church.

But at the same time as we assert the right and the authority of the individual congregation which is given it by Christ over against the false conception of the church, yet on the other hand we must watch ourselves carefully for a false independence which lays all the weight on the individual congregation’s complete independence and regards the individual congregation’s union every time and under any form - if not exactly sinful, yet, however, very dangerous and harmful, and at any rate unnecessary and useless. There are certainly not so few people round about in our congregations who thus are hardly able to see what use our synod is supposed to be for them, who perhaps even fear force and unauthorized authority on the synod’s part, and who at any rate think that since God has not commanded the forming of synods and larger church bodies that every congregation also has complete freedom not to join such synods and that it can never commit any sin by not doing so. The lack of proper understanding of this point is then certainly also the reason that several congregations which agree with us in the faith, have not, however, yet joined our synod - to their own and other congregations’ harm.

We have acknowledged that such a union is not expressly commanded in the Word of God and to that extent is a congregation’s free choice where it must look at facts and circumstances in order to decide if such a union is profitable and useful for itself and for other congregations. If the latter is found to be the case under certain given circumstances then such a union is a duty for the congregations, because they, as little as individual Christians, should use the freedom given them according to their whim or fancy, but for that which is profitable. If they don’t do it then they sin against love, cause offence and division, and hinder the building of the kingdom of Christ both among themselves and outside their circle in ever so many ways.

That now, in our circumstances such a union is beneficial, yes, relatively necessary, and therefore a duty for the individual congregations, is evident for the following reasons: 1) Our congregations of the Lutheran faith here are often located far from each other, surrounded by all kinds of sects and teachers of heretical doctrines. For strengthening in the orthodox faith, for preservation of unity in the pure confession as well as for mutual defense against false teachers, and warding off separatism and sectarianism, we are bound according to the Word of God. (Ep. 4:3-6; 1 Co. 1:10; Ro. 16:17.) In order to achieve all that, an outward union and joining together is very useful and necessary. 2) The greatest possible spreading of the Gospel and the kingdom of God in and outside our circle, as well as the promotion of all the means which can serve these ends, is our duty according to the Word of God. Singly, the congregations, especially the small ones, will be able to do hardly anything ,or almost nothing for these ends in comparison with what they can be capable of doing through God’s blessing when they combine their strengths and work together through the founding of institutions of learning, the publication of Bibles, hymnbooks, the Confessions, school books and religious books, and through home and foreign mission undertakings. 3) For the sound growth of the congregation it is of the highest importance that the Lord’s teachings with respect to the preaching ministry be preserved so that therefore the public servant of the Word is not resricted in the rights and duties which are given him by the Lord. Likewise it is important that encroachment upon or trespassing on his part does not occur in the duties and rights granted the congregation. Owing to human weakness both things will so easily be able to occur where a congregation, with its pastor, stands so entirely alone. On the other hand the congregation’s as well as the pastor’s rights and duties will be safeguarded and preserved through the association with congregations of the same pure faith and confession. 4) The congregation as well as its pastor, as a rule, need supervision so that everything goes orderly according to the Word of God, just as they often can need counsel, encouragement and admonition. Only with difficulty, or hardly at all, will this be able to occur without several congregations uniting in order to render each other such help, since they can also set up a supervisory office of their own among themselves if they find it necessary and the gifts for it are available. 5) Gifts can often be found in one congregation which are lacking in another, and vice-versa. It is the Lord’s will that the many kinds of gifts should demonstrate themselves as widely as possible for the common good and to the edifying of the whole (1 Co. 12:4-31). This occurs best, and often only, by the congregations entering into a closer external union with each other. 6) Uniformity in liturgy, official acts, and the like, is certainly not necessary for preservation of unity of faith, but it is, however, often very useful toward edification, while a large diversity in such things can often cause the weak offence and cool love. But through the congregations’ enthusiastic association and working together the greatest possible uniformity in official acts and liturgy can also be promoted. 7) And then if we add to this finally, that the apostolic church has already given us an example and a model for such a combining of and cooperation between the individual congregations (Ac. 15:1-31), then we conclude that only lack of the proper recognition, or willfulness, can keep congregations from such a uniting here where not only the wide distribution of the congregations over so large an area must incite them to it, but where also the independent stance of the congregations over toward the state, so far from placing obstacles in the way of such a voluntary submission and union, much more favors it and is in itself more of a reason which speaks for it - namely, so that their precious freedom shall not be misused by congregations through a false independence, yes, carnality.

