© Mark Nispel, 2017
Get the article including citations and footnotes:
Original pdf: Pfarramt, Geography, and the Order of the Church: A Formal Opinion from Wittenberg
Published in Concordia Journal (2017):
Luther, Martin, Johannes Bugenhagen, Georg Spalatin, and Mark D. Nispel. “” Pfarramt”, Geography, and the Order of the Church: A Formal Opinion from Wittenberg.” Concordia theological quarterly 81, no. 3/4 (2017): 239-247.
Available as a back print via Atlas Serials: here.
Translator’s Introduction
Although there remains general interest in the topic of the ministry among confessional Lutherans of North America, there is a lack of understanding concerning the details of the historical context on which much of the Reformation material on the ministry depends. This is related to the generally low familiarity with the Reformation languages, German and Latin. Together, these shortcomings have contributed to a lack of clarity among English-speaking American Lutherans regarding questions of the ministry and the use of Reformation material in doctrinal controversies on this topic. Without clarity of thought, there can be no progress. The translation of the following letter and of the Weimar edition introduction to it, as well as the inclusion of geographical concepts of church order, will help readers to understand this topic. Additionally, this letter may serve as a pattern and tool for understanding other Reformation materials frequently cited in the discussion of church and ministry among us.
This letter was composed on July 24, 1536, as a formal written theological opinion regarding an ongoing controversy between the parish rector (Pfarrherr) and the city council of Zwickau. The letter was signed and sent by Martin Luther (a faculty member of the University of Wittenberg), Johannes Bugenhagen (the parish rector of the church in Wittenberg), and Georg Spalatin (a longtime advisor to the elector and a visitor [examiner] of the University of Wittenberg and the churches of Saxony) to Leonhard Beyer, the parish rector of Zwickau. The opinion has been and continues to be of theological interest today within North American Lutheranism primarily on account of one particular sentence it contains, which has often been quoted in isolation to various ends.
In addition to the opinion itself, Otto Clemen, the editor of the volume of the Weimar edition in which this letter appears, has provided a useful historical introduction to it. He also provides part of an interesting and useful absentee minority opinion given by Philip Melanchthon. These, for the most part, are translated below.
A few observations will help to explain the context of this letter. First, it is often under-appreciated that there are geographic assumptions built into the language and concepts used to present the doctrines of church and ministry. In the New Testament, Paul wrote to “the church of God residing in Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). When an average North American reads this phrase, he generally relates this to what he sees and experiences within his own setting. He thinks of a singular assembly defined physically for the most part by one building or, perhaps, by one parking lot. But it is likely that the phrase is equivalent to Paul’s other opening greetings, wherein he greets the “saints” or “beloved of God” in a geographic region, which is often a city or something like “the church made up of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess 1:1).
From all indications, in this early period of the young Christian movement, it was common for Christians to gather for worship, prayer, and reading the Scriptures in private homes (e.g., Acts 20:20; Rom 16:5), probably due in part to the great cost of building and maintaining a physical structure for sizable groups. In a larger city, this implies that there were multiple such churches or Christian assemblies within the one city. In the centuries that followed, this multi-assembly situation was certainly the functioning model in the very large cities of Rome and Alexandria; we know at least small bits about multiple groupings of the church in those cities even up to the early third century.
In the earliest period, it is likely that many individual assemblies or small groupings of such assemblies had their own leaders, the “bishops and deacons” (Phil 1:1) of a city. But in the following two centuries, the groups or congregations within a city typically came to be led by a common clergy or at least one overall common leader. Starting early in the second century in some places and almost universally by the third century, the bishop was the head cleric over all the individual assemblies within the city. By the third century, the idea of “church” in such a setting clearly referred to the sum total of the multiple assemblies and the common clergy that served them, all organized under the city’s one bishop. This was the church of this or that city or region. Therefore, there was nothing in the phrase “the church of Corinth” that would imply a singular building to an ancient or to anyone of Luther’s day.
The second point to be made concerns the titles for the clergy who served the church organized in this manner during Luther’s time. A derivative result of the development outlined above is that the word bishop had a strong geographic component. The bishop was tied to a place, usually a city. Anything that existed within the region or city that pertained to the Christian religion—whether a holy site, a place of pilgrimage, a Christian school or university, or the erection of a new cathedral—belonged at least in part to the purview of the bishop.
