Dr. Wohlrabe and Rev. Cascione Discuss Walther and Voters’
Assemblies
Over the past four months there have been hundreds of pages of email published on CAT41's TableTalk debating the doctrine of Church and Ministry. Writers on TableTalk have solicited a response to these issues from Dr. John Wohlrabe. The following is Wolhrabe's first communication on this issue. Reclaimnews finds itself in conflict on two fronts: the first are the antinomian promoters of the Church Growth Movement in the LCMS.
The second are those who wish to return to the pre-Waltherian European Lutheran hierarchy the LCMS rejected by establishing Conventions and the supremacy of Voters' Assemblies. I have identified this second group by the term Hyper-Euro-Lutherans.
We hope you will be able to attend the "First National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther" in St. Louis on Nov. 5th and 6th. We invite your responses on Lutherquest.org.
From: CDR Wohlrabe
Dear Pastor Cascione,
It has recently come to my attention that you have quoted from my booklet, "Ministry in Missouri until 1962," in articles which were posted on your Reclaim News website: "The Pseudo-Sacrament of Ordination: A Growing Problem Among LCMS Clergy" and "Receptionist View of the 'Call' Spreads in LCMS." I am writing in an attempt to clarify one particular statement that was misrepresented by you and to correct a mistaken understanding that you have with respect to C.F.W. Walther's position on the doctrines of church and ministry. It is my hope and prayer that you are open to my instruction in this area. I am deeply saddened to see Walther's position on church and ministry misrepresented and confessional brothers at odds.
In the article "Sacrament of Ordination: A Growing Problem Among LCMS Clergy," you write the following: "After Loehe and Grabau met on this issue they both wanted Walther to view the authority of the pastoral office in regard to the Voters' Assembly as an open question. "Yet, this was not to be. Walther believed that both Scripture and the confessions were clear on the matter and that any compromise would be a denial of Scriptural doctrine and would ultimately affect the teaching of justification by grace through faith. In August, 1853, Wilhelm Loehe broke relations with the Missouri Synod." (Wohlrabe, page 10)"
Pastor Cascione, I did not say, "After Loehe and Grabau met on this issue they both wanted Walther to view the authority of the pastoral office in regard to the Voters' Assembly as an open question." Those are your words. I did write the statement that follows your initial sentence, but in a different context and with a different meaning. Here is the full statement from my booklet: "During 1853, Grabau and von Rohr (who had now been ordained as a pastor) made a trip to Germany as well. After meeting with Loehe and a conference of pastors, Grabau agreed to acknowledge the matter of the exact nature of the ministry as an open question, if only Walther would do the same. Yet, this was not to be. Walther believed that both Scripture and the confessions were clear on the matter and that any compromise would be a denial of Scriptural doctrine and would ultimately affect the teaching of justification by grace through faith." There is a big difference between "the exact nature of the ministry," which is my statement, and "the authority of the pastoral office in regard to the Voters' Assembly," which is your statement. Let me explain further.
By "the exact nature of the ministry," I meant the doctrine of the ministry that Walther articulated in the theses of "Die Stimme Unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt," which were formally adopted by the Missouri Synod at convention in 1851. If you read these theses carefully, you will see that they make no mention whatsoever of a voters' assembly, or the authority of the pastoral office in regard to such. You see, I firmly believe that Walther would have been very uncomfortable with the emphasis you are placing on the "supremacy of a voters' assembly" over the pastoral office. In fact, he would have disagreed with you. The concept of a voters' assembly falls under polity or church government, which Walther viewed as an adiophoron (even though he did view a democratic polity as the best form of church government for congregations established independent of the state in the republic we call the United States of America). Thus, he did not state that a voters' assembly is divinely instituted, as you have asserted in your article "Receptionist View of the 'Call' Spreads in LCMS." Furthermore, Walther did not place the church over the ministry. He placed the church and the ministry side by side, standing together under Christ and His Word.
