And when [Jesus] had said this, he breathed on [the disciples] and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” John 20:23

The church has given to her ordained ministers through the gift of the Holy Spirit the power and authority to exercise the apostolic ministry to bind and loose sin.¹ Traditionally Luther’s Small Catechism included a section on the Office of the Keys, although not written by Luther himself.²  I note with regret that current editions of the Small Catechism from Augsburg Fortress have omitted any discussion about the Office of the Keys.

The third question on the Office of the Keys included in most every edition of the Small Catechism is: “What do you believe according to these words [John 20:22-23]? I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, in particular when they exclude openly unrepentant sinners from the Christian congregation and absolve those who repent of their sins and want to do better, this is just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself” (my emphasis).³ When an ordained servant of Christ admonishes an unrepentant sinner, doesn’t speak God’s word of forgiveness, and believes excommunication is the only remedy left, Lutherans have traditionally believed that that admonition is a direct word from Christ himself. The pastor acts in the stead and command of Jesus Christ when exercising the ministry of the keys. The pastor’s word at that point is Christ’s word.

Our liturgical tradition has witnessed to the belief that the pastor speaks in the place of and with the full authority of the eternal Son of the Father. Thus we have the absolution spoken by the pastor in the rite of Confession and Forgiveness, “Cling to this promise: the word of forgiveness I speak to you comes from God. [Name], in obedience to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins.”⁴ And going back earlier within the tradition, the Service Book and Hymnal offers these binding words from the rite for Public Confession in preparation for receiving the Holy Sacrament:

On the other hand, by the same authority, I declare unto the impenitent and unbelieving, that so long as they continue in their impenitence, God hath not forgiven their sins, and will assuredly visit their iniquities upon them, if they turn not from their evil ways, and come to true repentance and faith in Christ, ere the day of grace be ended.⁵

From this theological and liturgical tradition within the Lutheran church, a pastor whose bound conscience belief in the Word of God that homosexual behavior is sin for the sake of pastoral care exercises the keys and binds that sin until repented. In doing so, that pastor speaks God’s own binding word upon such a person. His sin is not forgiven, neither by the pastor on earth nor by God in heaven. The Office of the Keys is exercised in this way so that a person might be convicted by the law and saved by the gospel. This is the ministry of the gospel and a fulfillment of the pastoral calling to be ministers of the Word. I must be painfully clear this concerns every unrepentant sinner and every unrepented sin. I only address homosexual behavior, because it is the issue upon which the ELCA now struggles and according to the bound conscience doctrine the keys are a valid and correct response to this sin and must be respected.⁶

The social statement,⁷ however, affirms and lifts up the exact opposite teaching and interpretation. According to the statement, an equally valid and correct interpretation of Holy Scripture is that, not only is homosexual behavior not a sin, but that it is something that the church should recognize and possibly even bless. The same Word of God as is taught above to be correct is now also correct in the opposite interpretation and application. The Office of the Keys rightly used above by pastors has no place in this interpretation.

The ELCA formally holding these two opposed positions as equally correct raises obvious and difficult challenges to the ministry of the keys and the unified witness of the gospel. Because the social statement puts forward the bound conscience, which cannot be violated, as the criterion for allowing opposite interpretations of Holy Scripture to be normative within the church, it is also putting forward two different and opposed ministries of the gospel. One ministry of the gospel is to use the Office of the Keys on those who engage in homosexual behavior. The other ministry of the gospel is to use the Rite of Marriage (for lack of a clearer term for a rite for recognizing a publicly accountable lifelong monogamous same-gender relationships). One ministry of the gospel is to stand in the place of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God and be His representative and witness to the vows that same-gender couples make. The other ministry of the gospel is to speak in the place and stead of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, to call a person engaging in homosexual sex to repent amend her life and strive to avoid it at all costs to save soul and body. And now in the ELCA according to the social statement and ministry policy resolutions both ministries of the gospel are correct, valid, and equal.

The implications of these two opposite ministries of the gospel are unthinkable. I truly pity our homosexual brothers and sisters who now hear from one pastor in the ELCA the keys and from another pastor blessings and welcome. Does Jesus speak to such a one, through the office of pastor, a word of admonition and warning to their soul or does Jesus speak to such a one, through the office of pastor, a word of joy and blessing for that same behavior? Which Jesus is speaking the truth to our homosexual brothers and sisters? This church unfortunately has confused the gospel to the point that a person engaging in homosexual sex doesn’t know whether he’s condemned by God or blessed by God! The bound conscience doctrine now condemns a person to his or her own conscience to determine whether this behavior is or is not sin, because this church can no longer give a clear witness. How can any one do that?

