John Wesley would stress that many who “profess much religion” and “enjoy a measure of it” seem to leave a Christian society as easily as moving from one room to another. They do not see the sin involved in such separation. Wesley also famously stated our differences in opinion and modes of worship may prevent external union. Yet, the union of affection or love ought to be present. The children of God may tolerate small differences while being of one heart. He builds upon the phrase “If your heart is as my heart,” which he takes to mean believing God and Jesus Christ. He takes it to mean loving God with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength, and the loving of neighbor. He takes it to mean giving oneself to good works. While not of the same opinion or experiences the same modes of worship, we may love each other and provoke each other to good works. Of course, he carefully states he does not want any of this to mean that our differences of opinion or modes of worship do not matter. They matter enough that they likely prevent external or official unity. Individual subjectivity appears as the true center of religion. Yet, such individualistic Jesus-piety passes quickly past the fact that Jesus formed disciples as a group. It ignores the fellowship of the church immediately after the resurrection of Jesus. Clergy have the responsibility of helping people develop their individual relation to Christ. Christian freedom is the work of the Spirit, helping us experience our reconciliation with God. We overcome our alienation from each other and from God. His point has been that the work of the Spirit releases and reconciles the tension between the fellowship and the individual in the concept of the church. The work of the Spirit reconciles the tension between society and individual freedom as an anticipation of the future rule of God. He commends the work of Paul Tillich and Jürgen Moltmann in these matters. John Wesley stresses that individuals should turn away from the beginning of strife and not associate with those given to dispute or love contention. Individuals should seek peace and be peacemakers in the church. Thus, the Spirit is the end-time gift. Therefore, the Spirit is the medium of the immediacy of individual Christians to God as the Spirit lifts them up to participation in Christ. The Spirit binds believers to each other in the fellowship of the body of Christ. The fellowship of believers by the Spirit moves them beyond themselves and to Christ. He will pursue further the notion of a fellowship that has its essence outside itself.
Let us reflect upon “body of Christ” for a moment. Embodiment is availability to other persons. For the church to be the body of Christ is for the church to make the risen Christ available to the world.
If in the meeting between us you are a subject of whom I am an object, but are not in turn an object for me as subject, you enslave me. Only if I am able to intend and so grasp and respond to you as you intend and grasp me can our relation be reciprocal. A disembodied personal presence to me could only mean my bondage. If the person in question were to be God, the bondage would be absolute. Robert W. Jenson has a beautiful way of putting this relation. Where does the risen Christ turn to find himself? He turns to the gathering of believers. Who is the risen Christ? His answer is: “I am the head of this community. I am the subject whose objectivity is this community. I am the one who died to gather them.” His point, I think, is that being the body of Christ means that the actual church, in its fellowship, history, and institutional life, has the respect due to any embodied presence, a respect it ultimately receives from God.
Barth will stress that the community is the earthly-historical form of existence of Jesus Christ. The church is the body of Christ, created and continually renewed by the awakening power of the Holy Spirit. Christ is the head of this body, the community. The body has its head in Christ. The church belongs to Christ, and Christ belongs to church. Because Christ is, the church is; the church is, because Christ is. That is its secret, its secret in the third dimension, which is visible only to faith, the first two dimensions being psychological and sociological.
Second, Pannenberg will discuss the basic saving works of the Spirit in individual Christians. He admits the manifestation of the Spirit has an ecstatic character, but wants to separate this notion from intoxication. Such ecstasy can mean becoming supremely with oneself. As the Spirit integrates such ecstasy with fellowship of believers, it mediates the sense of an initial removing of alienation between individuals and between individual and society. He will then discuss the theological virtues as the primary way of removing alienation, concluding with a discussion of adoption and justification.
