Logia's Continued Assault on Walther and Voters' Assemblies
By Rev. Jack Cascione

 

The laity should be alerted to the continuous effort on the part of many so-called "conservative" LCMS pastors to eradicate Walther's design for Voters' Assemblies in the LCMS. Walther teaches about Voter Supremacy in his "The True Form of the Christian Congregation."

More than half of the 46 editors and staff of "Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology" are LCMS pastors, and 7 are faculty at Fort Wayne.

After Dr. John Wohlrabe's two failed attempts to prove that Walther didn't prescribe Voter Supremacy for all LCMS congregations (which were refuted in five responses by this writer) the Epiphany 2000 issue of "Logia" has published Wohlrabe's revised distortion of Voters' Assemblies.

Separated with bold letters in an enlarged inset, "Logia" quotes Wohlrabe on Page 40: "The conditions under which a congregation could join the Synod and remain a member did not include a mandated democratic polity with voters' assemblies."

God bless the front office! Here are exactly the right words for the Hyper-Euro-Lutheran pastors (those who want to return to pre-Waltherian, 18th Century, European Lutheran hierarchy) and the Church Growth-Leadership Training crowd, led by Norbert Oesch, PLI and the COP. They can now quote "Logia" to justify the removal and disenfranchisement of Voters' Assemblies in God's name.

"Logia" has become the apologist for congregations to be governed by boards of directors and CEOs instead of Voters' Assemblies as promoted by PLI, Norbert Oesch, executive leader of PLI, William Meyer, Executive Director for the Synod's Board for Higher Education, John Johnson, President of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, etc. "Logia" is proving that polity doesn't matter in the LCMS, so let the clergy rule.

Wohlrabe loves the word "democratic" quoted above. He uses it again and again in reference to LCMS Voters' Assemblies.1 He rewrites LCMS history and wants everyone to believe that Voters' Assemblies in the LCMS are a product of American democracy. Thus, being taken from the "world," Voters' Assemblies and Voter Supremacy are not Biblical and the clergy can do the Lord a great service by getting the evil influence of Voter Supremacy out of LCMS congregations.

We find exactly the opposite opinion in "Government in the Missouri Synod," by Dr. Carl Mundinger.2 There he clearly explains that Walther's Voters' Assemblies were based on the priesthood of all believers found in the Word of God and not the America Constitution.

Walther argued that the Bible is the sole authority in the Church and not the theory of democratic majority rule taught by John Locke or Jean Jacques Rousseau.3

Walther maintains that the Synod's position on Voters' Assemblies came from the writings of Martin Luther, Chemnitz, Leyser, and Gerhard, and not Thomas Jefferson.4

After constant attacks by the enemies of Missouri, in particular Rev. Johannes Grabau who excommunicated all the Synod's 200 congregations in 1859, Walther was compelled to defend Missouri congregations' constitutions against the accusation that they were modeled after the American democratic form of government and not the Bible.

Walther published his defense of Missouri Synod congregational structure in a series of 14 articles beginning September 18, 1860, in the Synod's "Der Lutheraner" under the title "Das Gemeindewahlrechkt" or "The Congregation's Right to Choose Its Pastor."5

Doctor William Rosin's preface to the English translation of the above gives eight reasons from Mundinger's book why Voters' Assemblies and Voter Supremacy in LCMS congregations are not the result of American democratic theory.6

Walther never wanted to bring political theories into the church. He even went so far as to show that the Bible does not prohibit slavery, yet he agrees when the apostle Paul recommends that people should try to stay free if they are able. "Art thou called [to be a Christian while] being a servant [i.e. slave]? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 1 Corinthians 7:21"

We quote from a 31 page document by Walther titled, "Slavery: Doctrine and Defense" translated by Erika Bullmann Flores. "This idea [humanism] developed into the evermore common theories of undeniable, inherent human rights, of inherent freedom and equality, that only the democratic-republican constitution as well as the socialist and communist theories of the "new times" were acceptable."7

Now, more than a hundred years after Walther's death, Dr. Wohlrabe, who wrote his doctorate on LCMS polity, dribbles on and on about Walther introducing "democratic polity" into the Synod and its congregations.8

After his associating Voters' Assemblies with American democracy, Wohlrabe then quotes Wilhelm Loehe's (the Hyper-Euro-Lutheran hero) objection to democracy in LCMS congregations.9 Wohlrabe is quite pleased to have everyone believe that Loehe's assessments of the LCMS and Walther are correct.