The position that you have articulated in your articles, placing the pastoral office beneath the church by way of a voters' assembly, is the position of Carl Eduard Vehse, a disgruntled layman of the Saxonite Emigration. It is not the position of Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther. In 1839, as a reaction to the situation with Martin Stephan, Vehse put forth ten points entitled "Extent of the Rights of the Congregation in Religious and Ecclesiastical Matters." The following points are noted: 1) appointment, calling, installation and dismissal of the minister; 2) supervision, judgment, and discipline of the minister; 3) supervision, judgment, and discipline of the members of the congregation; 4) supervision and judgment of doctrine; 5) final decision in all religious and ecclesiastical matters; 6) final decision in all private quarrels coming to the attention of the congregation; 7) authorization to appear at councils with the same rights as clergymen; 8) the use of the keys of the church in disputed cases and in those of the most serious nature, namely where excommunication is involved; 9) congregations have due power and authority to settle adiaphora, thus to regulate the entire liturgy and ritual and to devise their church constitutions; 10) congregations, as congregations, have preference over the clergy." Vehse's position represents one extreme: placing the church over the ministry. Walther did not accept Vehse's position in 1839, nor did he adopt it at the Altenburg Debate in April 1841 when he took issue with Vehse's brother-in-law, Franz Adolph Marbach. You can read more about all of this in Walter O. Forster, "Zion on the Mississippi" pp. 464ff and Carl S. Mundinger, "Government in the Missouri Synod" pp. 94ff. Also, my complete doctoral dissertation (write Concordia Seminary, St. Louis for a copy) has the primary sources and other additional secondary sources for you to examine.
Meanwhile, on December 1, 1840, Johann Andreas August Grabau issued his so called "Hirtenbrief." Here he held that only an episcopal form of polity was proper for the church according to the old, accepted 'Kirchenordnungen' of Germany. Grabau felt that both the call and ordination were indispensable for the proper administration of the Sacraments. He further maintained that a congregation must obey its pastor in all things. Also, Grabau believed that the one holy Christian church, outside of which there is no salvation, is the visible church of the pure Word and Sacrament, the Lutheran Church. You can read more about this in Roy Suelflow, "The Relations of the Missouri Synod with the Buffalo Synod up to 1866," "Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly" [CHIQ] 27 (April 1954). Eventually, Wilhelm Loehe took issue with the democratic nature of the Missouri Synod constitution and the view that the call to the pastoral office would come through a congregation. Specifically, he disagreed with the understanding that the authority of a man to proclaim the Word and administer the Sacraments publicly was transferred or conferred ('uebertragen') through the call of a congregation. Furthermore, he believed that ordination was a divinely instituted practice and necessary for the public office of the ministry. For more information, you can read Mundinger, pp. 200f and other sources that I have sited in my dissertation. Both Grabau and Loehe represented the other extreme: placing the ministry over the church.
At the Missouri Synod's second synodical convention in 1848, Walther, as Synodical President, gave the address, a translation of which can be found in "Moving Frontiers," edited by Carl Meyer, pp. 170-177 and in CHIQ 33 (April 1960). There is also a translation by John Pohanka, a graduate student at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. In this address, Walther states: "Christ not only declares that He is the only One who has the power in His church, exercised by His Word, but He denies to everyone any other power, rule, or imperative in His church but the Word." Furthermore, Walther declares: "The holy apostles bestow only one power on those who serve the church in a governing capacity, i.e., the power of the Word...The only power we possess, my honorable brothers in the ministry and esteemed congregational representatives, is without a doubt the power of the Word...What about those who demand some kind of power in the church besides the power of the Word? These people are depriving Christ's church of the freedom that He earned for it with His precious blood." Concerning polity or government in the church, Walther maintained: "In our Evangelical Lutheran Church, however, we must preach to our congregations that the choice of the form of government for a church is an inalienable part of the Christian liberty and that Christians as members of the church are subject to no power in the world except the clear Word of the living God." Concerning a democratic polity, Walther held: "How can such a democracy be a papacy when priestly Christians do not tolerate human laws that God has neither commanded nor forbidden, but unconditionally obey only the preacher of the Word as Christ Himself speaks through him when he proclaims Christ's Word? No, a democracy is disgraceful when people prescribe exactly what the preacher of God's Word may or may not proclaim; when people choose for themselves to contradict God's Word and in any way hinder the performance of the ministerial office according to the Word. A democracy is disgraceful when people claim for themselves to make ordinances in the church and exclude the pastor from this power and demand that he submit to their ordinances. The preacher who fears men or desires to please men does not serve Christ. Such a preacher is a slave of men and diverges from God's Word and says what his listeners want to hear. However, where the preacher is given only the power of the Word - the full power - and where the congregation hears Christ's Word preached and receives it as God's Word, then the preacher stands in the right relationship to his congregation; not as a hired hand but as one sent by God; not as a slave to men but as a servant of Christ who teaches, admonishes, and corrects in Christ's stead. This complies with the apostolic admonition, "Obey your teachers and follow them, for they are caring for your souls and must give an accounting; in order that they work joyfully, not sadly, for that would not help you" (Heb. 13:17)." Concerning congregations that reject the Word of God from their pastors, Walther states: "Those who do not want the Word will separate from us; those who love the Word will find refuge in our fellowship."