Moltmann will have a different way of approaching these matters as he says that the church participates in the process of the life of the world. The goal is liberation. The stress of economic life is that of that of expansion versus the limits of growth and ensuring the participation of all persons. The danger is exploitation. Participating in political life means valuing human rights. The danger is repression. Participation in cultural life means openness to the identity of various groups in the social order. The danger is alienation between these groups. One does not have to go his admittedly Marxist analysis and socialism to understand these areas as real issues the churches need to face. Tillich refers to expanding the function of the church. Whenever active members of the church encounter those outside the church, they are missionaries of the church, voluntarily or involuntarily. Their very being is missionary. The purpose of missions as an institutionalized function of the church is not to actualize the Spiritual Community within specific congregations all over the world. Of course, this means not imposing one cultural form or one generational form on others.
As Pannenberg continues, he discusses, one, the theological virtue of faith or trust in the future rule of God. Faith relates to time, to the future God will bring, and therefor to God. Faith is trust. Faith is not mere knowledge. However, since Christianity rests upon historical acts, faith depends on knowledge of the reports we find in the Bible. Thus, faith is not blind obedience. Yet, like human knowledge, the knowledge is provisional and probable. Thinking about this faith and our knowledge of it always takes place with the recognition of our historicity and finitude. He deals with the link between the assurance of faith and the rise of certainty. Knowledge rests upon a process in which we need to consider present knowledge as anticipation of the totality of the context of life and world. Any sense of certainty and assurance is in the context of the anticipatory character of our experience. Faith can accept, therefore, our questioning and doubting in the context of the brokenness of our knowledge of God and readiness to receive further instruction.
Two, hope relates to the incomplete character of life now, relating it to possible fulfillment. The basis of the hope is the promise of God. Such hope is not just for the individual but also for humanity. Eschatological hope includes this-worldly hope, but orients them to divine fulfillment.
Three, love begins with love of God and neighbor. Love of God is the communication of the grace of God to individuals. Christian prayer is an expression of love toward God and neighbor. Prayer as thanksgiving, adoration, and petition has its best context in a discussion of love.
Four, he discusses adoption as children of God and justification. Being children of God is the essence of Christian life. Faith makes us righteous before God because it appropriates the saving work of God in Christ. Only faith fellowship with Jesus Christ is the object of the divine sentence of justification respecting believers. Faith participates in Jesus Christ in the missionary message that takes to the world a ministry of reconciliation. Baptism is the connection between both adoption and justification. Justification assures believers of participation in eschatological salvation. Such faith sets aside any human attempt to get right with God. The Christian life as a whole is a life in faith. Such faith lifts us up above ourselves to fellowship with Jesus Christ and therefore to hope and love. It does so in a way in which ecstatic faith bring participation in the life of divine love. In this way, a human life finds protection against corruption we find in human self-centeredness.
Third, Pannenberg will discuss the form of the signs of the nearness of God, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as the presence of salvation through Christ in the life of the church. John Wesley would remind us that these signs have value only as they connect us to Christ. He also would discuss them in the context of the means of grace. Thus, one may pray, receive baptism, receive the Lord’s Supper, and read scripture, to no profit. They have no grace in themselves, for grace comes only through Christ. The event of the regeneration of believers takes place in baptism. Our gaze turns toward the common life of the church, as baptism integrates the baptized in the fellowship of the church. Participation in Lord’s Supper links to the fellowship of believers. It assures individuals of their fellowship with Jesus Christ. Baptism is the grounding of fellowship with Christ and the Lord’s Supper demonstrates and assures its continuance. Both acts are signs. Tillich will stress that sacramental symbolism connects to the great moments of the life of individuals, such as birth, maturity, marriage, and imminent death, or with special religious events, such as entering the clergy. His point is that the Spiritual Community can appropriate various forms through which people can experience Spiritual Presence. If Spiritual Presence no longer grasps people through the sacramental act, it has lost its sacramental power.