Over time, the geography associated with the word bishop enlarged, incorporating more than a single city. The Roman Empire began using the word diocese to describe large administrative areas of territory. After the Christian religion attained legal standing and became the official religion of the empire, Christian leaders often took up ecclesiastical responsibilities for areas that tended to correspond to the geographic administrative areas of the empire. As the state weakened over time and became ineffective or even nonexistent, the transition of the term diocese to an ecclesiastical use was easy if not obvious. Through this process, the region associated with the oversight of the bishop came to be called the “diocese” or “episcopal see.”
In Germany, even before the Reformation began, the church was similarly organized into local regions that individually were called a parish (Pfarre, Pharre). Just as within the city of the bishop, within the parish, there could be and often were multiple ecclesiastical entities, assemblies, or buildings. In the Wittenberg parish, there was the city church (Stadtkirche), the castle church (Schloßkirche), the university, and the Augustinian monastery where various preaching, teaching, and worship activities occurred. Preaching and teaching also occurred in the surrounding farming villages, which belonged to the parish.
The head clergyman over such a parish was called the Pfarrherr (often pastor in Latin). He was the equivalent in Luther’s day to the city bishop in the ancient church. He was the ecclesiastical overseer of the church in his city and surrounding area. This included all related institutions insofar as they involved ecclesiastical activities, as well as the city schools and their teachers insofar as they gave religious instruction to the children.
Additionally, in larger parishes, there would be various clergy under the Pfarrherr who assisted in the parish work. Wittenberg was typical in this regard in that during Luther’s time, the parish typically had three assistant ministers who held the title Diakon (deacon).
Alongside these titles and organizational facts of the Wittenberg parish, one should consider the explicit statements of the reformers themselves in terms of how they considered grades of offices in the church. They did not consider these grades or divisions (or those of the ancient church) to be of divine origin, nor did they think it was necessary for them to be the same in all places. Instead, they taught that everyone who has a call to preach and administer the sacraments has the same basic office even if one is made Pfarrherr or bishop over the others for the sake of order.
The question for the translator is how to handle such terms that are unfamiliar to the English reader. The general terms of our day, “pastor” or “preacher,” allow no precision in terms of the grades of office that are part of this context. One can attempt to make use of “head pastor” (for Pfarrherr) and “assistant pastor” (for Kaplan, Diakon, etc.), and I have done so in the past. But “head pastor” does not carry the same geographic sense as Pfarrherr. The problem of vocabulary is acute enough that I decided to take the approach of using English terms that have one-to-one correspondence with their German counterparts, even if they are not in common use and must be accompanied by definition and explanation.
So, for Pfarrherr, I have decided to make use of the unfortunate term parish rector. It is unfortunate in that it is not a contemporary English term for any common church office. Nevertheless, it is not completely without precedent. One must risk a bit of tedium for the sake of clarity.
Kirchendiener is a very general, broad, and abstract term often used to refer to all the offices and workers in the church together. I have used “church worker” or “one who serves in the church” here, as it includes both those traditionally ordained and those who are not.
Diakon is a title for a concrete office. The Diakon was an ordained preacher who administered the sacraments and was an assistant to the parish rector. This word does not occur in the Wittenberg letter. However, it does appear in the introduction and in a footnote. I have used “assisting deacon” for this term. In Wittenberg, there were three regular ministers with the title Diakon.
The Kaplan was also an assistant to the parish rector and generally engaged in teaching and administering the sacraments. It was a common title used in many different places. In the Wittenberg opinion translated below, the title is included among the other church workers who the city council is not to appoint without the knowledge and approval of the parish rector. I have chosen to use “assistant preacher” here.
Both the Diakon and Kaplan were recognized by Luther in 1521 as “Christian bishops” along with the parish rector. By the elector’s command of 1535, they were to be ordained, after theological examination by the Wittenberg theological faculty, “and thus given the power and authority of their priestly and diaconal office.”
A final comment is that the term Visitation that occurs here refers to the regular, ongoing inspections of the churches and schools in Saxony in regard to the state of those institutions. This was a system of oversight instituted by the elector over the church in his territory during the 1520s.