However, even if we agree that a joining together of our individual congregations is useful, yes, necessary, and that failing to do it would expose the individual congregations to great danger and be a great hindrance and would harm the building up of God’s kingdom in and outside our circle, yet it is, however, not said that we agree about the form which such a joining together ought to take, nor about the provisions and the regulations, or the constitution, as it is generally called, which ought to be adopted as regulatory for the church body. Here the widest range is revealed for the most opposite opinions and views. Although now the greatest freedom must be preserved here for the congregations to give their joining together the form with which they might find themselves best served, yet it is, however, as I said before, their duty through the arrangements to follow such principles as agree thoroughly with the rule of the Word of God, and in their application see to it above all, first, that the pure faith and doctrine can find their expression and be preserved and furthered thereby, as well as in the next place that love can find its greatest possible exercise as a fruit of faith. History surely shows us the joining together of congregations in the most varying forms, all the way from the church-state, or papal church, and the various forms of state churches, to alliances and synods. These last also have the most diverse arrangements and constitutions.

We take it for granted that the joining together of congregations ought only take place by orthodox - we do not say those of identical belief - congregations. A merger like that American-Lutheran General Synod is a babel, just another organization of many disunited churches. But orthodox congregations also have to watch with the most extreme diligence that through their joining together and through their adopting a constitution for it, that while they do relinquish a portion of their freedom and independence voluntarily in love and with concern for their own as well as the common good, that they do not, however, transfer to the synod or to the joint-church such rights or such power which the Lord has not only entrusted to the congregations themselves, but whose exercise by themselves is the best guarantee for the preservation of the pure faith, for example, installing and removing pastors, practicing church discipline, and adopting hymnbooks and school books. But even less must congregations give to the joint-church or its officers such a power and authority that their decisions should be binding law for the congregations by virtue of a divine authority which should be due them as those who are over them according to the Fourth Commandment - even if their decisions do not conflict with the Word of God. Such a concession on the part of the congregations would make the synod a papacy which would be just as unchristian as the one which reigns in Rome. It would make the congregations slaves of men and would place a yoke upon them which would be heavier to bear and more difficult to remove than that which imprisons and oppresses them in the state churches.

The history of the church past and present shouts its warning! There is the papacy where the congregations, as is well known, are as good as deprived of all their rights. The church, as it is called, that is, the clergy, with the pope at the head, possesses them. As a worldly authority it demands unconditional obedience according to the Fourth Commandment.

The yoke of bondage which laid upon the congregations under the papacy, the Lord lifted through Luther, when as an angel of God this man brought the pure Gospel to light and taught believers to know the Christian liberty which Christ earned for them with his death, and the church learned to know the rights which the Lord of the church had given it in the power of the keys. And even where he agreed that certain of these rights were exercised by the worldly princes because of the congregations’ plight, there, with all the rest of the reformers, Luther is untiring in reminding both them and the congregations of the fact that they did not exercise this power as rulers but only because it was transferred to them by the congregations who possessed it as they who were looked upon as the congregations’ first and leading members because of their power and position. The power which they possessed as rulers only gave them occasion and right to serve the congregations so much more as members of the congregation.

Note. In an opinion from the year 1536 which was also signed by Bugenhagen, Melanchthon, Jonas and Myconius Luther says:

The calling and electing of orthodox servants of the church is properly and primarily not the business of the civil authorities but of the church. When the civil authority is a believer and a member of the church, then he calls not because he is a civil authority but because he is a member of the church; because “my kingdom is not of this world” (Jo. 18:36).

In 1530 Luther writes to Melanchthon:

As sovereign a bishop may impose even less on the church since this would mean fundamentally to mix these two jurisdictions. Should he do it anyway, then he would really be a pseudo-bishop, and we, were we to give in to this, would likewise be guilty of this sacrilege. Against this godlessness and iniquity one must fight and die rather than give in. Of course I speak of the church as a church which has been separated from the political commonwealth. As sovereign, a bishop may impose upon subjects as subjects whatever seems appropriate to him as long as it is godly and permissible; the subjects are required to obey, since under these circumstances they obey not as members of the church but as citizens. For the church is a twofold person in one and the same man . … It is the same as if Pomer forces his Wittenberg parish to abide by his house rule … It is the same as if the emperor ordered all people everywhere to fast, then the members of the church would obey him too, since according to the flesh, the church is under the emperor, but the church does not obey as church. Luther’s Works, American Edition, 49, 385, 386.

Brenz writes on Matthew 18:17:

The fact that Christ says: Tell it to the church is not to be understood as a large church assembly in which the civil authority is present pursuant to his calling as such, upholding public discipline and decency, but it is to be understood as a small gathering in which the civil authority has no ranking as such, because no vocation has that kind of authority, but is regarded as a private person; because they who follow Christ form such an assembly.