As Tillich points out, the fear of this magical approach has led to an intellectual or moral interpretation of the sacraments, or, as with the Quakers, to interpret the sacraments in terms of a mystical inwardness. In fact, one could say that we maintain spirituality better by not having physical objects, as in the traditional use of the sacraments. Yet, the physical symbol participates in the power to which it refers. The question arises as to whether the physical objects are necessary at all. The Roman Catholic Church bound the Word to the teaching office of the church, and the Reformation bound the Spirit to the Word. In both cases, they faced what they believed to be dangers of spirit-movements. We could, and do, experience the work of the Spirit outside of these external signs and symbols. Yet, God always has a medium to communicate the Spirit. The connection of the work of the Spirit to external means arose out of the concern that movements would lose their connection to Christ if they were simply movements of the Spirit. In fact, Tillich will say that in light of the twentieth-century rediscovery of the unconscious, we can re-evaluate positively the sacramental mediation of the Spirit. A Spiritual Presence apprehended through the consciousness alone is intellectual and not spiritual. A sacramental symbol is neither a thing nor a sign, but participates in the power of what it symbolizes, and is a medium of the Spirit.
Pannenberg continues with a discussion of baptism and the Christian life. He begins with a discussion of baptism as the constitution of Christian identity. Disciples who follow Jesus on his way let their lives grow into a unity with the way of Jesus. Their dying has a link that of the death of Jesus on the cross. In that way, the vicarious significance of his life and death counts for them in their living and dying. They that stand under the promise of Jesus that those who confess him before others, the Son of Man will also confess before the angels of God (Luke 12:8). Baptism is an enacted sign, and therefore points people to the thing signified, which is Christ, but also sets people moving in that direction. Faith rests on the relation to that which is outside the believer. He takes his stand with the tradition of the church that one receives baptism once. It occurs one time and has a lasting character. He wants to reflect on the relevance of baptism to the life of the Christian. He begins with a discussion of the relationship between baptism, conversion, and penitence. The motive for conversion is the proclamation of the presence of the rule of God and its salvation who rely (have faith) on it. Of course, conversion and baptism have a close relation in the New Testament. He stands with Luther in closely connecting penitence with baptism. Penance is the daily task of appropriating the conversion and regeneration of baptism. The ship of the new Christian life becomes ready in baptism. Christians can fall from grace, as we see in Galatians 5:4, but they can also regain it. Baptism is there all our lives. Baptism offers a new identity that is ec-centric rather than ego-centric. He views pastoral counseling as helping individuals face the continuing reality of sin in the baptized. It is part of the reconciling work between the individual and the church. He then discusses baptism and faith, discussing the matters of infant baptism, confirmation, and anointing of the sick. He will argue for the permission of infant of baptism in the life of the church and will offer reasons. Baptism and faith belong together, even if the missionary practice and theology of the early church recognized that faith came prior to baptism. Cyprian and Origen testify to the presence of infant baptism at the end of the second century. He does not think one can draw firm conclusions from household baptism. Tertullian argued against it. Paul refers to the sanctification of the children of Christian parents in I Corinthians 7:14. The doctrine of the original sin became the primary reason for infant baptism after Augustine. The Reformed tradition continued to practice it because the covenant of grace is not only for adults. The criticism by Barth of this position is that faith and free confession of the baptized is a prerequisite for baptizing them. Pannenberg will disagree in that baptism links the individual to the destiny of Jesus. One receives this baptism, and is therefore not primarily a human act. My faith receives baptism. Baptism as a sacrament aims at the faith of the recipients in what it signifies (Christ), but does not presuppose it because faith can only receive baptism. Baptism is a gift that presupposes only lack of opposition. Part of his point here is that even as adults, our power of judgment and decision in these matters has a limit. We cannot guarantee our perseverance in faith. At the baptism of the children of Christian parents, we have to reckon with a positive readiness for unlimited trust whose real object is the true God who has revealed who God is in the sending of Jesus. He will set aside, of course, the portion of the Christian tradition that excluded unbaptized children from salvation due to original sin. Rebaptism is a cause for division in the church universal because it means regarding the baptism already received as invalid. Parents adopt responsibility for the well-being and development of the child until they can take responsibility for themselves. The parents have a vicarious confession of faith that carries with it an obligation to undertake the religious education of the child. This obligation does not guarantee the future faith of the child. Of course, adults cannot guarantee their future faith either. Confirmation as a rite within the church arose because of the lapse of time between baptism and the personal confession of