The social statement condemns us because, due to our fallen nature, we truly cannot discern our sins. We need an outside word. We need the Law of God (second use) to show us our true nature, to say “no” to our sinful desires and to show us what truly is good, right, salutary and God pleasing. Psalm 19 shows us that so very clearly. In 19:12 we hear the profound wisdom of the psalmist, “Who can discern his errors?” It is only in the light of God’s law that we know how deeply depraved we are and in His law we are shown our errors. The psalmist in the preceding verses (7-11) praises God for that honey-sweet law and teaching that is “perfect” (7), “sure” (8), “right” (9), “pure” (9), and “true” (10). That word is so sweet like honey because it gives to us the knowledge of our errors, so that we might not walk in that path but walk in the way that God teaches and wants for His children.

This is basic Lutheran teaching and understanding of the proper distinction between law and gospel. The external word of God is the only truth that tells us the breadth and depth of our sinfulness and what exactly those sins are that God so painfully saved us from through the cross. It cannot be left up to our own fallen individual conscience to determine which things we do are sins or are God-pleasing. Indeed that condemns each of us to play god to ourselves and places us in direct contradiction to the First Commandment and the one true God. For if one believes with the full strength of their conscience that something is a sin and should be admonished, yet the law of God says it’s a good and holy thing, that person not only is wrong but is teaching against the will of God and putting souls in danger. And if one believes with the full strength of their conscience that something is a God-pleasing thing and should be celebrated and rejoiced, yet the law of God condemns it, then that person also is not only wrong but also putting souls in danger for continuing in sin and unrepentant sin at that.

In light of thinking through this social statement and the bound conscience doctrine with the lens of the Office of the Keys, I think it becomes apparent that there is a fundamental division in the ministry of the ELCA. The keys bring to light the reality of the divergence of the gospel as understood within the social statement. In reality, the bound conscience doctrine does nothing to help foster unity within the ELCA. I actually think it makes clearer how the two teachings are incompatible with one another and shows that we may need to admit there is no longer unity in this church concerning the gospel. If there is no agreement over the issue of a sin and a unified call to repentance, can there be a unified proclamation of the gospel? I think it needs to be asked whether or not the social statement puts in jeopardy article 7 of the Augsburg Confession.⁸ Does a break in the use of the means of grace, the keys, constitute a real break in the unity of the gospel?

Unfortunately I am beginning to believe that these two separate ministries of the gospel cannot be reconciled. If the ELCA believes and confesses that one pastor acting in the stead of Jesus Christ binds and forgives homosexual behavior and another pastor acting in the stead of Jesus Christ affirms and “publicly recognizes” those who engage in that behavior are both correct, then the one ministry that the church has given to all her called and ordained servants equally, the Office of the Keys, is broken. The ELCA holding up as equally valid the opposite position undermines and subverts that pastor’s ministry to the one gospel of Jesus Christ. If the keys are rightly administered to a person who engages in homosexual behavior, then another pastor preaching, teaching, and living the opposite undermines the unity of the church. And from the opposite side, the same exact argument can be made, that a pastor binding homosexual behavior as sin undermines and subverts another pastor’s ministry to the gospel of recognizing, welcoming, and blessing. Thus, there is no common gospel shared. If these things are true then I believe the unintended consequence of the bound conscience doctrine regarding this issue is that the one Office of the Keys is broken.

Ian Wolfe is Pastor at St. Paul Lutheran Church in Maynard, Iowa.

Notes
1. John 20:22-23; Matthew 16:19.
2. M. Reu’s An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism notes that, “These three questions of Office of the Keys are not by Luther. The second and third questions are taken from the Nuernberger Kinderpredigten of 1533, and this first is still of later origin.”
3. Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991), 29. This is very similar to M. Reu’s edition from Augsburg.
4. “Individual Confession and Forgiveness,” in Evangelical Lutheran Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 244.
5. Service Book and Hymnal (Philadelphia: Lutheran Church in America, 1958), 252.
6. Resolution 3 of the Ministry Policies, adopted by a vote of 771-230, as amended: “Resolved, that in the implementation of any resolutions on ministry policies, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another's burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound consciences of all.”
7. Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (2009), 11.
8. The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord, ed. Paul Timothy McCain, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: Concordia, 2006). CA 7 states: “For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.”