Likewise the reformers were in earnest in cautioning against mixing secular and ecclesiastical power, which had been the cause of such irreparable harm just in the papacy. In the course of time, meanwhile, Luther’s doctrine and warnings came to be forgotten and in most state churches a Caesaro-papism developed in which the Lord’s church, far from being the bride of Christ, the mistress of the house to whom he has entrusted the keys in his absence, has had to be satisfied with occupying the position of a maid. In the hand of God this circumstance has certainly been beneficial for the congregations in many respects.

But where they were taught to see the Lord in their princes and in the royal servants appointed by them, who also had their authority from God in things pertaining solely to the church and to whom the congregations were unconditionally subjected just as in secular things for God’s sake according to the Fourth Commandment, there such instruction and such regulations must drag the most ruinous consequences after themselves for the faith and life of the congregations who received such instruction and submitted to such regulations. Discouraging examples of this are not lacking.

The political situation in this country allows congregations a freedom for which they cannot thank God enough and in which they cannot use wisdom enough in order to use it properly for the advancement of the kingdom of God.

Instead of state churches we see synods forming everywhere. But how many of them are not bringing the congregations under the yoke of bondage just through false teaching about church government, which lies heavily upon them in the papal church and in many state churches? To mention only the so-called Lutheran synods, since such doctrine is held very commonly in the General Synod through its recognized organs; however, in no synod do we know it carried through more in church ordinance and practice than in the German-Lutheran Buffalo Synod. The same is also the case in the Lutheran General Synod in Prussia, which, however, left the united state church a few years ago just for the preservation of the pure faith, but now itself has had to live to see that a large portion of its congregations, with their pastors, has left it because of the false doctrine and practice in church government which is brought by the synod’s Consistory and is sanctioned by the synod. These are enough discouraging examples for us. However, they should not deter us from coming together in a synod and giving it a constitution, but keep us from following in their footsteps when we do it. Thus it is of the highest importance for us to recognize that doctrine concerning church government as basically false, and avoid it. On the other hand we must strive to make the correct doctrine which the Word of God gives us, also in this point, our own, as soon as possible so that through our work we can follow such principles, so that our synodical constitution can be a true blessing for our dear congregations.

This address is not the place to expound and establish this doctrine further. As in all that I have said so far I intend only to give hints which perhaps can do this assembly some good in the discussions which will follow. There is only one Lord, one King in the Church of Christ, namely, Christ. This King governs his church, that is, the believers, through the Word. This Word of God is the one law in church, but a law to which they submit themselves and which they follow in voluntary obedience, not by force but out of love for their King who is also their Savior. The Lord of the Church has instituted the preaching ministry for the proclamation of the Word, so that he himself can govern his church through the Word. Those who hold this office, be they now pastors, bishops, or other leaders of the church, have their power as far as the Word extends, and they govern by means of it, however, not with force, because people who are not willing to obey the Word except through outward force and dictatorial language, do not belong to the church of Christ: “my sheep hear my voice and follow it.” (Jo. 10:27.)

Luther teaches the following about church government:

This is called the ecclesiastical office, or church, where one merely has the Word and governs with it in such a way that one does not exercise any force or compulsion, just as little as one seeks power or authority over others. But why is this? Because God wants to uphold and govern his church solely through his Word, and not through human power. They who are in ecclesiastical offices and have the pastoral office, have therefore the Word alone through which to serve others, and they should not make themselves lords. Therefore it applies equally much, whether a servant of the church is large or small, young or old, when he only has the Word and teaches it properly. Because it is only the Word to which one shall look. This is to govern, and not the person who teaches the Word … But now if anyone dared ask , and say: “But what kind of a government can it be, and how can it exist where there is no head, but where all who are in office are equal and no one has more power or authority than the other?”

Because reason regards such an equality a non-entity and something harmful. On the contrary reason teaches that order is useful and good, where there is a head whom others must look to and be regulated by, and concludes from this: If it is going to go properly in the church, then it must also be this way there; otherwise there would be pure confusion; it’s disorderly. This is the reason which still holds many reasonable nice people captive. Because even though they are enemies of the pope and see the manifest and indisputable offence, yet they, however, who think that there must be an order in the government of the church will not agree with them who tear such order asunder and who want to acknowledge neither the pope nor others as a head.

