Wohlrabe to Cascione: (2)
Walther's Polity Is Of Divine Origin
This is the second in a series of replies to Dr. Wohlrabe's answers to 25 questions on whether Voters' Assemblies are necessary in the LCMS.
Cascione Comment to Wohlrabe:
"In your letter you refer to Walther's 1848 Convention address. I am well aware of this speech. It is posted on our website for anyone to examine and download."Wohlrabe Replies:
"Then why do you ignore the statements of Walther in his 1848 Convention address concerning polity as 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?"Cascione Replies:
Wolhrabe has led the readers to believe that the LCMS is a kingdom of chaos and has never had, and does not now have, an agreed upon structure. Walther said, ".we must preach to our congregations that the choice of the form of government for a church is an inalienable part of Christian liberty," as he quotes in part above. However, the Voters' Assembly as the supreme tribunal in every congregation is a "choice" that every LCMS congregation made when they joined the LCMS.The time for "choices" takes place before marriage and joining a Synod, not after. Wohlrabe presents LCMS polity as if it is still a "choice" in the LCMS. This is tantamount to Synodical nihilism. What he is saying is that the LCMS has no mandated congregational polity. Then each congregation can be structured as it pleases and every pastor is at liberty to teach the polity he pleases.
The likes of Martin Stephan, Walther, Loehe, Grabau, Dr. Norbert Oesch's Church Growth/Leadership Training-CEO's, the Pope, Sacerdotalists, Orthodox Priests, and Hyper-Euro-Lutherans should all be one big happy family in the LCMS if they agree with us on the Gospel and the Sacraments. Wohlrabe presents antinomianism as evangelicalism. He has completely misrepresented Walther.
In that same speech Walther said: "In a republic, as the United States of America is, where the feeling of being free and independent of man is nourished so strongly from childhood, the inevitable result would be that ANY RESTRICTION BEYOND THE LIMITS DRAWN BY GOD HIMSELF would be empty shells, and our apparent growth would often be nothing but a process of becoming stiff and dying in a great mass of lifeless forms."
Notice that Walther said, "any restriction beyond the limits drawn by God Himself." In other words, the limitation of congregational supremacy exercised by the gathering we call the "Voters' Assembly" is the limit of congregational liberty drawn by God himself.
"If the congregation is to function and fully exercise its DIVINELY IMPOSED RIGHTS AND DUTIES in a conscientious, profitable, and God-pleasing manner, IT MUST, in the first place, hold public church assemblies in which it considers and determines all things THAT ARE NECESSARY for its special church management. Such public executive church assemblies Christ presupposes when He commands Matt. 18:17-18 'Tell it unto the church.' Such executive assemblies were generally maintained in the first Christian congregation, as the Book of Acts records, 1:15, 23-25, 15:5: 23.
"We call these assemblies Voters' meetings, [as we do today] for we admit to them as authorized to vote only the adult male members of the church. Since the final authority in all matters is vested in the congregation and not in a few members of the congregation, it would seem evident that all of the members of the congregation are responsible for what the congregation does." ("The Abiding Word" G. Perlich, Vol.II, CPH, 1947 page 460)
Cascione Question:
(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."Wohlrabe Replies
"Loehe and Grabau didn't agree with Walther on voting in Conventions as well as voting in a congregation. They disagreed with it on the basis of their doctrine of the ministry, and they disagreed with it because of their view on polity. Loehe and Grabau believed that the public office of the ministry was conferred, not through the church, but through the ministerium via ordination. They also believed that Scripture nowhere gave any form of church government to lay people. Walther disagreed with them on both issues. However, Walther did not combine the two issues (which I believe you are doing ). In 'Kirche und Amt' he dealt only with the issues of doctrine. In other writings, he dealt with the issues of polity. Yet, he did not maintain that polity was divinely prescribed. The democratic model was the most proper form for congregations independent of the state."Israel Chose Kings Over Self-Government
Cascione Replies:
Wohlrabe is mistaken when he says that Walther did not view polity as divinely prescribed. He is also mistaken when he says Walther's polity was not the direct result of his theology. These points were also addressed in my first published reply."The Abiding Word" by CPH disagrees with Wohlrabe as stated above. However, Walther never said that congregations didn't have the right to surrender their divinely given authority and place themselves under a hierarchy. The Swedish Lutheran Church had Bishops. Government run Consistories, which Luther condemned in 1534, ruled many Lutherans in Europe. (Mundinger, page 15) God certainly used both.
