Wohlrabe to Cascione:(4)
Organized Effort to Bury Missouri's History
This is the fourth in a series of replies to the 25 questions answered by Dr. Wohlrabe.
This reply deals with the historical revisionism being used to bury the history of the LCMS by the Church Growth/Leadership Training Movement and the Hyper-Euro-Lutherans who want to promote Episcopal hierarchy . Unencumbered by the issues surrounding its origin, it is easier to direct the Synod's future, either as a corporation or episcopacy, depending on one' s preference.
For this writer, Wohlrabe is an enigma. His outstanding doctoral thesis deals with the history of LCMS government, but he rejects the very basis of the layman's struggle, namely, to achieve Voter supremacy.
The previous reply (#3) dealt with removing the identity of the laity who were highly motivated to achieve Voter supremacy. In this reply, we examine the effort to remove Voter supremacy as the guiding principle of LCMS congregational government.
Separation of Truth From Responsibility
Cascione Question:
" (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?"Wohlrabe Replied:
"Why didn't Walther argue polity as an issue with Grabau and Loehe in "Kirche und Amt" and elsewhere? He didn't because the real issue was doctrine.(full response to this question is published in the previous article).
He prescribed voters' assemblies as the proper form for evangelical Lutheran congregations independent of the state, and so the proper form for the Missouri Synod."Cascione Replies:
Your argument from silence is weak. How could Walther argue polity with Grabau when they didn't have doctrinal agreement? Could Washington have argued the proper form of government with King George before they agreed that the United States was independent of England? If Grabau and Loehe agreed with Walther's doctrine, they both knew that the Voters were automatically supreme; hence, they broke fellowship. They understood that truth leads to consequences.Why does Wohlrabe follow the postmodern line of thinking by making actions independent of truth? We are not saved by works, but works must follow faith. Wohlrabe separates truth from duty. Should there be a Reformation? Should there be an American Revolution? Should we free the slaves? Should we establish the LCMS? Should there be Voters' Assemblies? Maybe?
Notice David's refreshing, conclusive thought pattern in the following verse. "They also that render evil for good are mine adversaries; because I follow [the thing that] good [is]." (Psalm 38:20) Truth leads to the absolute certainty of action. Again Christ says, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:27) Notice that the sheep aren't confused, don't philosophize, equivocate, theorize, or hesitate. Again David writes, "[When thou saidst], Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek." (Psalm 27:8) Here, "I will" sees no separation of doctrine and practice with which Wohlrabe wants to discredit Walther and the founding of the Missouri Synod.
Were Voters' Assemblies Actually and Experiment?
Cascione Question:
"(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?"Wohlrabe Replied:
"Please read Walther's foreword to 'The Proper Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation Independent of the States.' Walther believed this to be the best form. He wanted to show the practical application of the doctrine set forth in "Kirche und Amt." But, mainly, he wanted to show those in Europe and the U.S.A. (Loehe and Grabau ) who said that it would lead to "anarchistic, ochlocratic [mob rule] anabaptistic, and separatistic conditions, that a democratic polity actually worked." It was originally presented as a District Convention essay meant only for discussion. But, the delegates to the Convention encouraged Walther to present it as a book. It was never adopted as an official Synodical position, as were the theses of "Kirche und Amt."Cascione Replies:
What "Walther believed" does not a Synod make. Was it all an experiment that Walther intended to keep at the level of discussion? Wohlrabe "feels" safe in talking about what Walther believed, but shies away from placing any emphasis on the certainty with which Walther did anything. Perhaps this is the Walther that Barry believes in.Wohlrabe leaves us scratching our heads and asking, "Where did the Synod come from?" "How did they get so much accomplished with all that self-doubt and uncertainty?"
Cascione Question:
"(20) What other forms of church government did Walther teach besides Voters' Assemblies for the local congregation?"Wohlrabe Replied:
" He did not prescribe any other forms of church government for the Missouri Synod or congregations in the U.S. However, in his 1848 convention essay, he acknowledged that God had blessed the consistorial form of church government in Germany and the Episcopal form of church government in Sweden."Cascione Replies:
Are we talking in circles? If Walther never prescribed any other form of Church Government but Voters' Assemblies that were the supreme authority in the congregation, why is Wohlrabe bringing up what Walther "acknowledged" instead of what he wanted to do? This is like hide and seek. Wohlrabe will only answer the question about LCMS Voters' Assemblies by alluding to the fact that the other options were never considered! Why can't he just say, "Walther wanted Voter supremacy in all LCMS congregations and never considered any other form of Church Government?"Cascione Question:
"I have also noticed that 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?"Wohlrabe Replied:
" No -- I think that they understood Walther as I have understood Walther, and as articulated in all my answers above."Cascione Replies:
We are back to the hide and seek. From the above answer one would never guess the subject was about the supremacy of Voters' Assemblies.Cascione Question:
"(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 afterthought that had nothing to do with Walther's "Church and Ministry."Wohlrabe Replied:
"I do not believe that a democratic form of polity was coincidental. One sees it in the first constitution for Trinity Lutheran Church in St. Louis (drafted by Walther ) and then the constitution of what became the "Gesamtgemeinde." One also sees it in the first constitution of the Missouri Synod (the drafting of which Walther played a major part ). However, Walther did not use this in his argument against Grabau and Loehe. Doctrine and polity were kept separate."Wohlrabe's Real Motive?