Thus, you can see that Walther held only Christ and His Word as supreme in a congregation - the only true power. Polity was a matter of Christian freedom. Democracy became disgraceful when the congregation prescribed exactly what the preacher was to proclaim, when the people chose to contradict God's Word and hinder the performance of the ministerial office.
In 1851 Walther set forth the doctrine of church and ministry in "Die Stimme Unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt." Here Walther did not address polity, but rather doctrine. Here, Walther did not place the church over the ministry or the ministry over the church; instead he placed them side by side. You can find the theses on church and ministry in "Walther on the Church," translated by John M. Drickamer, "Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther," CPH, 1981. Nowhere in "Kirche und Amt" (nor any of his writings that I know of) does Walther state that the voters' assembly is divinely instituted. The Holy Christian Church (the 'Una Sancta' which in its proper sense is invisible) is divinely instituted. To this Church, Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The marks of the church are the pure preaching of God's Word and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ's institution. In addition to the divine institution of the Church, we also have the divine institution of the pastoral office, which is distinct from the priestly office that all believers have. This is not an optional office, but the church is bound to it until the end of time. It is an office of service involving the power to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments and the authority of a spiritual court. Because the Holy Christian Church has the power of the keys, that power is conferred on the pastor through the call. Ordination is not a divine institution but an apostolic, churchly ordinance and a public confirmation of the call. The pastoral office is the highest office in the church, from which all other offices flow. Respect and also unconditional obedience are due to the ministry of the Word if and when the preacher presents the Word of God. But, the pastor cannot introduce new laws or ceremonies, or carry out excommunication alone. Along with the pastors, laymen also posses the right to judge doctrine. This teaching on church and ministry, which I have briefly summarized, is what Walther would not compromise. He felt that Scripture and the Confessions were very clear on this, and any compromise would be a denial of Scriptural doctrine that would ultimately affect the teaching of justification by grace through faith.
Walther's position on the doctrine of church and ministry can be seen as a mediating position between two extremes. It favors neither those who place the ministry over the church and the priesthood of all believers, nor those who place the church and the priesthood of all believers over the ministry. Instead, church and ministry stand side by side, and to a certain extent, both church and ministry stand in tension. Both the church and the ministry are divinely instituted. One does not come before the other. The church is bound to the office of the ministry, but the office of the ministry is conferred through the church. The pastor is to be obeyed when he proclaims the Word of God. However, laymen are also given the right to judge doctrine. The pastoral office involves a divine call, and thus a congregation can not arbitrarily fire their pastor. If a pastor is preaching God's Word in its truth and purity, and a congregation contradicts God's Word and then fires their pastor, that congregation removes itself from the fellowship of the Missouri Synod.