We also know that Israel had virtual self-rule taught by Jethro to Moses under the Judges, the last being Samuel. The people grew tired of governing themselves and wanted a King like the other countries around them. "But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. 7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." 1Samuel 8:6-7
Here we have an example of a divinely instituted structure that God allowed them to discard. Wohlrabe's position, similar that of Israel, is, "Who says we can't have congregations ruled from the top?" The Israelites were generally cursed with evil kings, but God did bless them with some excellent kings.
If congregations in the LCMS want to be ruled by a Super Board of Directors or a Bishop or a CEO then they should find another Synod in which to practice their alien polity. We can't have Bishops, CEO's and Walther in the same Synod. In the event that the LCMS wants to practice multiple choice on polity congregations should wake up, realize that their autonomy rests on the ego and whim of the pastor or District President, and leave the Synod if they want to retain their Christian liberty.
Hierarchy Is As Foreign to the Church as Polygamy
We know that it is the practice of LCMS Missionaries not to break up families with more than one wife after they convert to Christianity because these women would be subject to starvation. The Missionaries teach that all future marriages should be one husband and one wife.
The Roman Empire would not permit polygamy. We know the Biblical practice is clearly for one wife but where does it say men "can't" have more than one wife?" The pastor and the elders are to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3.) We know that God blessed families with more than one wife such as Abraham, Jerubaal, Caleb, Elkanah, Jacob with four, and David with ten. David only committed adultery with Bathsheba. The Bible forbids homosexuality and adultery. Hence polygamy is as much an adiaphoron as congregations being ruled by hierarchy in the LCMS. Wohlrabe's multiple choice to Voters' Assemblies in the LCMS is just as ludicrous as the possibility of polygamy. His separation of theology from polity is really the separation of the visible church from reality and the world. (1Cor.5:9-10)
Christ Teaches Service, Not Control
The Scriptures tell us, "But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who [should be] the greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all."( Mark 9:34-35)
"But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them..And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." Mark 10:42,44
"And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether [is] greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? [is] not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth." (Luke 22:25-27)
Unlike Wohlrabe, Walther read these and other passages and was determined to "impose" Voters Assemblies on all LCMS congregation. Thank God!
What If The Convention Rejects Mandated Voter Supremacy?
Wohlrabe attacks the law of identity. He confronts the Synod with the legalism of justifying its own existence. What if the Synod in Convention votes that congregations can be ruled by something other than Voter's Assemblies or if the Convention refuses to deal with the issue at all? In a Synod without mandated polity, power belongs to those who are most able to seize control. If Voters' Assemblies are adiaphora we must remember so is the existence of the Synod.
The Council of District Presidents has endorsed the retraining of Pastors to be CEOs in Dr. Norbert Oesch's Pastoral Leadership Institute and the LCEF, AAL, LB, and Wheatridge, to name a few, are funding the program. At the same time Hyper-Euro-Lutheran pastors are claiming authority over the congregations by virtue of their sacrament of ordination. If the Convention in 2001 doesn't insist on Voter supremacy in all LCMS congregations, the congregations with Voter supremacy would be wise to leave the Synod if they wish to keep control of their property.