To such a question you are to learn to answer: It’s true, reason does consider it to be a non-entity, the pope has made just such an order both in the church and in the civil government, where the one is higher, has more command and greater authority than the other. But here we have our dear Lord Christ’s express command. Namely, in his kingdom, which is a spiritual kingdom, it is to be otherwise than in civil government; because everyone is to learn that in it no human authority or great appearance, but only the Word of God is to apply and to govern in Christ’s kingdom. The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and others were not high priests, even though they really also have had an extremely important calling and greater gifts than the priests; still, they did not want to force anyone with power nor did they want more authority than other men, but the pious Jews have obeyed them without outward force and accepted their instruction because it was not their word, but God’s Word. Likewise St. Paul had many excellent gifts, and the pious bishops such as Timothy, Titus and others looked to him and followed him, not because Paul had more authority and could compel them; but because the church everywhere, where it had seen the Word and the gifts of God, had been pious persons, had heard and accepted them, not for the sake of the person but for the Word’s sake. Because everything depends on the Word, nothing on the person.”

In another place Luther says:

This is the way it has to be in civil government; he who has the office must also have the power. But in the church it is called: to serve and to suffer, not to reign and to have calm and an easy life. He who wants to take this upon himself, does that. But he who does not want to, does not boast that he serves in Christ’s kingdom.

And again:

Hence it is the height of folly when they command that one shall believe the Church, the fathers, and the councils, though there be no word of God for it. It is not the church but the devil’s apostles who command such things, for the church commands nothing unless it knows for certain that it is God’s Word. As St. Peter puts it: “ Whoever speaks, let him speak as the word of God” (1 Pe. 4:11). It will be a long time, however, before they can ever prove the decrees of the councils are God’s word. Still more foolish is it when they assert that kings, princes, and the mass of mankind believe thus and so. My dear man, we are not baptized into kings, or princes, or even into the mass of mankind, but into Christ and God himself. Neither are we called kings, princes, or common folk, but Christians. No one shall or can command the soul unless he is able to show it the way to heaven; but this no man can do, only God alone. Therefore, in matters which concern the salvation of souls nothing but God’s word shall be taught and accepted.

Again, consummate fools though they are, they must confess that they have no power over souls. For no human being can kill a soul or give it life, or conduct it to heaven or hell. If they will not take our word for it, Christ himself will attend to it strongly enough where he says in the tenth chapter of Matthew, “Do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing that they can do; rather fear him who after he has killed the body, has power to condemn to hell.” I think it is clear enough here that the soul is taken out of all human hands and is placed under the authority of God alone. Luther’s Works, American Edition, 45,106.

Those who administer the different aspects of the preaching ministry, also in the leaders in the church, are not rulers and lords over the congregations, but servants. Christ says: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But you shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that serves.” (Lk. 2:25.26.)

Note, Luther says on Romans 12:8:

But notice how Paul does not turn all order upside down, because he does not place ruling first and at the head of the list, but lets prophesying take the lead, next, serving, teaching, admonishing, distribution, and places ruling last of all among the common ministers, namely, in sixth place. The Spirit has without doubt done it because of the coming abomination, when the devil should set up a sheer tyranny and worldly power in Christendom, as it is being practiced now, when ruling is the highest thing, and everything in Christendom must obey their tyranny and harshness, and all prophesying, service, teaching, admonition and giving must cease before this tyranny should suffer injury, so that it allowed itself to be led by prophesying, teaching and the other offices. But we should know that nothing is higher than the Word of God, which office is above all offices; therefore the governing office is its servant, which shall exhort and awaken it as a servant awakens his lord from sleep and reminds him of what belongs to his office, so that what Christ says in Luke 22:26 can be fulfilled: :He who wants to be the greatest among you, shall be your servant,” and “the first shall be last.” However, teachers and preachers should be the ones to guide, obedient and following him, and also laying themselves down, so that all Christian work and ministry can be another’s servant. In this what Paul teaches in this epistle also happens, that no one consider himself the best and exalt himself over others and think more highly of himself than he ought to think, but let an office and a gift really be more noble than the others, however, so that everyone serves the other with it and is submissive; thus the governing-office is the most insignificant, and yet all the others are submissive to it, and again it serves the others with its care and supervision. On the other hand, prophesying is the highest, and yet it follows that which governs.

Insofar as the congregations transfer to the synod and through it to its officers some right and authority to direct, then they do not have this office by divine right (iure divino) but by human right (iure humano); nor does their power reach further than the Word reaches, as it must always be exercised without outward force. In everything else its activity is essentially only advisory.

May the Lord allow us now during the work of these days always to have his Word in mind so that through our examination of the draft of the constitution under consideration, we may follow the fundamental rules laid down in his Word. Then we shall certainly be able to hope for the Lord’s grace blessing our work, so that the synod can serve to the true benefit of our congregations with its constitution and other ordinances and be an effective means in the hand of God for the building up of our dear Lutheran Church among us and our posterity, to the glory of God and to the salvation of many souls! Amen in Jesus’ name!