Readers not familiar with "Logia" may not be aware that this scholarly publication, primarily written for pastors, in addition to championing many excellent theological issues, has an unfortunate history of misrepresenting and attacking the historic LCMS position on Voters' Assemblies and disinforming its readers on this subject.

In an obvious reference to "Reclaim News" and our sponsorship of the "First National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther" (held in St. Louis on November 5-6, 1999, and to be repeated on November 3-4, 2000), Wohlrabe writes: "Web sites and national free conferences call for a reclamation of Walther. Those who have not done an extensive study of C. F. W. Walther's writings may well feel like panelists on the old TV game show 'To Tell the Truth': Will the real C. F. W. Walther please stand up?" (p. 37)

In his appeal to clarity and truth, Wohlrabe continues to write: "Mark Twain is reported to have said: 'Get your facts straight first, then you can distort them as much as you please.' Better yet, get the facts straight first, then refrain from any form of distortion altogether.'" (p. 37)

Yes, there should be an effort to get the facts straight. Walther explains quite clearly that the purpose of voting in the church is not based on democracy, but to discover if everyone agrees with the Bible.10

Pieper gives the same opinion.11

Both Francis Pieper12 and J. T. Mueller condemn democratic polity in the church and the appeal to any worldly system as a model for church government.

Mueller argues from Scripture that the early church established a representative form of government in relationship to other congregations, but that the individual congregation is supreme.13

The LCMS is neither a "congregation" nor a "church" in the proper sense of the word. Each congregation remains its own autonomous supreme authority, hence the Voters are supreme in their congregation and the Synod is only an advisory body. All LCMS congregations have agreed to the Bible, the Lutheran Confessions and the Synodical Constitution as the basis for membership in the Synod and may be expelled from the Synod for violating any of these three documents.

Because the LCMS is not a "church," the President of Synod has no authority to consecrate the elements for the Lord's Supper at a Synodical Convention. The Convention asks a local congregation to supply a host pastor in order to receive Communion. There is nothing democratic here. The Convention can't vote themselves worthy of receiving the Lord's Supper. The authority of the church is the Office of the Keys in the local congregation, not democracy.

Both Grabau14 and Loehe,15 who broke fellowship with Missouri, slandered the Synod by claiming Walther relied on democracy instead of the Bible. Both men believed God has given all pastors full authority over the congregation including doctrine, membership, worship, Office of the Keys, and excommunication.

Walther placed the final authority of the Keys in the Voters' Assembly and not the pastoral office. Walther's teaching that many make the decisions instead of one person is not democracy. The Voters are more in the order of a grand jury than a democracy. Democracy is about voting based on our own opinion while Voters' Assemblies are governed by the Bible.

Walther taught that an excommunication has to be unanimous, because it is not based on the pastor's decision but the congregation's. It is a test of the entire congregation as to their agreement with the Bible. Those who do not agree with the Bible, as understood by the Lutheran Confessions, must to be excommunicated.

For example, if a congregation can't get a unanimous vote on removing people who are living together without marriage, those who don't support the excommunication are also to be excommunicated. The person or persons being excommunicated cannot vote. This is not about democracy and majority rule, but the Bible according to 1Cor: 5 and Matt. 18:15-20.16

To "Logia" and its editorial staff we say, "Wake up!" The Schwann Foundation is not going to save the clergy from the laity. If you can't defend and present a cogent and accurate position on Walther's Voter Supremacy, why not just admit you do not support the historic position of the LCMS? The laymen are paying the bills in the Synod. Why should they support you, if you are not going to tell them the truth?

How dare the editors of "Logia" claim to speak for Walther and then misrepresent LCMS polity in order to preserve Lutheran theology!

There are rumors of an LCMS pastor shortage when the real shortage is Lutheran laypeople. If many LCMS clergy, such as editors of "Logia," continue to confuse the laity on how the Missouri Synod was formed and is governed there will be fewer and fewer laypeople. It is difficult to recruit pastors from a laity that isn't sure why it wants to be in the Missouri Synod.

While the laity is being misinformed by the clergy about Voters' Assemblies, the clergy are busily rewriting the theology to agree with Loehe instead of Walther. If the laity does not take action to preserve their Voters' Assemblies, these Assemblies will soon disappear. Then they can let the clergy take care of all the church business and hire all the staff they need out of their own pockets.

A note about Endnotes

The endnotes used in this work are linked from the note number in the text to the endnote at the bottom of the page, and vice versa.  In addition, where a note uses "ibid." or "op. cit.", it is linked to the appropriate parent endnote information.
If you use this "ibid." or "op. cit." link, you will need to use the BACK button on your browser to return to the endnote you started with.  From there, you can click on the endnote number to go back to where you were in the text.

