Lutheran priests

Yes, we do have priests, not justs pastors or ministers

Back in May, I wrote a post about high church Lutheranism, a term that some might find bizarre, if they do not know the history of Scandinavian Lutheranism. Basically, in Scandinavia, the reformation was not a bottom up movement but a top down affair, just like it was in England. In Norway and Denmark (or Denmark-Norway, at the time) it was introduced by king Christian III by force,¹ while in Sweden, it happened gradually, with more church involvement, though also under the king. King Gustav I (better known as Gustav Vasa) broke contact with Rome in the 1520s and slowly began reforming the Church of Sweden until he formally broke with Rome in 1536 (not unlike king Henry VIII in England) by abolishing Roman Canon Law. In 1571, under archbishop Laurentius Petri and king John III, a new Church Ordinance was introduced, and finally, in 1593, the Church of Sweden officially became Lutheran by adopting Confessio Augustana at the Uppsala Synod. Though this was during the reign of the Catholic king Sigismund III Vasa, it was summoned by his uncle Duke Charles, later king Charles IX (who became king by deposing Sigismund). For an overview, read this Wikipedia article. The point of mentioning this is that while the Scandinavian Reformation did introduce Lutheran doctrine, it was much more conservative and the churches retained bishops and structures, much like in England.

Now, a few months back I was discussing the question of sacramental confession on twitter and I used the phrase “as a Lutheran priest.” I was then told by someone that Lutherans do not have priests. As I am a Lutheran priest, this was very surprising. Kidding aside, I can see the problem. The person posted this video from YouTube, where the host, Matt Whitman, visits a Lutheran Church in Hamel, Illinois (part of the LCMS). There, he interviewed one of the pastors, Rev. William Weedon. Roughly at the 18:23 mark, Whitman asks if they use the phrase ‘priest,’ and Rev. Weedon says “no, we usually say pastor.” Now, this clip (which only shows what they usually say) was posted as ‘proof’ that Lutherans do not use the term ‘priest.’ Now, American Lutherans aren’t the litmus test of what counts as Lutheranism (and I am pretty sure that Rev. Weedon has no problems with Lutherans using the term). But if you look historically on the movement, you will see that Lutherans have indeed kept using the term, which is found in the Lutheran Confessions.²

Describing holders of the pastoral office, articles XXII-XXIV of Confessio Augustana use sacerdos or sacerdotes (Latin) and Priester (German)³. This has also been the standard practice in Scandinavian Lutheranism since the Reformation in the 16th century – and we have never stopped. Yes, we also do use the term ‘pastor’ but it is very rare and, unlike Protestant Evangelicalism, where the term ‘pastor’ can be used for almost any ministry (such that you can have ‘music pastors’ instead of cantors or worship leaders), we only use this term for the chief priest of a parish, what we in Norway call sokneprest (‘parish priest’) and what they in Sweden call kyrkoherde (‘church shepherd’ or ‘church pastor’). Now, why is this important?

This is important because we Lutherans do not claim to have reinvented the wheel in the 16th century. We claim to be the Catholic Church in the West, cleansed of her corruption, as it was put by Chris Jones, a commenter on Rev. William Weedon’s blog years ago:

If the Apostolic Tradition means anything, and if the Creeds, the Councils, and the Fathers are worthy of any credit at all as faithful witnesses to that Tradition, then it seems to me that we must see our Confessions as part of that [broader Catholic] tradition, and consistently read them in the context of that tradition. Otherwise how can we possibly claim to be the Catholic Church, rightly reformed? And if that leads us to the conclusion that our Lutheran fathers were mistaken about the necessity of episcopal ordination, then that ought to lead us not to put the “Catholic principle” out of court, but to repent of that error. If we have made a mistake, we ought to admit it -- not re-interpret Church history to make the mistake somehow not a mistake. After all, if one should never admit a mistake in doctrine or practice, there never could have been a Reformation.

If the “Catholic principle” is only an a posteriori judgement, not an actual embrace of the Apostolic Tradition, then it was no more than a rhetorical weapon against the Romanists, without substance. And that leaves us not as evangelical Catholics, but mere Protestants. That is not a position that I care to be in.

As a Lutheran priest, I do not claim to be something ‘new.’ No, as I have also said, I do not even claim to a a ‘Protestant’ (and actually reject the label). Rather, I claim to be a priest in the historical Catholic Church in Norway, formally established in 995 and continuing to this day. And yes, I am a priest because I do priestly duties. To echo St. Paul, I have, as an ordained minister, received a grace from God (Romans 15:5; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6) so that I can be “a minister of Christ Jesus to the gentiles (Norwegians), serving as a priest (Gk. hierourgéō) with the Gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:16, RSV-CE). As St. Paul puts it in Philippians 2:17 (my translation), I too offer the “sacrifice and liturgy of your faith” (Gk. tē thusía kaì leitourgía tēs písteōs humōn), whenever I celebrate Mass. But, as I have argued elsewhere, this is not incompatible with Lutheran theology.⁴

So yes, we do use the word ‘priest’ because the misters of Christ are priests and we do not claim to be reinvented the wheel. We are the Catholic Church of Christ.

Notes:

1. Rasmus Andersen, “The Church of Denmark and the Anglican Communion” (paper read before the Scandinavian Episcopal Church Association); Carsten Bach-Nielsen, “The Role of the Lutheran Church in Denmark” (Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte 25:2, 2012), 293-310; Paul Douglas Lockhart, Frederik II and the Protestant Cause: Denmark’s Role in the Wars of Religion, 1559-1596 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), esp. 13-62.

2. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Church of Norway (where I serve as a priest) and the Church of Denmark only recognise five confessions as binding: the three ecumenical creeds (Apostolicum, Nicenum, and Athanasium), Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism. The Church of Sweden, however, accepted the whole Book of Concord in 1686. See Arve Brunvoll and Kjell Olav Sannes, Vedkjenningsskriftene til Den norske kyrkja (Oslo: Lunde, 2017); Peder Nørgaard-Højen, Den danske folkekirkes bekendelsesskrifter, two vols., Danish, Latin, and German (Frederiksberg: Eksistensen, 2001-2002); Svenska kyrkans bekännelseskrifter (Stockholm: Verbum, 2005).

3. This use of ‘priest’ is also found elsewhere in the Book of Concord.

4. See Kjetil Kringlebotten, ““Do this in remembrance of me…” A Lutheran defence of the sacrifice of the mass” (Studia Theologica: Nordic Journal of Theology 71:2, 2017): 127-147.