faith. Confirmation affirms the connection of baptism to the whole life of the baptized. The death of the old nature anticipated in baptism is something the believer works out in daily Christian life in the appropriation of baptism. Again, baptism is an anticipatory sign of the whole life of the baptized as seen in the light of its end, followed up gradually throughout the course of the Christian life. Experience shows that after confirmation many young people experience alienation from the Christian faith. He supports beginning confirmation at puberty as part of the relation of faith and personal identity. The basis of confirmation is not personal faith and confession, but rather, strengthening and blessing those come of age. Baptism is the concrete place of justification in the lives of Christians. Faith appropriates throughout life the new identity that rests on baptism. Baptism is part of the Christian understanding of the formation of personal identity. New human identity is outside the self. Baptism is re-founding human identity by focusing upon Christ. Baptism is the reconstitution of the person in the form of the sacramental sign. The sign is anticipatory of the life of the baptized. Through baptism, believers are in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Participation in the relation of the Son to the Father by the Spirit changes the structure of self-identity. Lastly, he discusses the institution of baptism and symbolism of the rite. The basis of baptism is in the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Early Christianity viewed his baptism as the model of Christian baptism, especially regarding the link between baptism and reception of the Spirit. Baptism into the death of Jesus changes matters of individual identity in that the baptism of Jesus serves as the model for the meaning of baptism. The Spirit gives the children of God freedom to go their individual way, follows their calling, and accepts the consequences. Of course, Jesus did all of this in the course of his life.
Barth has a significant discussion of limiting baptism to adults. Moltmann has also gone the direction of urging the church to move away from infant baptism, and instead have a blessing of children born to Christian parents. The churches would then reserve baptism for those who wish to make a public profession of their faith in Christ and identify themselves with Christ. For them, the missionary situation of the church in the West has sufficiently enough for the church to re-think the notion of infant baptism.
Pannenberg then discusses the Supper of the Lord and Christian worship. He begins with a exploring the origin and meaning of the Super of the Lord. The beginning of Christianity witnesses to the Lord’s Supper being at its heart. The tradition that on the evening of his passion Jesus authorized continued table fellowship with him even after his death forms of the basis of its celebration. He admits that we cannot reconstruct with certainty the historical nature and course of the last meal. We cannot even be certain it was a Passover meal. He reminds us that Jesus ate many meals with people. He also told stories of the messianic banquet. Jesus offers signs and depictions of the eschatological fellowship of the rule of God. We have the central symbolic action of Jesus in which he focuses on his message of the nearness of the rule of God and its salvation. The forgiveness of sin is a special link to this message. The words of Jesus around this meal connect more with other of his meals than do with Jewish observances of the time. Such meals, involving the participation of Jesus, were anticipatory signs of the coming rule of God. The being of the church in this sign-act an assurance based on the gift of the Spirit. The church is the fellowship that celebrates the Lord’s Supper. The church has its existence outside itself. Receiving bread and cup unites believers with each other in the body of Christ. He discusses the words of institution and the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. At issue is the full presence of Christ in the Supper. He argues that saying “This is” changes the bread and wine through giving it the new meaning of the offering of the body of Christ for us. He then discusses the meaning of the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic liturgy of the church. It presents the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ. Therefore, the liturgy is not just remembering by the believers present. Eating and drinking of the Supper causes us to participate in the path of Jesus toward the cross. The liturgy enables the church to enter into the self-giving of Christ as we offer ourselves with Christ as a living sacrifice in the bread and wine. The Supper is first the turn of Christ to us. The Supper grants fellowship with Christ and therefore forgiveness of sin. He refers positively to the Orthodox Church in its liturgy calling upon the Spirit to make Christ present in bread and wine. He then discusses the Lord’s Supper and the fellowship of the church. Participation in the Supper worthily (I Corinthians 11:27) involves the mutual fellowship of the participants. The invitation is to all disciples present. For him, this means all baptized Christians, an inclusive invitation, may I say, especially for a German Lutheran. Participation presupposes faith. He notes that Moltmann extends the invitation to include all who wish to come, based upon the fact that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. When I invite people to the table of the Lord, I invite all who seek to draw near to Christ. He then discusses the Lord’s Supper and the proclamation of the gospel in the worship of the church. He urges preaching that integrates the various parts of the liturgy and music so that people can see its unity.
