There will be no debate on whether the pastors or the Voters’ Assembly regulate
worship.
What appeared to be an excellent opportunity to debate an issue that is dividing our
Synod with a man of Dr. Noland’s learning and keen mind as alluded me.
Noland had previously, and I might add eagerly, agreed to the debate, and was looking
forward to the opportunity to evangelically put me through the shredder (my words).
However, during the Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions at the Fort Wayne Seminary, a
number of pastors whose names he will not reveal and whom Noland said I respect, told him
to withdraw from the debate for the "good of the church". They also said such a
debate would be "too divisive."
There was a great deal of pressure put on Noland at the Symposium. A number of pastors,
33 to be exact, were wearing computer labels on their jackets and fixed to their brief
cases that said, "Hyper-Euro-Lutheran."
They were showing solidarity with Noland after reading my article in CN titled
"LCMS Voters’ Assemblies on the Way Out." In the article the term
"Hyper-Euro-Lutheran" was defined as those belonging to the
"‘My-Ordination-Makes-Me-Special’ clergy faction. They think ordination is
a sacrament and claim the divine right to control worship. They do not claim to have
divine communication but the ‘divine right’ to regulate worship for their
congregations. The Hyper-Euro-Lutherans want to return to the hierarchical Lutheranism
that took over Europe 150 years after Luther’s death." I might add that people
like Martin Stephan, who was deposed by Walther and pushed across the river to Alton,
Illinois held this position and insisted be called "Bishop."
The pastor who printed up the 33 stickers told me he ran out and more pastors and lay
people were asking to wear them at the Symposium. I dare say the number would have climbed
to well over 200. There were approximately 750 attending the banquet. Those wearing
stickers and many others regularly informed me during the Symposium how mistaken I am in
supporting Walther’s "Church and Ministry."
On Friday of the Symposium, Present A.L. Barry took the stage and offered answers to
questions from the floor. I was the first one to the microphone. I asked President Barry
if the LCMS has an official position on Church and Ministry. He responded that it did. I
asked what it was. He said it was Walther’s "Church and Ministry" and
Pieper’s restatement of Walther’s position in "Christian Dogmatics."
No one applauded. As another pastor told me, Barry was going to regret he said that.
Barry also commented that he did not support the "Pastoral Leadership
Institute" and the "Lutheran Witness Reporter" had incorrectly stated he
supported PLI. PLI, run by Dr. Nobert Oesch, funded by LCEF, and supported by the Council
of District Presidents will teach pastors under the auspices of the St. Louis Seminary to
reject Walther’s "Church and Ministry" and to restructure congregations
under a Board of Directors. At the same time, Barry also spoke disparagingly of pastors
who make the term "Herr Pastor" look benign, a rather obvious reference to the
"Hyper-Euro-Lutheran" position.
At this time Barry may very well be the last LCMS President who publicly and from his
heart supports Walther’s "Church and Ministry." He now appears to be a
president who may not have enough support for reelection.
If a debate on the importance of Walther’s "Church and Ministry" is not
good for the church what will be the negative impact? It appears letting lay people know
what their pastors are really thinking about and who they believe is in charge and why,
will be the real fall out. Letting lay people know that many LCMS pastors no longer
support Walther’s "Church and Ministry" might draw too much attention and
heat to the clergy who think what is good for them is good for the church.
In "Logia" Noland wrote the following statements that I believe are at
variance with Walther’s "Church and Ministry"
1. The Augsburg Confession gives the right to regulate worship to the Pastors not the
Voters’ Assembly. "The Augustana vests the right of regulating worship with the
pastor, who presumably has the theological competence to know when a practice runs
contrary to Scripture. The Brief Statement vests the right of regulating worship with the
congregations, more precisely, the voters’ assembly, since the vast majority of
decisions about worship are not directly addressed by Scripture." ("Logia, A
Journal of Lutheran Theology" Vol. VII, Number 1 Epiphany 1998" Rev. Dr. Martin
Noland, page 75)
2. Walther gave the Voters’ Assembly more authority than the Confessions allow.
" In many parishes, the problem with woman’s suffrage is not the women, but that
the voters’ constituted authority overlaps or supersedes the powers and authority of
the pastor defined by the Lutheran Confessions."
3. The confessions give pastors the right to decide adiaphora. "The Lutheran
confessors believed that the pastors, not the voters, decided matters of adiaphora (things
neither forbidden or commanded in Scripture)."
4. The Brief Statement incorrectly agrees with Walther and not the Lutheran Confessions
on the divine origin of ordination and the limitation of pastors on adiaphora. "In
two other places, the Brief Statement adheres more closely to Walther than to Luther and
the Confessions. First, the Statement repeats Walther’s rejections of the divine
origin and status of ordinations (33; cf. Walther, 247-48; Ministry VI B). Second, the
Statement strictly limits the authority of the pastor with these words: "We reject
the false doctrine ascribing to the office of the ministry the right to demand obedience
and submission in matters which Christ has not commanded" (32)
I cannot understand how any LCMS pastor could possibly win a debate with these four
views. Seeing that there is now no one to debate one must conclude that the
Hyper-Euro-Lutherans really know how weak their arguments are but they will hold them all
the same.
An editor from "Logia" informed me that the magazine has no official position
on the subject of "Church and Ministry" and functions more as a public forum for
theological and scholarly pursuits.