In 1862, Walther presented an essay called "The Proper Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation Independent of the State" to the Western District convention. This was expanded and published. In this book, which you have sited in your articles, Walther intended to show the practical application of the doctrine set forth in "Kirche und Amt," and to show European Lutherans and other Lutherans in America that this form of polity had worked in the congregations of the Missouri Synod for more than 24 years. In this book, however, Walther was not saying that this type of polity was divinely instituted, nor was he saying that an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation could only be established independent of the state. [In his address to the 1848 synodical convention, Walther stated: "For example, who would dispute that the German consistories in their own time were a blessing to the church...Anyone who knows a little history could not possibly deny that the Swedish church under its episcopal structure was gloriously edifying..."] What he was stating in "The Proper Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation Independent of the State" was that this form of polity is the proper form (the best, most appropriate form) for a congregation independent of the state. In Chapter 1, Section 5, Walther states that the congregation is given the power of the keys. In such a congregation, the pastor is the steward of these keys and a servant of the congregation. "The congregation is represented as the supreme tribunal" (Matt. 18:15-18). Walther is talking about the office of the keys here, particularly in matters of excommunication - nothing more. He is not saying that voters' assemblies have the right to lord it over pastors. In Chapter III, Walther goes on to talk about congregational meetings. However, nowhere does Walther say that these meetings or voters' assemblies are divinely instituted. Nor does he say that voters' assemblies are over pastors. Both pastors and congregations are subject to the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions as a correct exposition of God's Word.
In many ways, Pastor Cascione, the situation that you are agitating through your articles strikes me as being similar to the 16th Century controversy between Flacius and Major. In seeking to maintain truth, individuals have gone to extremes (different doctrines, of course -- church and ministry verses justification and sanctification -- but extremes nonetheless). I believe that you have taken statements out of context: statements of Walther and one of my own statements. Also, as in the case with Flacius and Major, disputants have gotten personal in their attacks. Granted, you are not the only one. However, names like "Hyper-Euro-Lutherans," and "peacocks," and "pope and every potentate" do not help toward reaching an understanding between brothers.
Before I close, let me add another historical perspective. Since the time of Walther, the Missouri Synod has departed from what Walther originally intended with respect to maintaining a balance between church and ministry. District presidents have become much more powerful than they were ever intended to be. Most of them no longer represent the Synod at large but have instead established their own little kingdoms. This has happened, in part, because districts control the power of the purse. In most cases, congregational funds go through a district before they go to the Synod. Beginning in 1960, the position of district president started to be a full-time administrative position (the Michigan District has the distinction of taking the lead in this). Prior to that time, district presidents were pastors in congregations while also serving in the office of district president. Also, before the 1960s, there were no district headquarters. Now district presidents have very little connection with parish ministry. Many are no longer insuring that a balance is maintained between church and ministry. Many have repeatedly sided with congregations (their bread and butter) over pastors, even when these pastors were preaching God's Word purely and administering the Sacraments rightly. According to Walther, a congregation that contradicts the Word of God purely proclaimed by its pastor removes itself from the fellowship of the Synod. However, you will find very few cases of district presidents striking congregations from the synodical roster for improperly ousting a pastor. Thus, the balance between church and ministry that Walther intended has not been maintained. There is now a "hire and fire" mentality in the Missouri Synod. Supported and often encouraged by district presidents, the position of Carl Eduard Vehse has become the de facto position throughout the Synod.
In view of this, some of our pastors have leaned toward Loehe's or Grabau's understanding of the ministry. I do not agree with them. However, I do not believe that the corrective to this situation is for you to hold up Vehse's view and present this as if it were the position of C.F.W. Walther. That is only confusing the matter further. We need to carefully articulate what is doctrine and what is polity. One is centered on clear statements from Scripture and the Confessions; the other is a matter of reason and practicality. One is unchangeable; the other is an adiophoron. Furthermore, we need to work on our synodical government so that it properly reflects our doctrine in its practice, so that a proper balance between church and ministry can be maintained.
This letter has become much longer than I expected. I hope it helps you understand Walther's position better. I also hope and pray that onfessional pastors in our Synod can work together so that our beloved Synod stands for the proclamation of God's Word in its truth and purity and the right and proper administration of our Lord's Sacraments.
In Christ,
Chaplain John C. Wohlrabe, Jr.
Dear Rev. Dr. Wohlrabe:
Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated and germane to the discussion.
You are in a position to shed some important light on this entire matter, particularly since the first National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther is scheduled to take place on Nov. 5th and 6th in St. Louis. Your comments to me were on thousands of computers before I began to read them. My name, address, and e-mail address are in the Lutheran Annual and our website which you examined. I must assume that it was your intent to initiate this dialogue in a public forum and forgo any private discussion. This is certainly acceptable to me and based on your first public statement also acceptable to you.