Reformed theologian F. Leenhardt, along with Wolfhart Pannenberg, has suggested the concept of a "transformation of meaning." In this way, the focus shifts from the nature of the elements. The elements are material and pass away. They would like to shift the focus to the meaning of the elements as we partake of the Supper. The meal takes on a meaning of fellowship with Christ and fellowship with each other, a reminder of the “being” of the church. In fact, this is what happens in daily life. People do many things by habit. However, one day it all takes on new meaning. Then, we receive a new motivation for living and loving. One can say the same of the Lord's Supper. The presence of Christ in the Supper and in the elements is in such a way that our own view of reality and faith and life can be altered as we become open to God in our fellowship with Christ and with each other.
Much of the historical discussion focused upon the nature of the presence of Christ in the Supper. For Roman Catholic tradition, there appeared to be an emphasis upon the sacrifice of the Mass, as if this were a re-presenting of Christ as the sacrifice for the sins of the world. In Protestant circles, this teaching removed the unique nature of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Yet, in the process of this dispute, many worshippers lost the connection the reality of fellowship with Jesus now in the Supper. It became little more than a remembrance of a past event, rather than experiencing anew fellowship with Jesus. While Roman Catholics speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, Protestants reject this terminology. In fact, Luther considered the mass and its concept of sacrifice as the greatest abuse of the power of the Pope. Trent in fact separated offering and communion, celebration and sacrifice. If fact, many Catholic theologians have recognized that if there is truly one sacrifice of Christ, which their church now clearly teaches, there may be little sense in continuing that particular terminology.
Pannenberg concludes with a discussion of the ambivalence of the word “sacrament” and the special case of marriage. The issue is liturgical actions or states of life in the church. He discusses the difficulties in using and justifying the term “sacrament.” The difficulty is the biblical usage of the term and the institution of the liturgical action by Jesus. We can see the problem heightened when the historical nature of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not as clear as one might like. He refers to Barth here, who wanted to limit the term “sacrament” to Christ. He then explores the notion of the one mystery of salvation and the many sacraments. The use of the term “mystery,” which is behind the term “sacrament,” in the New Testament focuses upon the plan of God for salvation in Christ. He then explores sacraments as signs. Here, he notes that the term “sacrament” meant a series of signs related to the offer of salvation in Christ. Granting that a sign points to the thing signified, it also separates the believer from the thing signified. Yet, the sign nature of the liturgical action has validity in referring to the presence of salvation and its yet to come feature. He agrees with Aquinas that the sign “effects” what it signifies. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in particular point to Christ, while also actualizing the presence of Christ. He then discusses the scope of the sacraments, discussing them in a way that connects various traditional acts to baptism, as we have shown. He then discusses marriage as a reminder of a broader sacramental understanding. Ephesians 5 in particular unites the fellowship of husband and wife to the fellowship between Christ and the church. Marriage is sacramental in that it relates the difference of our bisexuality to our destiny to fellowship with Christ and with another. Christianity offered monogamy that offered to women security and a solid social position they did not have in Jewish or Greek practices. It points the way to equality of the sexes (Galatians 3:28). He thinks the church cannot regard the homosexual relation on the same level as that of marriage. He concludes with a summary of the use of the term “sacrament.” He argues for a broad use of the term.