Wohlrabe will not give a direct answer. Rather than saying, "Walther taught that all LCMS congregations must be governed by Voter supremacy," he repeats the words of my question and says the structure of the LCMS was not coincidental. Doesn't this mean the structure was absolutely intentional?! Let the reader draw his own conclusion. Hypothetical question to Wohlrabe: "Was the creation of the world coincidental?" Hypothetical response from Wohlrabe: "The creation of the world was not coincidental."
When a man will not answer in the affirmative on facts he knows to be true, there is most likely another reason. I think that reason is here in Wohlrabe's answer to question #3
"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."This statement is consistent with his comments in his first letter as follows:
"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.""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."
Wohlrabe obviously views the existence of Voter supremacy as practiced and taught by Walther as a threat to the pastoral office. My reply is that every political structure can be misused, but that does not nullify its existence. Pastors have also been known to commit sin, but that doesn't nullify the divinity of the office any more than abusive Voters' Assemblies nullify their God-given authority. The worst is always possible. Think how many times people have sinned against marriage, but does that sin nullify God's order for marriage? In egregious cases of a pastors being removed without just cause when was the last time a District suspended or removed that congregation?
Wohlrabe's approach reminds me of the story of the pastor who threw the contents of the collection plate up in the air to God. Everything that stayed up belonged to God and everything that came down belonged to him.
Wohlrabe argues that the Voters are not supreme, but God's Word is supreme. Hence, anything that God doesn't rule on, the pastor will take care of himself. Let's have it the other way. God's Word is supreme. The Voters will take all issues to God in prayer. If they don't hear a direct answer they will handle it themselves.
Wohlrabe writes "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."
Pastor's Are Always Out Numbered in the Voters' Assembly
Cascione Replies:
There is no question that Walther structured the Synod so that the laity would be side by side with the pastors in the Convention. However, Wohlrabe's claim that the pastor is equal to the congregation in the Voters' Assembly borders on the delusional. My advice is that he starts counting votes.Wohlrabe Writes:
"Thus, you can see that Walther held only Christ and His Word as supreme in a congregation - the only true power."Cascione Replies:
The collection is up in the air on this one. There is no question that God's Word is supreme, but it is the Voters, not the pastor, who determine whether or not they will follow it. Otherwise, the pastor dictates the faith of the congregation without their freely agreeing to it.What if the Voters don't agree with God's Word? It happens. What if the Voters aren't Christians? It happens. Christ states in Matthew 10:14 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Doesn't this happen any more because the clergy must have a guaranteed paycheck?
Look at the seven congregations in the Book of Revelation. According to Christ, a number of the people in those congregations were going to hell, but that didn't put the clergy in charge. Christ told the members to listen to Him. The pastor is Christ's ambassador, not His alternate.
There Is No Job Security in the Ministry
I didn't go into the ministry to be "listened to". I went into the ministry to preach law and Gospel. If the Voters aren't supreme, how will I know if they really agree with God's Word and they aren't forced to agree with me? If I wanted a congregation of lap-dog hypocrites, I wouldn't support Walther. If they can't tell me they don't want to hear God's Word, how will I know they want me to stay and preach the Gospel of their own free will?
My advice to Doctor Wohlrabe and the huge number of LCMS clergy who support his position is, "So that we may boldly say, 'The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.'" (Hebrews 13:6)
The Elders in a large congregation in Iowa, who had the power to issue a call, voted 17 to nothing that I should leave the congregation. They believed the head pastor was a righteous man and I was liar. I left as quickly as I could. The District President helped me find another call, but it cost me thousands of dollars to get out of seven lawsuits that the head pastor had gotten me into with a crooked real estate agent.
It wasn't fair, and it wasn't right. Was I supposed to give those people understanding and the District President courage? I wouldn't stay five minutes in a congregation that didn't want to hear my preaching. What is Wohlrabe afraid of? I love Voter supremacy. Five months after I left the congregation they caught the head pastor with his mistress. Only 3 of the 17 elders apologized.
That's not the only congregation I've served that didn't want to hear God's Word. I thanked God that I was out of there so I could arrive at the blessed call that God has given me here at Redeemer for as long as the peace lasts. They even called me in spite of District President John Hein's negative report. There are no guarantees in the ministry except God's Word. There is no substitute for faith in the hearts of the lay people.
Confessions Say Church Is Over Ministers
Wohlrabe refused to agree with the conclusions based on the following quotations from the Lutheran Confessions: "In 1 Cor. 3, 6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the church is above the ministers." "Therefore He grants the keys principally and immediately to the church." "Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the church, when He says: tell it unto the church."(Treatise, Concordia Triglotta Page 511 par. 24-25)
He refuses to acknowledge that the Voters are supreme and the congregation is over the pastor, even though it says, "the church is above the ministers." "Above" means "above."
October 25, 1999