There are times when the proper understanding of a theological statement can be misunderstood until that theology is put into practice. The practice of theology explains what we mean by what we do. In other words the Doctrine of Church and Ministry by its very nature must have practical applications.
You suggest that I claim that the first sentence of the following paragraph are your words. Please note there are no quote marks on the first two sentences of the article because they are my words. The only place I use quotation marks is when I’m quoting someone else such as yourself beginning at the third sentence of the following paragraph.
"After Loehe and Grabau met on this issue they both wanted Walther to view the authority of the pastoral office in regard to the Voters’ Assembly as an open question. "‘Yet, this was not to be. Walther believed that both Scripture and the confessions were clear on the matter and that any compromise would be a denial of Scriptural doctrine and would ultimately affect the teaching of justification by grace through faith. In August, 1853, Wilhelm Loehe broke relations with the Missouri Synod."’ (Wohlrabe, page 10)
In your letter you refer to Walther’s 1848 Convention address. I am well aware of this speech. It is posted on our www.reclaimingwalther.org website for anyone to examine and download.
My questions are interspersed in this response. I’ve number the questions for easy reference.
You write: "Wilhelm Loehe was not happy with the constitution of the Missouri Synod. Loehe felt that suffrage on the part of the congregation was non-apostolic and down-right dangerous." ("Ministry in Missouri Until 1962" by Dr. John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., 1992, page 8).
Mundinger writes: "The removal of Martin Stephan on May 30, 1839, and all the misery that followed that event gave the laymen the necessary jolt to press for lay participation in the government of the Church. This misery drove them into the writings of Luther, and here the laymen found the weapons which they needed to win the battle for CONGREGATIONAL SUPREMACY from the power-jealous pastors." ("Government in the Missouri Synod," by Dr. Carl S. Mundinger, CPH, St. Louis, 1947 Page 205)
I only assumed that if Loehe and Grabau didn’t agree with Walther on voting in Conventions they also didn’t agree with Voters’ Assemblies in congregations.
(1) Did Loehe and Grabau only disagree with Walther on congregations voting in Conventions but not on men voting in Voters’ Assemblies? From your comments it seems you are saying that the division between Loehe and Grabau had nothing to do with voting in the Convention or in the congregation.
(2) Are you saying that Walther taught that voting in Conventions and voting in Congregations was adiaphora and of no doctrinal consequence or importance for the LCMS?
I know that Walther placed the clergy and laity side by side in the Convention. Each congregation had one pastoral and one lay delegate. However, this arrangement can’t possibly exist in the congregation between the pastor and the Voters’ Assembly unless the Voters’ Assembly has one vote and the pastor has one vote. I’m sure you would agree this would be a prescription for chaos or, as they say, the proverbial Mexican stand off. From my reading of Walther’s "The True Visible Form of the Christian Congregation" and Walther’s "Pastoral Theology" the pastor only has one vote in the Assembly, which Walther advises him not to use, and each man in the Assembly also has one vote.
(3) Practically speaking, what do you say should take place if the Pastor wants to serve Communion every Sunday and the Voter’s out vote him, 40 to 15 so that Communion only be served once a month or twice a month?
(4) Again, what do you say should happen if the Pastor wants to use contemporary worship and the Voters’ Assembly out votes him 16 to 15 to use TLH?
In the following quotation you state that Walther didn’t teach that the congregation was over the pastor. "You see, I firmly believe that Walther would have been very uncomfortable with the emphasis you are placing on the "supremacy of a voters' assembly" over the pastoral office. In fact, he would have disagreed with you."
Walther regularly speaks about the Congregation as the final tribunal. He also states the Congregation is the possessor of all church power in Theses VI and VII. As the possessor of all church power the local congregation must be divinely instituted by God. He regularly quotes the Lutheran Confessions on this point as follows: "In 1 Cor. 3, 6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that THE CHURCH IS ABOVE THE MINISTERS. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: "Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this." Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church. (Treatise, Concordia Triglotta, page 507, par. 11)
"...the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18, 19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. THEREFORE HE GRANTS THE KEYS PRINCIPALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TO THE CHURCH, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to everyone who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise CHRIST GIVES SUPREME AND FINAL JURISDICTION TO THE CHURCH, WHEN HE SAYS: TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH.] Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or lordship [which he had, or was to have had, in preference to the other apostles. (Treatise, Concordia Triglotta Page 511 par. 24-25)
Walther uses these citations from the confessions in his "Church and Ministry", "The True Visible Church on Earth", "The Form of the Christian Congregation" and "Pastoral Theology" to show that the local congregation has authority over the pastor and that the Voters’ Assembly speaks for the entire congregation. In fact Walther rarely distinguishes between what the "Congregation" does and what the "Voters" do because the Voters’ are comprised of the entire congregation less the vote of women and children.