I. Introduction provided by the Weimar Edition editor, Otto Clemen20
At the beginning of 1536, conflict broke out again in Zwickau between the city council and the parish rector in regard to the calling of those who minister in church and school. The parish rector, Leonard Beyer, claimed the right to choose assistant preachers and assisting deacons on account of the order of visitation, or at least so he said. He claimed the right “to present and send them to Wittenberg and to ordain and anoint such people.” The council stated to the contrary that the [right of] election remained with it and not with the parish rector and that he just wanted to retain the old lordship [of the papal clerics] over them.” After they had chosen [the candidates], the council wanted to present the chosen to the rector, who then for his part could take care of the corresponding notification of Wittenberg. With a heavy heart, Beyer submitted. He requested that the council “for the sake of peace and unity agree that no one would be forced (into office), and that no one would be presented and assigned without his will and foreknowledge.”
The council promised to abide by this wish of the pastor. Soon thereafter, controversy broke out again. Beyer began it with gibes made from the pulpit. When the council protested to him about this, he appeared one day in a council meeting to complain about the actions of the council in the calling of “those who serve in the school.” Already earlier, the council had overstepped its authority in that it had accepted [into office] the “schoolmaster” (that is, Peter Plateanus, who on May 5, 1535, was assigned as [school] rector of the gymnasium) without his, the parish rector’s, foreknowledge and will; and more recently once again, in the selection of a new teacher (that is, Nicolas Rudolf) into the office of Jerome Nopus. “Infringement [by the council] on his office, in which the Holy Spirit has set him, has occurred.” On account of this, he felt compelled to call for a decision of the Wittenberg leaders. . . .
From letters by Liborius Magdeburg to Stephan Roth, we know that Beyer himself went and obtained the judgment [iudicium] in Wittenberg. He arrived there on July 20. Spalatin was in Wittenberg from July 16 to July 22, and obviously also still on July 24. It is interesting that Melanchthon added an absentee opinion: “And to me, Philip Melanchthon, it appears to be right, just, and useful, that the calling of assisting deacons and of those who teach in the school should be jointly in possession of the council and the pastor of the church.”
II. Letter Communicating Wittenberg’s Formal Opinion to the City Council of Zwickau
Our gospel and doctrine emphasize most importantly that one should distinguish well between the two kingdoms, the worldly and the spiritual, and not intermingle them, as long as an emergency or lack of people do not compel us to do so. That is, wherever there are people who govern the town hall and the city, and again, where there are people who look after the parish office and the churches, one should not interfere in any part of the office of the other. Rather, let each receive his own (office) commended to his conscience, as St. Peter teaches that we should not be ἀλλοτριεπίσκοποι [1 Pet 4:15]. From the beginning, these two offices were segregated by Christ. And experience all too often shows that there can be no peace where the town council or the city want to rule the parish or, vice versa, where the parish rector wants to rule the government or the city, as the example of the papacy showed us all too well.
Accordingly, we beseech and admonish you, Parish Rector and Teacher Leonard, good friend, that in this matter, you in Zwickau should hold fast to the decisions of the visitation articles and of the later electoral recess. For the devil does not take a vacation. Flesh and blood are not good. And the people of this dangerous age are strange and facetious, many of whom seek not what is required for peace and unity but rather what their desire and curiosity demand.
Accordingly, no peace or unity can remain wherever the assistant preacher, the schoolmaster, and others who serve in the church, etc., know that they are able to be in the office of the church without the knowledge and will of the parish rector, realizing that on this basis, they can appeal to the city council and be defiant, since [in a controversy,] one can always find supporters against parish rectors. Thus, if they should intentionally accept or sanction an assistant preacher, a schoolmaster, or church worker without [the parish rector’s] knowledge or consent, you should not concede or grant that precedent. Just as we here in Wittenberg, in accordance with the Visitation, indeed even allow the parish rector to take on or dismiss [such people] without the knowledge and counsel of the secular government. And as far as we know, this is how all the other cities proceed, except where the visitors are entreated for this purpose (where otherwise none can be obtained).
The secular government has enough of its own to do. It should not interfere. It is not to burden itself with unnecessary duties of ruling. It also has a vexing authority. Neither Zwickau nor any other city should be ashamed to follow the example of Wittenberg and other cities, because it is in accordance with the order of the Visitation. To diverge from such common order does not create a good mind-set but rather, in the end, causes division and devastation of the churches. We should thank God that our churches have been brought and constituted into a somewhat similar order. And God will give no good fortune to them who break such order and unity on account of their own ambition and conceit without any need to do so. God help and strengthen us all in right faith and unfeigned love. Amen.
Monday after the Day of Saint Mary Magdalene in the year 1536.
Martin Luther, doctor Johannes Bugenhagen Pomeranus, doctor
Georg Spalatin