Since the matter of homosexuality has reached a high degree of debate in the churches, I would like to pause for a moment and consider the position of Pannenberg. In a broad sense, his point is that the saving plan of God has a hint in the bisexuality of the race. The reconciliation that God seeks in humanity receives its first pioneering efforts in the marriage relationship. The homosexual relation is one individuals and churches can tolerate (a bad word today), but not make of equal ethical value or validity with the marriage relationship. Sadly, I have had direct questions regarding how they should treat a homosexual friend or neighbor. Of course, we are to love actively our neighbor. For some people, toleration would be a wonderful step for them to take. However, Pannenberg has written a well-circulated article on this subject that I want to explore. Pannenberg considers whether love can have a perverted expression. The Bible is clear that it can. Hence, of course, the prohibitions against adultery, which lead to prohibitions regarding sexual activity with persons within the family, whether son, daughter, aunt, uncle, or stepparent. Love for God must take precedence over every other love, the denial of which would be the greatest perversion of love. Of course, the will of God determines our identity as followers of Christ. Instead of going first to biblical statements regarding homosexuality, he goes to an important statement regarding marriage. Jesus referred to creation as the basis of the marriage relationship. The purpose of God in the marriage relationship, according to Jesus, is that male and female become “one flesh.” The goal is the indissoluble relation of marriage in sexual relation. This standard is the guidance of Jesus and the church for the sexual relation. Jesus is largely consistent with Jewish teaching. His teaching is strict, largely due to the desire to protect women from a divorce that could leave them with little legal protection or financial support. The Old Testament assesses negatively the sexual behavior of those under covenant who depart from this standard. The Holiness Code in Leviticus 18-20 is clear on this. Israel knew it was different from other nations in this prohibition. The New Testament continues this distinctive moral guidance. Romans 1:27 includes homosexual relations among the signs of those who turn away from God. I Corinthians 6 says that one can gain strength to avoid such practices in light of their baptism. He indicates his view of biblical interpretation when he says that the New Testament gives no evidence of any other evaluation than a negative one regarding homosexual relations. I might add that this would be the difference with other matters often raised. Pannenberg affirms the right of women to ordination because the New Testament contains a discussion (dialectic) regarding their involvement in ministry. The same is true of the marriage relationship and slavery, where, if one followed the household rules (Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, Philemon), the marriage relation becomes a partnership and master-slave relation dissolves, at least, within Christian households. The point is that the negative assessment is the corollary to the positive statement of Jesus that the marriage relation of male and female fulfills the intent of God at creation. To neglect this teaching will bring detriment to the Christian message. This teaching opposed the cultural setting of its time, so it should not surprise that it opposes the cultural setting of this time. The new evidence to which some point to today involves homosexual inclinations that may or may not result in homosexual relations. Yet, an inclination does not necessitate behavior. Our sexual impulses influence every area of our lives and therefore fall under the need for self-control. Sexual activity is not the determinative center of life. In fact, monogamous marriage offers the gift to human beings of subordinating sexual activity to larger objectives and tasks. An inclination does not deserve judgment. What it does need is responsibly directed behavior. As we have seen, homosexual activity is a departure from the norm of sexual behavior as men and women created in the image of God. Of course, a full discussion of this matter would lead us to any sexual activity that does not orient itself to the marriage relationship. The departure of heterosexual persons is far more numerous in our time than the limited, but vocal, matter of homosexual activity. The church lives with the fact that departures are common and widespread. The response of the church should be one of tolerance on the one hand and a call to repentance on the other. The church cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and the departure from the norm. As he concludes, he makes a strong statement. The church that knows itself bound by the authority of scripture knows it encounters a boundary here. Those who urge the church to change the norm promote schism. They urge a church to stand no longer on biblical ground. A church taking this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
I am sure some persons would consider Pannenberg outdated here, as they might Karl Barth. At the same time, we need to hear such theologians and their rationale. For some persons, putting this topic out there for discussion will mean dismissal of Pannenberg. I hope not, for he has much to teach us.
