Is what you were about to say - undoubtedly.
Unfortunately, my Lutheran friends, the answer to this question, many of the major Christian communities ('denominations' for you less politically correct) - are willing to die over. The sheer emphasis alone; not a good reason, but a reason... is a reason for us to put more time into addressing what a proper "confessional" Lutheran response should be, and not simply a dismissive, knee-jerk toward the whole idea. Such responses in the past have come across as crass and childish..
Where did this desire to examine ourselves come from? Ecumenical dialogue of course! It usually takes a council (of one form or another) to address unchallenged error and get things into motion... As you may know, I am a Lutheran layman and pre-seminary student in the LCMS (Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod), a fellowship all to often famous for its 'us-versus-them' mentality - unfortunately; thus it came as a shock to myself (and likely many others) when the Synod's CTCR (Commission on Theology and Church Relations) came out with an ecumenical interim report along side the leadership of the ACNA (Anglican Church in North America), titled "On Closer Acquaintance" February of this year.
This report detailed a thorough examination of the doctrinal similarities and differences between our two traditions, and as the report puts it:
"As Justification and adherence to Holy Scripture are points of greatest common agreement between our church bodies, the ordering of the ministry is the area where we have found the most work, study, and discussion needs to be done to reach a common understanding of the connection between our practices."
As much as I wish our two traditions could come to a common understanding of the ordering of the ministry... Something more important caught my eye near the end of the dialogue:
This idea, the encouragement on both sides to consider the concept of "unicity YET threefold-ness of the holy ministry" - simultaneously. What a profound idea... yet, NOT TO WASTE TOO MUCH PRECIOUS TIME on the ramifications of the dialogue, my primary reason for mentioning it is that this caused me to re-examine the standard Lutheran positions on succession. It is my perspective that there are three historic ways of answering the question in [confessional] Lutheran communities.
 |
| Succession of Doctrine |
The first position is what I will call "Succession of Doctrine." This is the traditional confessional position on defining the concept of 'Apostolic Succession' - as my denomination, the Missouri Synod is a traditional, confessional church (that more than anything believes that its primary catholicity comes from its inheritance of both Holy Scripture and the Lutheran confessions) this is a perfectly acceptable way of defining the term.
Lutheran confessionalism, is a brand of Lutheranism (I would argue the truest) that recognizes first the sole norm and highest source of doctrine, the Bible... Yet doesn't stop there, as it believes that the testimony of the Word of God is not just something that is eternally bound within the 66-73 books of the Old and New Testament canon... But is also a truth that is passed on from generation to generation, and confessed from the mouth… A response in times of crisis and error to reaffirm the truths of holy Scripture.
Creeds, Confessions, the first seven Ecumenical Councils… These are all secondary authority to the primary authority of the word of God. Pedestals throughout the ages that hold up and confess to the ultimate truth, even when it's not "politically correct" to do so. In that regard, all confessional Lutherans, as all Christians believe that the major authority given to the church was the written word of God, penned by the inspiration of apostles (and prophets) and handed down [and DEFENDED] throughout the ages, a true "apostolic succession."
 |
| Succession of Presbyters (Pastors) |
The next position I will call the "Succession of Presbyters" a far less common albeit
pragmatic confessional (German) position - it is the standard position of the High church movement (of the likes of the late Rev. Arthur Carl Piepkorn in the Missouri Synod, thus applicable to the LCMS as a whole).
The succession of pastors, as a valid transmission of the authority of the bishops comes from the German Lutheran argument that, "there is no fundamental difference between the bishop and the presbyter (as Rome and the East assert), but rather their distinction is of human make for the sake of order…"
They argue this position and defend it primarily from the writings of Saint Jerome (342?-420), who sets forth his position unambiguously in his letter 146 (85) to Evangelus:
"The apostle clearly [teaches] that presbyters are the same as bishops… Listen to another bit of evidence in which it is most clearly proved that the bishop and the presbyter are the same… But add a late date the choice of one who was placed ahead of the others was undertaken as a remedy against schism, lest some one person by attracting the following would rend the church of Christ. Thus at Alexandria from St. Mark the evangelist down to the bishops SS. Heraclas [died 247] and Dionysius [died 265], The presbyters always chose one of their own number whom they would place on a higher level and call "Bishop", just as if an army were to make a number, or deacons would choose out of their midst one whose diligence they knew and call him Archdeacon. For, apart from ordination, what does a bishop do that a presbyter does not do?" (among other quotations from that period)
The reasoning goes that if [theologically] there is no distinction between what we now call "Priest" and "Bishop", the Lutheran state churches in Germany were NOT in the wrong for having local
priests (who converted to the Lutheran [evangelical] faith from Papalism), ordain the next generation of "Lutheran Priests" when the Roman bishops throughout the Holy Roman Empire refused to... Interestingly, this was not an issue for many Lutheran churches outside of Germany, i.e. the Church of Sweden, Norway, and the Baltic countries... which brings me to my last Lutheran position on succession.
 |
| Historic Episcopate |
The last position the Lutheran Church has enjoyed is called the "Historic Episcopate", this the most common position outside of American Lutheranism, as seen in many communities in Scandinavia (i.e. the Nordic [independent] Lutheran Dioceses, the Lutheran Church in Norway... etc.), the Baltic region (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Latvia, etc.), and various African Churches (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya, etc.)... The fact that the LCMS is in fellowship with churches of this perspective - means that on some level, we are in fellowship "agreement" with their perspective, their belief in the preferable nature of the historic episcopate. And in some way we already do:
"24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention."
In this sense all Lutherans can argue from the confessions that we believe that a system of bishops in succession is a matter of "bene esse" (well being, like many pre-Tractarian Anglicans), rather a matter of "esse" (pure essence). Yet on top of that, the Church of the Augsburg Confession sought that its teaching and practices (including the way of church governance) fall in line the Church of all times:
" 4] Nor has anything been here said or adduced to the reproach of any one. 5] Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches."
- Conclusion to the Book of Concord
Now... with all three views laid out, let me reveal the hook...
All three are true.
A succession of doctrine is true (every Christian believes that from Eastern orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, down to fundamentalist Baptists), but here's the tricky part… (And undoubtedly the answer to the question placed near the end of the Anglican/Lutheran dialogue). From what I've seen, we accept an apostolic succession of priests, but ONLY prefer an apostolic succession of bishops… and we can only do that because we believe in the "unicity" of the One-office (though parceled out into the three [technically two... but I'll touch on that later] offices by way of a good tradition and order). Thus, Lutherans have already answered the question this way, that we believe in one office, yet three offices at the same time…
Three-in-one… Where have I heard that before? ;-)
(End note: I should mention that Lutherans are more or less in agreement with everybody that the deacon is a separate office… But other than that my argument still stands. There).
I hope you enjoyed my little academic exploration into the various Lutheran understandings on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession...
Pax Domini
A.D.C.