1.  Doctor John Wohlrabe's Article: "A Historic Perspective of Walther's Position on Church, Ministry and Polity," published in "Logia - A Journal of Lutheran Theology" Epiphany 2000 p. 37-43.

"Although C. F. W. Walther considered polity to be the practical application of the doctrine of church and ministry, and although he favored a democratic form of church polity for the Missouri Synod, he consider polity a matter of Christian freedom." p. 37.

"The constitution established a democratic form of polity for the congregation in which decisions were made by a voters' assembly constituted of male members twenty-one years of age or older." p. 39.

"What he stated in "The Proper Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation Independent of the State" was that this form of democratic polity, with its voters' assembly, is the proper form (the best, most appropriate form) for a congregation independent of the state." p. 42.

"The democratic polity that Walther proposed for a local evangelical Lutheran congregations maintained checks and balances so that the equilibrium between church and ministry was maintained." p. 43.

2.  Dr. Carl S. Mundinger, "Government in the Missouri Synod," CPH, St. Louis, 1947 p. 201.

"There are several factors which make a connection between the genesis of Missouri's polity and existing American democratic theory rather improbable. The resemblance between the theory of congregational supremacy and American popular sovereignty is more apparent than real. Only male communicant members of the church who reached their twenty-first year had the right to vote. Furthermore, matters of doctrine and conscience which assumed great importance in the immigrant Church were not subject to popular vote, but were decided on the sole authority of the Scriptures. In such matters the Word of God hovered as a SUPEEME AUTHORITY over the congregation and Synod. This authority, be it remembered, was wielded officially and effectively by the pastor and by the Synodical officials. In a sermon delivered upon the occasion of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the founding of the Missouri Synod at the Jubilee Convention, St. Louis, 1872, Walther said, "Reverence and implicit obedience are due the ministry when the pastor teaches the Word of God."

3.  Mundinger, p. 207.

"Any democratic political theories, which the founders of the Missouri Synod might have entertained, they did not get from America, but from the same source from which they derived their theory and church polity, viz., from the writings of Martin Luther. Walther's political democracy was not that of John Locke nor of Jean Jacques Rousseau."

4.  C. F. W. Walther, "The Congregation's Right To Choose Its Pastor", trans. by Fred Kramer, The Office of Development, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN: CTS, 1987, p. 40-41.

"We read among other things in the Evangelienharmonie of Martin Chemnitz, Polykarp Leyser, and John Gerhard:"

'Christ bequeathed the keys of the kingdom of heaven to the church, Matt. 18:18.. Outside of a case of necessity such a thing is granted to no one if he is not a rightfully called and installed minister of the church.... Nevertheless, the right of every believer, even of the least of them remains inviolate, that he has the keys conferred by Christ....' (Harm. ev. c. 85, p.1687)

"If we [Walther speaking about the above quotation] had been the first to write this, our opponents would cry 'murder' against us. They would exclaim: 'There you see how the Missourians introduce their American democratic ideas into the church's doctrine.' However, it is well known that neither Chemnitz, nor Leyser, nor Gerhard were Americans or democrats. Nevertheless, the church is here likened to a free republic, in which all power of state, all office and titles originally, so far as their root is concerned, rest in all citizens, none of whom can, however, make himself president, or mayor or senator, but whom the citizens through free election clothe with these powers, offices and titles which originally rest in them. Thus, the Evangelienharmonie wants to say, it is also with the church."

5.  Ibid.

6.  C. F. W. Walther, "The Congregation's Right To Choose Its Pastor", p. XI [Now available at the St. Louis Seminary Book Store.]

7.  Walther on Slavery: "Doctrine and Defense" Volume IX. January 1863, Number 1 Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores.