Fourth, Pannenberg discusses the ministry as a sign and instrument of the unity of the church. He will discuss the need for the organization and order of the church. The latent church, apart from its worship life, experiences the power of the Spirit at work by faith, hope, and love. Paul Tillich and Jürgen Moltmann explore some of these matters in a different way. Paul Tillich refers to functions of the church that help to construct it into what God intends. He includes aesthetic (arts), cognitive (theology), communal (fellowship), and personal (spiritual formation) functions. He also discusses the relating functions of the churches, which he sees as the way of silent interpenetration (priestly), the way of critical judgment (prophetic), and the way of political establishment (kingly). In the latter, the churches must be careful not to fall into nationalistic ideologies. Moltmann follows a similar path, but adds that Jesus was also “friend,” based on Luke 7:34 and John 15:13-14. His point is that people who live with another as friends no longer have concern for privilege and domination. The theological discussion of ministry and offices usually begins with a discussion of spiritual gifts in the writings of Paul.
One, Pannenberg discusses the common commission of believers and the office of unity. The common calling of all Christians is to witness to the salvation offered in Christ. After Vatican II, all Christians have share in the priestly ministry of Christ. After the death of the apostles, bishops emerged as the primary persons with the responsibility of ensuring the fidelity of this witness of all Christians. Leadership and teaching authority combined in the one office. They had special responsibility for encouraging the unity of the church. He argues for the inclusion of women in this leadership function.
He says that the role of clergy is to help believers on the way to independence in their relation to the substance of the scripture. Only in this way do they perform their task. In this, he is defending the truth of the Reformation teaching of the priesthood of believers. Nevertheless, a particular form of ecclesial polity emerged that used “apostolicity” as its legitimation, namely, one that was sacerdotal, Episcopal, and hierarchical. By its very nature, this polity vested authority in a group of specially sanctioned individuals, and its tendency was to become increasingly monarchical and absolutistic. Obviously, it was necessary for the post-apostolic church to adopt some form of definite institutional structure, including an ordered and recognized ministry, and it was probably inevitable that this structure should reflect the patterns of religious and political authority characteristic of Hellenistic and Roman culture. What occurred was the loss of charismatic forms of ministry present in the apostolic church, and the adoption of a juridical model of reality with its accompanying system of rewards and punishments. While these developments are regrettable, one should acknowledge that true Christian faith and practice survived in countless individuals, that the church helped to shape, for better or for worse, the values of Western civilization, and that, despite obvious abuses and corruption, the institution was for the most part effectively governed and led.
What Pannenberg observes here is consistent with Peter Hodgson, who has a concern for the role of leadership within the community. What authorizes leadership in the community is not sacerdotal, or hierarchical that accrues to the office. He would say that office, consecration, or special call, are not what authorize ministry. Rather, the possession of knowledge, skill, commitment, and character are what authorizes ministry. Ordination is a matter of recognizing and certifying the possession of such qualities in the person. It does not confer sacral power or authority. What he proposes is a democratic, participative, and secular model of ministerial office. The minister as leader should empower the common ministry of the people. True leadership is not simply management or administration. Leadership involves articulating a vision of what the church is, its essential being, its purpose, and enabling this vision to become a productive ideal that infuses all church activities and all participants.