(5) Is my understanding of Walther’s structure for the Voters’ Assembly correct?
As in many other places Walther identifies the authority of the Congregation with the authority of the Voter’s Assembly. Walther writes on page 257 of his Pastoral Theology, "All Adult, male members of the congregation have the right to participate actively in the discussions, Votes, and decisions of the congregation since that is a right of the whole congregation."
(6) Why do you divide the authority of the Voters from the authority of the Congregation as if when Walther is speaking about the authority of the Congregation over the minister this exempts the minister from the authority of the Voters’ Assembly?
Walther also regularly quotes Matthew 18:15-20 as textual proof for the divine institution of the Congregation in addition to the divine institution of the Voters’ Assembly. He writes in his pastoral theology: "Since, ACCORDING TO GOD’S WORD, THE CONGREGATION IS THE HIGHEST COURT WITHIN ITS CIRCLE (Matt.18:17 Col. 4:17), and the preacher has church authority only in common with the congregation (Matt. 20-25-26; 23:8; 1Peter.5:1-3; 2Cor.8:8), the preacher must be concerned that the congregational assembly, both regular and special ones as needed at times, be held in Christian order to consider and carry out what is necessary for its governing (Matt. 18:17; 1Cor. 5:4;2 2Cor.2;6 Acts 6:20 15:1-4, 30; 21:17-22; 1Tim.5:20)."
"All adult, male members of the congregation have the right to participate actively in the discussion, votes, and decisions of the congregation since that is a RIGHT OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION. See Matt. 18:17-18; Acts 1:15, 23-26; 15:5; 12-13, 22-23; 1Cor:5:2;6:2; 10:15; 12:7;2 2Cor.2:6-8; 2Thess. 3;15. Excluded from the exercise of this right are the youth (1Pet.5:5) and the female members of the congregation (Cor.14:34-35) [see also 1Tim.2:8-15]." (Pastoral Theology by C.F.W. Walther, CN New Haven Mo., 5th Edition 1906 page 257)
"It also belongs in the constitution that the congregation in its own circle is the final and highest court according to Matt. 18:17." ("Pastoral Theology" Walther, Page 264) He probably quotes Matthew 18:15-20 more than other author in his "Church and Ministry."
(7) Did Walther correctly understand Matthew 18:15-20?
In any discussion of voter supremacy there is no question that the Word of God is supreme over the congregation and the pastor. However, I have often noticed that those who oppose congregational supremacy appeal to the supremacy of the Word in order to nullify the Voter’s authority over the pastor.
(8) Why do the Lutheran Confessions claim that the congregation is "supreme" (which would also make the Voters’ Assembly supreme) but you say that Walther doesn’t teach that the Voters’ are supreme?
(9) Are you saying that Walther’s "Church and Ministry" does not apply to the two phrases in the Lutheran Confessions above which read, "Therefore He grants the keys principally and immediately to the church," and "Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the church, when He says: Tell it unto the church," to Voters’ Assemblies?
(10) My next question is how can a Voters’ Assembly issue a divine call if the Voters’ Assembly is not divinely instituted?
You write as follows: "The concept of a Voters' Assembly falls under polity or church government, which Walther viewed as an adiophoron (even though he did view a democratic polity as the best form of church government for congregations established independent of the state in the republic we call the United States of America). Thus, he did not state that a voters' assembly is divinely instituted, as you have asserted in your article "Receptionist View of the 'Call' Spreads in LCMS." Furthermore, Walther did not place the church over the ministry. He placed the church and the ministry side by side, standing together under Christ and His Word."
(11) If Walther did not agree that the Voters’ Assembly was divinely instituted, please explain how such a body could possess the Office of the Keys and administer these Keys for the entire congregation?