While the Hyper-Euro-Lutheran clergy are proud of their opinion, they will not debate
it in public. The irony is that Noland has a more moderate view and was both overwhelmed
and uncomfortable by the support he received from many who hold far more extreme views on
Church and Ministry (at least in Waltherian terms) than he does.
What is happening to the LCMS clergy? Nearly 1/3 of the Synod now supports or has no
objection to the Church Growth Movement replacing Walther’s "Church and
Ministry" while a smaller but rapidly growing number of pastors is deeply offended by
Church Growth entertainment and secularism. This smaller group blames Walther for the
problem and wants a return to 18th Century European Lutheran hierarchy.
I asked one of those who proudly identifies himself as a Hyper-Euro-Lutheran how he
explains his right to regulate worship for the congregation is any different from the
Church Growth/Leadership Training Gurus. He said he had struggled with that. I said it is
never your right to change it. The right belongs to the voters. He said the voters have no
right to regulate worship. I said they didn’t invent worship. They only voted to
follow the worship the entire Synod agreed to in Convention. He rejected my position as
hopelessly lost in democracy instead of the Bible and the Confessions.
There was strong opposition from members of the COP and many pastors when I promoted a
resolution supporting the name "Lutheran" on all LCMS Congregations at the LCMS
1995 Convention. By the grace of God it passed 67 % to 33%. There was even more flak from
COP members and pastors when I promoted a resolution that only the three Creeds be
confessed without substitution or change in worship services. By the grace of God it
passed the 1998 Convention 83% to 17%. But never have I received so much immediate
negative reaction from LCMS clergy than when I insisted that Walther’s "Church
and Ministry" is the correct and official position of the LCMS.
If a resolution stating that Walther’s "Church and Ministry" is the
official position of the LCMS fragments the Synod in 2001 then it may be time to divide
the Synod for the sake of the truth. Let the Church Growthers, the Hyper-Euros, the
charismatics, and lib’s each have their slice. Let the LCMS Convention say "We
were wrong in 1847 and now we are going to correct and retract that position." Yes,
the Hyper-Euro-Lutherans and the Church Growthers do agree on one thing, the clergy rules!
I will never agree to their hierarchy and I will not be quiet even if they don’t want
anyone to debate me for the "Good of the Church." What else can I expect from
pastors obsessed with power and their own importance to the church. How could the Lord
possibly run His church without them?
I agree with the opening sentences from the following numbered paragraphs and many
others in Walther’s "The Form of the Christian Congregation." Unfortunately
it is now out of print. For instance:
"A congregation shall provide everything necessary for holding divine services,
such as a Bible, hymnal, and agenda, the vessels of Baptism and Holy Communion, vestments,
and the like." ( Part Five, Concerning the Exercise of the Duty of a Congregation to
See to It that It Does All Things Decently and in Order Paragraph 42)
"The time when any meeting of the congregation shall begin shall be accurately
determined and carefully observed." (Paragraph 43)
"In the congregational meeting nothing of importance shall be voted on unless the
matter has previously and jointly been discussed, clarified, and thoroughly
considered." (Paragraph 44)
"As a rule all things not decided by God’s Word, that is, neither commanded
nor forbidden, shall be decided by a majority vote, as nature teaches (1Cor. 11:14)."
(Paragraph 45)
It is time for both Seminaries to stop treating the doctrine of Church and Ministry as
an LCMS adiaphora. The students are so confused they are incapable of evaluating a church
constitution. Why don’t both Seminaries endorse a church constitution they approve of
for LCMS congregations and stop the chaos and division? Or do they prefer teaching
theology for theoretical, nonexistent congregations?
Selected quotes from 20 clergy reacting to "LCMS Voters’ Assemblies on the
Way Out" (Many of the clergy who responded were offended by my defense of
Voters’ Assemblies.)
The following Pastors asked "Please remove my name from your e-mail list!"
Pastors 1 and 9 and 12 and 14 and 15 and 18 and 19 and 20.
Pastor 2: For the record, I am also proud to be considered a "Hyper-Euro-Lutheran of
the My-Ordination-Makes-Me-Special" clergy faction.
Pastor 3: Your defense of the Voters' Assembly as a form of church governance rests more
on the philosophy of Post-Enlightenment Lockean democracy than it does upon the theology
of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.
Pastor 4: Jack with sadness I agree with what pastor 3 said. Please dismiss me from your
mailing list.
Pastor 5: Does the Voters' Assembly harbor a Christ-like concern for the minority, the
non-voting widow/orphan/homebound? Or does the present day voters' assembly reflect the
self-centered attitude of me and my rights as the culture we Americans live in?
Pastor 6: Yea. Jack 'taint thinking things thru very well, is he!
Pastor 3: Walther's position is both logically and theologically incoherent.
Pastor 7: Voters’ Assemblies are an adiaphoron.
Pastor 8: Jack, This is an excellent piece. I think you hit the nail on the head .
Pastor 10: Hi Jack, The Confessions say ordination is a sacrament.
Pastor 11: Has Jack flipped?
Pastor 13: Yea. Jack 'taint thinking things thru very well, is he!
Pastor 16: The Bible and Confessions do not demand Voters’ Assemblies.
Pastor 17 Dear Jack, I told you so! CEO and "round collar" father-pastors are
one! Ordination is not a sacrament.