"..However, humanism, which wants to be independent of God and men, wants that man renounce happiness and the life to come as something which is dubious. It wants that man finds this happiness within himself which will surely change the earth into heaven and promises equal happiness to all. This humanism is the chiliasm of the secular world; it is its religion. It always appears with force wherever Christianity waivers. When at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century deism raised its head in England, moved on to France and finally was exported to Germany, there were many heralds of humanism. Rousseau stands out as a proponent of humanism. It was he who first expressed the idea that man by nature is pure and good, and that in order to achieve happiness, he needs to leave all that is unnatural and return to nature, to himself, to become human again. He spoke in a truly magical manner which, like a sweet poison, saturated the hearts of millions. (It is the same Rousseau who turned over his five illegitimate children to an orphanage, and on his deathbed declared that he was returning his soul to nature in as pure a condition as he had received it.) This idea developed into the evermore common theories of undeniable, inherent human rights, of inherent freedom and equality, that only the democratic-republican constitution as well as the socialist and communist theories of the "new times" were acceptable. These theories came to fruition in the world-shaking catastrophe of the first French revolution whose well-known slogan was "freedom, equality, and brotherhood." They incorporated these tenets in their constitution of 1791 as the basis for their model state, and proclaimed that "human rights" was the most important principle of all state laws. It is known what pinnacle of human and national happiness this grand humanistic experiment did achieve. It was a happiness in which all of hell's murderous spirits triumphed over the world with their demonic laughter against humanity itself, which caused terror even among humanists abroad.

"Nevertheless, these first seeds of humanistic theories germinated, grew and were nourished, first through the German rationalismus vulgaris and then the German pantheistic and materialistic, philosophical systems. Communism or some other form of ochlocratic state, abrogation of all monarchies and the church, extermination of all nobility and proclaimers of Christianity and all religions (whom they refer to as "Paffen"[a foolish pastor]), that is what these public speakers of the race are presenting as the ultimate national happiness. They refer to it as the beginning of the golden age, as predicted down through the centuries by all prophets of the human spirit. The masses who have fallen away from God and who are renouncing their hope for eternal life, the masses who have been charmed and deluded, upon them they are trying to inflict brutality and bestiality as humanity."

8.  Wohlrabe, quotations from public letters in 1999 to Pastor Jack Cascione on Walther and Church and Ministry.

"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."

"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."

"The congregation possesses the office of the keys (actually, properly speaking, the true believers who are in the congregation, which are known only to God ). The congregations of the Missouri Synod have agreed that the proper form of government for a congregation independent of the state is a democratic form of government, and they agree to abide by that form of government."

"I do not know the history of those congregations. However, most Missouri Synod congregations hold to a democratic form of polity. It is not mandated in Synod's constitution. However, most early Missouri Synod congregational constitutions used Walther's model from Trinity Lutheran Church in St. Louis or the understanding set forth in 'The Proper Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation Independent of the State.' What does that prove other than they followed Walther's suggestions with respect to the proper form of an evangelical Lutheran local congregation independent of the state?"

9.  Wolhrabe, "Logia".

"Back in Germany, Wilhelm Loehe was not happy with the constitution of the Missouri Synod. In his "Kirchliche Mittheillungern aus und ueber Nordamericak" he wrote: "We have good reason to fear that the strong admixture of democratic, independent, and congregational principles in your constitution will do greater damage that the interference of princes and governmental agencies in the Church of our homeland." p. 40.

10.  C. F. W. Walther, "American Lutheran Pastoral Theology," trans. by John M. Drickamer, (New Haven, MO: Lutheran News Inc., 1995), p. 259.

"Comment 5. "Matters of doctrine and conscience can be settled only with unanimity and according to God's Word and the confession of the church (Is 8:20). If a vote is taken in matters of this nature, it must not be done in order to let the majority decide but rather to determine whether everyone has recognized what is right and agrees with it. A congregational member, who will not yield and agree to what has been presented from God's Word and the confession of the church, forfeits his right to vote and becomes subject to church discipline.

"All adiaphora (res indifferentes, middle things [matters neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word]) are settled by a majority of votes. That does not mean that the decision of the majority in adiaphora are as binding for the conscience of every congregational member as that which is resolved with unanimity on the basis of God's Word. A congregation must place the observance of matters decided by a majority resolution within the good will of the minority or of individuals. If it is to be feared that recklessly carrying out a majority resolution would lead to disunity or division, the pastor should try to move the majority to give up its resolution for the sake of the minority.

"If the votes are equal, it may not be advisable for the pastor or the president to decide the matter by his vote. Rather [it may be advisable that] the matter be discussed again so that votes are changed, or that the matter be given up if no majority can be achieved."

11.  Francis Pieper, "Christian Dogmatics" Vol. III CPH, St. Louis, page 417.

"Attention may here be drawn to the fact that voting or balloting in the meeting of orthodox congregations has a different significance when it concerns Christ's doctrine than when it concerns indifferent matters. The only purpose of voting in matters of doctrine is to see whether all now understand the teaching of the divine Word and agree to it; the purpose of the vote is not to decide the correctness of doctrine by majority vote or even by unanimous vote..In adiaphora a vote is take to ascertain what the minority yields to the and acquiesces, not because the majority has the right to rule, but for love's sake. (Pieper then quotes Walther's 'Pastoral Theology" Comment 5, which is also quoted in this paper) p. 430.