(12) Do believe that an identifiable group can administer the Office of the Keys and not be divinely instituted?
(13) Or, are you saying that the Voters Assembly does not administer the Office of the Keys?
(14) If the Voters are not divinely instituted and do not have authority over the Office of the Keys, why does Walther insist that an Excommunication only be carried out by a unanimous vote of the Voters’ Assembly?
(15) If, as you say, the pastor and the Voters’ are side by side, why does Walther make the "Call" and excommunication a decision of the Voters’ Assembly?
(16) When Walther made the comment about pastors being side by side with the laity wasn’t he speaking about the Convention and not the Voters’ Assembly?
(17) Isn’t it true that Walther did not teach that the Convention was "the church" but the local congregation was "the church" which is why local pastors serve Communion to the Convention and the Convention cannot serve itself the Lord’s Supper?
(18) If Walther did not have in mind from beginning of the Synod that the Voters ’ were supreme, why does he constantly make the Voters’ Assembly the highest court and not equal with the pastor?
"It also belongs in the constitution that the congregation in its own circle is the FINAL AND HIGHEST COURT according to Matt. 18:17. Therefore all its officers are responsible to it and may be removed from office in Christian order. But also all decisions and resolutions of the congregation which are contrary to God's Word or the [congregation's] confession are to be declared in advance null and void." ("Pastoral Theology" C.F.W. Walther, Fifth Edition 1906, CN, 1995, page 47)
"For the Lord Christ teaches in Matthew 18:17 that the ban should be put ON THOSE WHO WILL NOT OBEY THE CHURCH OR HIS CONGREGATION." Thus the church truly teaches nothing else than God’s Word. (Luther's Works LW 34:33)
Please notice above that Luther makes the congregation supreme and not the pastor. Paul also tells the congregation to carry out an excommunication, otherwise he would have done it himself.
(19) If Walther thought that any form of Church Government was acceptable for LCMS congregations, why did he only tell pastors how the Voters’ Assemblies should be structured and why the Voters were the highest court?
(20) What other forms of church government did Walther teach besides Voters’ Assemblies for the local congregation?
I have also noticed the J. T. Mueller, Fritz, Pieper, Mundinger, and other authors always speak about the supremacy of Voters’ Assemblies and how they are the highest tribunal in the congregation.
(21) Are you suggesting that these theologians did not understand Walther?
(22) If they did understand Walther, are you saying they changed what he originally taught? You seem to speak as if Voters’ Assemblies were coincidental to or an after thought that had nothing to do with Walther’s "Church and Ministry."
(23) Could you please explain why all four of the Congregations of which I have served as a pastor, founded in 1947, 1937, 1905, and 1921 all stated in their constitutions that the Voters’ were supreme?
(24) Was it a coincidence the I became the pastor of the only four congregation in the LCMS that were structured on congregational supremacy? None of them taught that the pastors were side by side with the Voters’ Assembly.
(25) Was it a coincidence that such language appeared in the Constitution of a neighboring congregation that was founded in 1847, the same year as the Synod, especially since you say Walther didn’t teach this?
From my observation you have placed some serious contradictions between Walther’ s theology and practice. One could conclude from your statements that the structure of the Synod and LCMS congregations in the first hundred years of the Synod are accidental and not the result of Walther’s "Church and Ministry." Your claim that Walther did not teach congregational supremacy and the authority of the Voters’ Assembly over the pastor gives an open door for every Church Growth Movement abuse we now witness in the Synod. Both the pastors and the congregations originally agreed to the form of worship as published in TLH and LW in the Synodical Constitution under Article VI. 4. Your position makes the congregation powerless to prevent these Church Growth aberrations.
My purpose for defending the supremacy of Voter’s Assemblies, as originally taught by Walther, is to preserve the marvelous God given Christian freedom that was the great gift and biblical heritage of the LCMS. In many parts of Synod we now witness the abuse of church power by financial institutions, District Offices, Boards, and pastors who claim divine right to alter and reinvent worship and church polity in the name of God.
Since you have initiated this dialogue and criticism of my articles your comments to these questions would be very helpful.
In Christ,
Pastor Jack Cascione
September 29, 1999