The Concordat and a Universal Priesthood

By Dr. Walter Wietzke

Luther has been criticized by those who say, "He made all priests laymen," an opinion countered by more who answer, "No, he made all lay persons priests" At the very heart of Lutheran Christianity and the Lutheran Reformation is the man from Wittenberg's emphasis-and ours-on 'the priesthood of all believers' .
Today we are caught in the backwash of an ELCA assembly that voted against a concordat with the Episcopalians. Reduced to basics it was a vote once again affirming the concept of the church as a universal priesthood, and a vote against Episcopal obsession with the non-biblical teaching of and adherence to 'apostolic (i.e. episcopal) succession'.
I agree with that vote for reasons expressed at the convention and delineated in the perceptive writings of honorable theologians. Therefore, I do not want to restate what many colleagues have articulately argued. However, the invitation to share my opinion allows me to comment on elements which may not have been part of the debate. My response has been conditioned by the teaching of scores of Lutheran professors and, especially by one who started out as a tutor in Systematic Theology at Handsworth College, Birmingham, England, viz., Philip S. Watson [ One of England's foremost Luther scholars].
While in America he embraced Lutheranism, at least emotionally. Lecturing to a graduate study group in Chicago, 1961, he said, " ... there continues to be confusion between the general priesthood and the pastoral offices .... The universal priesthood has not been adequately maintained .... (A kingdom of priests is what Old Testament Israel was meant to be) ... The task of a priest (in Old Testament times) was twofold: I) he was to speak in the name of God, teaching the divine will, 2) he was to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of the people .... However, offering sacrifices in the Aaronic and Levitical communities was not the sole prerogative of the priest - even the head of a household could do this .... In later times, as ritual became increasingly complex and as the transcendence of God was emphasized, the sacrificial aspects of the priesthood became disproportionately prominent. Teaching was neglected, sacrificial practice was expanded.
"It is very important for us to note that the New Testament virtually ignores the singular use of the term 'priest' in relation to the church. There is no separated priesthood in the church. There are legitimate functional offices - but no priests. The whole church is meant to be a priestly community serving the world .... As for sacrifice, Christ has made the critical and unique sacrifice, once for all."
Now where does the present preoccupation with priestly and episcopal authority come from? Why this impassioned reversion to sacerdotalism? There are psychological reasons we could explore, but the earliest historical roots can be traced to church fathers like Clement of Rome and Eusebius. They opened the door.
Eusebius, e.g., used priest' as a category distinct from 'laity'. But the real mischief maker was one identified as pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite who utilized a Platonic style construct to make this differentiation - as the angels are the lowest of the celestial hierarchy going in ascending order up to God, so the bishops are the highest of the terrestrial hierarchy (coming down in descending order from bishop to priest to deacon, and finally reaching lay people).
The church in the Middle Ages adopted this uncritically (as can be seen in the expanded treatment given the subject in the older editions of The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, but considerably modified in the more recent editions.) Luther's reformation gave such thinking the coup de grace, yet now it arises once again. The Reformation did not only deal with items like faith and grace, it had volumes to say about ministry, ministry as practiced in the church, ministry as the church impacts the world.
So what are we faced with?
Regrettably we must in our generation once again resist an expanded effort to perpetuate distinctions foreign to the New Testament and counter to the heritage of the Reformation. We must oppose an un-Lutheran passion on the part of some clerics to 'play priest,' on the part of some pastors and uninformed lay people to accede to 'apostolic succession' and the endowing of bishops with life-long status.
Yet, some will surely say, "the Lutheran Church in Sweden accepts the idea of the historic episcopate and 'apostolic succession,' doesn't it?" And we must answer, it does, it does indeed. However, let them honestly answer this question, "How would you describe the life and vitality of that church?"
Mr. Watson's droll admonition puts 'apostolic succession' in the right perspective for us in the ELCA - "I hope you Lutherans are never smitten with that disease."

Dr. Wietzke is the retired Director of Theological Education for the American Lutheran Church. Under his impulse and supervision the first seminary of the Lutheran Church in America and of the American Lutheran Church were merged, previous to the formation of the ELCA.