Tradition is a Poor Guide for Church Government
Cascione Question:
(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?"Wohlrabe Replies:
"I am saying that Walther believed that a democratic polity was the most proper form in their situation.""Yet, he [Walther] also maintains that church government is a matter of Christian freedom." (to #5)
"As mentioned above, voters assemblies are one form of church government.In Sweden, they had an episcopal form of government, where the clergy represented the congregation. There may be other forms of government as well." (to #6)
"It [the congregation] also has the right to choose whatever government it wants." (to #9)
"I see a pastor insisting on Communion every Sunday as legalistic as a pastor insisting that voters' assemblies are divinely prescribed and to be placed over the pastor." (to # 3)"
Cascione Reply:
Throughout the generations the church has found itself in desperate circumstances under the authority of dictators, despots, tyrants, emperors, kings, dukes, Popes, Communism, or the state. The miracle of God's inexorable blessings for His congregations under all adverse conditions does not justify recreating the church government they had to follow under those conditions. The church grew under Caesar. Should we bring back Caesar? Is Lutheranism more suited for rule under a Duke and Consistories? Why isn't the LCMS building catacombs out of pure Christian liberty or teaching the possibility of polygamy? We also know that persecution was an effective Church Growth program.Walther's Successors Only Taught Voter Supremacy
Wohlrabe couldn't be more incorrect in his assessment that congregational supremacy is a matter of choice. When he insists that Walther separated his theology from his polity why didn't Walther's contemporaries and those who followed him know this? The last thing Pieper does in "Christian Dogmatics" is separate theology and polity. Should the following passages from "Christian Dogmatics" have been retitled "Christian Polity" because Pieper was confused?
".instruction from the pulpit or in the voters' meeting.." (Pieper Vol. III Page 197)
"The members of the Christian Church as Church owe obedience to no man whatever, but to Christ alone." (1Cor. 3:23) Matt 23:8, 1Cor.7:23 ). (Pieper Vol. III Page 412)
".the whole congregation is enjoined to exercise Christian discipline:" (Pieper Vol. III Page 421)
"The command 'Tell it unto the church,' according to the context, pertains to the local church, or congregation, and it must be restricted to the local church." (Pieper Vol. III Page 421)
"To quote: 'Paul and Barnabas chose by vote presbyters for them, that is, they directed their election by vote in the congregations.'" (Pieper Vol. III Page 453)
"History shows, too, that for a long time in the Church of the first centuries public ministers were appointed by congregational vote. The remark of the Smalcald Articles: 'Formerly the people elected pastors and bishops.' (Trigl. 525, ibid, 70), can be proved to be historically correct." (Pieper Vol. III Page 453)
"Hase says correctly that 'evangelical teaching' makes the congregation the source of all authority in the Church. All that the pastors of the congregation do as pastors is delegated, that is done solely at the command of the congregations. This is true in particular when they pronounce excommunication." (Pieper Vol. III Page 458)
"This declaration rests upon the correct Scriptural principle that the local church is divinely appointed and is vested not only with the Office of the Keys, but with supreme authority to direct all matters pertaining to church polity." Matt. 18:15-18, 1Cor. 5:11-13, 14:33-36. (Christian Dogmatics, J. T. Mueller. Page 561. Mueller goes on to explain the Biblical necessity of congregational voting.)
Walther Only Taught Voter Supremacy
Last of all, Dr. Wohlrabe wants us to believe the following statements from Walther's "True Form of the Christian Congregation" are polity but not theology.
"Finally the congregation is represented as the supreme tribunal." (Matt. 18:15-18. Page 24) I call that Biblical theology.
"In public church affairs nothing should be concluded without a vote and consent of the congregation." (Page 48)
"The whole congregation should have the power to elect and depose a minister." (Luther, Page 67)
Wohlrabe teaches that there is no "true form" of the Christian congregation. Accordingly, CPH sinned against Christian liberty by publishing such a title.
Wohlrabe Views Congregational Self-Enslavement as an Option in the LCMS
We must assume that Lincoln acted against "liberty" because he freed the slaves without their consent. Under the guise of Christian liberty Wohlrabe 's position will soon leave LCMS congregations with no liberty at all because he makes self-imposed slavery of the congregation a legitimate choice. We can be sure that "enlightened" clergy will help the congregations exercise their "freedom."
Instead of campaigning for congregational supremacy in the LCMS Wohlrabe is pro-choice. He speaks for thousands of pastors in the Synod and the COP with their love for PLI. God allows slavery in the Old and New Testaments. However, Paul gives the following "adiaphora" advice: "Art thou called [being] a servant [i.e. slave]? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather."(1Cor. 7:21) Wohlrabe's position that hierarchy is adiaphora for LCMS congregations is unthinkable.
October 19, 1999