Two, he discusses ordination and apostolic succession. He points to the issue that for the Roman Catholic Church, all churches not united to the Pope have a defect in their ministry. He discusses sacramentality and ordination. The ministry of leadership comes under the commission of the risen Lord to continue the apostolic ministry to serve the church. Ordination becomes a sign of that ministry. He then discusses the effect of ordination. The gift conferred at ordination relates to the function the one ordained serves and not to a personal standing of grace. He then discusses canonical ordination as a sign of the unity of the church. He agrees with much modern ecumenical discussion here in saying that apostolic succession has more to do with the teaching and faith of the apostles than it does to an office. He agrees with Luther that the “emergency” of a missionary setting that he faced allowed for the ordination of persons to ministry outside the established order of the Catholic Church.
Three, he discusses the unity of the church and ministerial hierarchy. In our setting, the unity of the church is a gift it receives because of our common fellowship with Christ and a task for the churches to make a reality. One, he discusses the essential attributes of the church in Nicene Creed (381) of holiness, catholicity, apostolicity, and unity. He refers to the scandal of divided Christianity for the modern Christian consciousness. Two, he discusses different levels of the unity of the church and its leadership. At its core, the ministry of leadership is a teaching ministry. He does think that the regional episcopacy and the local priest-presbyter-pastor need to express an episcopal character. Regional leadership can focus more upon unity among the churches. Robert W. Jenson suggests that he various levels of the church are in perichoretic communion with each other, drawing an insight from the Trinity rather than insight into how the world works. Such an insight also leads to the view that every local church has integrity and wholeness, even in divided Christianity. Three, he discusses whether ministry to the unity of Christianity as a whole is a possibility. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as that possibility. He sees no reason to rule out this possibility. The Orthodox Church acknowledges the primacy of the bishop of Rome. He refers to speeches, lectures, encyclicals, and pastoral letters as expressions of this function. Many still hold ecumenical counsels of history in high regard. He questions any notion of infallibility either for the councils or for the Pope. He sees a special need self-criticism by the Pope. The focus of the Pope should be more on persuasion than power.
Fifth, Pannenberg discusses the church and the people of God. The term “body of Christ” is the most profound description of the nature of the church. The church in its institutional form has not done well in discharging its function as a sign of hope of a future consummation of humanity in the rule of God. It has divided. It has shown intolerance. It has sought power. Clergy have participated in this. It has accommodated to the changing modes of the world. It has shown narrowness of the hothouse forms of its piety. It often gives little evidence of the liberating of the spirit. Yet, this obscure sign is still a sign. God can purify the sign. At times, the light of the church shines brightly. The church is the people of God, a provisional representation of the future of humanity reconciled with God in the future rule of God. While “body of Christ” is the basic description of the church, “people of God” derives from it. The latter phrase involves election. The doctrine of election supplements the doctrine of the church. Election involves sending. Sending directs the elect into the world and into its history, which is moving toward the future of the reign of God.
(Oden 1987), 725.
 John Wesley, Sermon 75, “On Schism.”
 John Wesley, Sermon 39, “Catholic Spirit.”
 John Wesley, Sermon 75, “On Schism.”
 Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, The Work of Christ, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999, 213.
 Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Domination and Slavery.
 Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, The Work of Christ, Oxford University Press: New York, 1999, 214-15.
 Church Dogmatics IV.1 [62.2]
 The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 163-188.
 Systematic Theology, Volume III, 193.
 John Wesley, Sermon 16, “The Means of Grace.”
 Systematic Theology, Volume III, 123-24.
 Systematic Theology, Volume III, 122.
 Systematic Theology, Volume III, 123, 125-128.
 Church Dogmatics 4.4, [75.2].
 The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 226-42.
 Christianity Today, November 11, 1996.
 Systematic Theology, Volume III, 196-212.
 Systematic Theology, Volume III, 212-16.
 The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 76-108, 114-21.
 Winds of the Spirit: A Constructive Christian Theology, Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, Ky, 1994, 300.
 Systematic Theology, Volume 2, The Work of Christ, Oxford University Press: New York, 1999, 223, 224.