12.  Pieper Vol. III.

"The Lutheran Church advocates neither democracy nor oligarchy nor monarchy, but simply acknowledges the existing form of government as God's order." p. 417.

"When the Papacy demands recognition as 'iure divino' the supreme binding authority in the whole Christian Church ('the supreme power delivered to the Sovereign Pontiffs in the universal Church,' Waterworth, p. 101), it displays on of the marks which identify the Papacy as the Antichrist prophesied in Scripture. When the civil government, whether autocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy, or of whatever form, claims a 'ius circa sacras sive in sacra,' we call it Caesaropapism. In general, when the power to make binding decisions and laws in the Church is said to inhere in any body of men, be they ecclesiastics or laymen or mixed board, this is not a Christian, but a Papistic or Caesaropapistic position, because in the Christian Church God's Word is the only authority and all Christians are and remain responsible directly to God for all they believe and do." p. 428.

"Though they declare it their aim to Christianize the world in a generation, they set a mundane goal for their work by not seeking to save men out of the world and from eternal damnation unto heaven, but by endeavoring to raise the moral standard of men, to imbue them with 'Christian principles,' and particularly to 'popularize democracy.' In the measure in which they actually put this rationalism into practice, such mission societies belong to the 'God and Magog' that assault the camp of the saints and the beloved city." p. 525.

[The following words were adopted from the LCMS ares found in the Constitution of Redeemer Lutheran Church.]

"C. Decisions : Matters of Doctrine and conscience shall be decided by the Word of God. Other matters shall be decided by Voters Assembly by majority vote of members present at a legally called meeting unless otherwise specified by the Constitution or By-Laws."

13.  J. T. Mueller, "The Dogmatics of the Christian Church" CPH, St. Louis, 1934, page 561-2.

"However, it is not contrary to Scripture to have Christian believers, in certain ecclesiastical affairs, represented by persons duly elected by them. Thus elders may represent local congregations, and special delegates may represent entire groups of local churches at synods or conferences. But such a representative Church (eccleisa repraesentativa) has only so much authority as has been delegated to it by the express declaration of the local churches, which it represents. In itself it has not legislative, but only advisory power; that is to say, what the representative Church decides must be in agreement with the will of the churches which it represents and must always be ratified by them.

"In accord with this principle the Constitution of the Missouri Synod declares with respect to the relation of Synod to the local churches (Chap. IV): 'So far as the self-government of the local churches is concerned, Synod is only an advisory body.' 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 the supreme authority to direct all matters pertaining to church polity, Matt. 18:15-18; 1Cor. 5:11-13; 14:33-36. (Cp. Luther, St. L., IX, 1253f.; X, 1540ff.; XIX, 858ff.; Christian Dogmatics III, 492-501)

"Hence there is 'ecclesia repraesentativa' in the sense that either the clergy or church councils or synods or church conventions have authority to 'determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of His Church,.which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also of the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in His word. (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, XXXI).'"

14.  "Ebenezer 1847-1922" CPH, St Louis, 1922 p. 150.

"Both Rev. Grabau and Rev. Loehe broke fellowship with the LCMS over what Loehe called, 'the strong intermixing of democratic, independent, and congregational principles in their constitution as doubtful and deplorable.'"

15.  "Ebenezer 1847-1922" CPH, St Louis, 1922 p. 130. Grabau writes: "It is just as erroneous to teach that in case of doubt regarding the use of the key of excommunication [the key down to hell] or of absolution [the key up to heaven] the decision which key must be used rests with the congregation. Enough of these anabaptistico - democratic follies!" (Second Pastoral Letter by Grabau p.16) [Grabau taught that the apostles and the pastors decided excommunication and that the Voters' Assembly was a mob.]

16.  C. F. W. Walther, American Lutheran Pastoral Theology, p. 248-249, 250.

"Since according to God's Word the excommunication is a matter for the whole congregation, it cannot be carried out by a mere majority of the members, no matter how large.

"Excommunication by the one or a few is condemned specifically by Walther when he writes in a comment: "Since, according to God's Word, the power to exclude or excommunicate from the fellowship of the congregation is an authority of the whole congregation (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:2, 4, 13), and excommunication which is not unanimous, [but is] resolved by a simple majority, with the exclusion of the minority, without even the tacit consent of all members, is illegitimate and invalid."

[file:///D:/My Web/bronzebusiness/bio/biojmc.htm]

April 10, 2000