marbren wrote:
“Does primary Lutheran doctrine found in the Book of Concord make room for this compromise?”
This is no comprise. It is called Christian freedom under the Gospel. You see, the Roman Church always viewed the argument with Luther to be about power and who has it. Luther viewed the argument as being about the Gospel, who cares who is in power, since Christ and Christ alone is Head of the Church. And there the rift has remained. The various reformed churches, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational, thought that real reformation was only possible with the right form of church government. Unfortunately, the truth is that any form of church government is corruptible by - yes, here we go again - the devil, the world, and our own sinful flesh.
As long as Christ reigns in the hearts of the people who are called by His name, the form of government a church employs is pretty wide open. A pastor, and the word is simply Latin for shepherd, is never anything more or less than an undershepherd of Him who alone is the Good Shepherd. If the local pastor is a mini-pope, that is simply off the mark.
The office of pastor or shepherd most certainly was established by Christ, and still remains in His church. But understand that it is referred to in other ways as well, indicating the various aspects of the office: Elder (presbyteros), Bishop or Overseer (episkopos), Minister or Servant (diakonos), Herald (keryx), Messenger (angelos), Preacher or Prophet (prophetos), Teacher (didaskalos). All are ways that the Bible speaks of this office. The truth is impaired if any one is played off against the others. The church tended to settle on Pastor as its favorite and most all-encompassing term, probably due to the simple beauty of the Good Shepherd imagery and its power to remind all that there is but one Shepherd. Much more could be said, but this will have to do for now, since I have to run.