Professor Kurt Marquart of Concordia Theological Seminary has been so kind as to respond to our letter polling the faculty at Fort Wayne on their agreement with Voter Supremacy in LCMS congregations. Reclaim News readers received the release on this subject titled, "Fort Wayne Faculty Polled on Voter Supremacy" 4/14/2000. For the sake of clarity we will call this correspondence # 1.

We will call Professor Marquart's letter on this subject correspondence # 2. There will be a number of them. This letter was sent to Christian News (573-237-3110), which has also published many previous releases. We wish to express our thanks to Rev. Otten for his evenhanded editorial policy. If you want to know what is happening in the LCMS no one will keep you more informed than Rev. Herman Otten.

Readers will discover there is quite a bit of debate on this subject on www.Lutherquest.org. Rev. Thomas Bye and layman Clyde Nehrenz have been debating a number of pastors and laymen who are opposed Voter Supremacy in LCMS congregations on the Luther Quest Discussion Group.

As you read the response from the highly esteemed Professor Marquart you will learn that he does not support Voter Supremacy. It is little wonder that a number of pastors in the LCMS oppose the statement in our LCMS congregation's constitution from 1921, "in general the Voters are supreme." This appears in many LCMS congregational constitutions. In other words, the Synod is no longer in agreement on how congregations are governed or what their polity should be.

---

The Editor
Christian News
3277 Boeuf Lutheran Road
NEW HAVEN. MO 63O68-22l3

Sir,

The press of duties and my own inefficiency prevent me from responding weekly to the reams of materials dashed off by Pastor Cascione and company. Occasionally, however, the record has got to be set straight. It is admittedly annoying to find oneself constantly misrepresented, but that is not the main worry. The main issue is that the whole position on the ministry in our Synod has degenerated to a shouting match and a shambles. I do not blame Pastor Cascione and Brother Clyde Nehrenz, my other main critic, for that. They did not create the confusion, although, they are adding decibels to it. If the Council of Presidents and the two seminaries could, by God's grace, reach a common mind again on the subject, the mess could eventually be resolved.

Meanwhile I can only offer my own honest reactions for the sake of those who are honestly interested in the facts. Since a short letter like this cannot go into the necessary depth, I suggest that readers interested in a fuller explanation and documentation of what I am saying here, refer to my little Confessional Dogmatics volume on church and ministry. Also, on the matter specifically of polity, I gave a fairly detailed treatment at the Luther Academy in Chicago about three years ago, in the presence of Pastor Cascione, I think. That essay, "Lutheran Polity in the American Context," will appear shortly, I understand, together with the other papers for that year. It is simply a defense of Walther's thoroughly evangelical polity-against clericalism, populism, and bureaucratism. But one needs to remember that Walther never wanted to be a "Waltherian": His great book on church and ministry quite deliberately steered the great mainstream course of the Lutheran Reformation between the twin aberrations of clericalism and populism.

Since our ministry discussion- such as it is-seems to me to be bedeviled by muddled alternatives and distinctions, I have tried to display historic Lutheranism's clean and clear demarcation lines on the subject, in The Gospel Ministry: Distinctions Within and Without, which I hope will be available in about a month from our CTS Book Shop. I trust that honest critics will consult these background papers rather than dash into print with absurd fantasies about what I teach. Is that too much to ask? With these preliminaries out of the way, I should like to address three points: 1. Correcting Some Misunderstandings. 2. Synod as Church. 3.Voter Supremacy."

1. Correcting Some Misunderstandings

(a) To start with the latest example: In Missouri vs. Buffalo" (CN 3 April 2000) Pastor Cascione declaims; "Christ did not die for the worship service and the sacraments, but the people"! And: "Today, LCMS pastors will openly debate if Christ came to save the Word and Sacraments or the members of the Congregation." Perhaps I lead too sheltered an existence, but I have never heard anyone advocating that particular bit of rubbish. Turns out the CTCR is to blame, for arguing in a 1985 report that women are to keep silence in the public service, not in the church generally. Says Pr. Cascione: "Now the worship service is the 'church' instead of the people." The solution is perfectly simple: understand that the Greek word for "church" means "assembly," and read ICor. 11:18; 14:19, 28, 34, 35.

(b) During our annual symposia in January I had what I thought was an amiable brief conversation with Pr. Cascione. He agreed that no particular form of organization was divinely prescribed. But in the CN for 31 January 2000 he completely misreports this conversation as follows: "When I spoke to Professor Marquart on January 20, he was unable to agree to any particular form of constitution for LCMS congregations that might include voter supremacy." Given such gross mishandling of the facts I am not willing to respond to yes-or-no questionnaires from Pr. Cascione. There must be room for context and explanation. Hence the present letter.

(c) In his original attack on Pr. Bird's article in "Life of the World" (CN 22 November 1999) Pr. Cascione had asked: "Is the author implying that the pastor receives spiritual gifts when he receives the sacrament of ordination?" My reply (CN 6 December 1999) once more made it clear that ordination by the laying on of hands is not a divine institution or a sacrament, but cited Walther: "No spiritual gifts in ordination? Walther: 'even today ordination is not a meaningless ceremony if it is connected with the ardent prayer of the church, based on the glorious promises given in particular to the office of the ministry; it is accompanied with the outpouring of heavenly gifts on the person ordained' (Church and Ministry, p.248)." Pr. Cascione replied: "Walther says 'heavenly' gifts ... He doesn't specify 'spiritual gifts.' I happen to count my paycheck as a gift from heaven (CN 13 December 1999). Again: I also ask, what are the spiritual gifts that the pastor receives at ordination to which Professor Marquart refers, that the children in the preschool do not possess?" (CN31 January 2000).

It is sheer sophistry to quibble here about the difference between 'heavenly" and "spiritual." Walther shows that be doesn't mean "paychecks," when he cites Calov: "we do not doubt that at ordination the gifts of the Holy Spirit necessary for the sacred ministry [for pre-schoolers! K.M.] are increased by the public and private prayers of the church and the ordaining ministers. Of this the laying on of hands is a certain token, since this used to be applied when the gifts of the Holy Spirit were communicated (Acts 8:15; 19:6)" (Church and Ministry, p.267).

2. Synod as Church

In a Reclaim News item just to hand by e-mail, Pr. Cascione argues that the "LCMS is neither a congregation' nor a 'church' in the proper sense of the word." That Synod is really church is the chief bugaboo for Pr. Cascione's comrade-in-arms, Brother Clyde Nehrenz. So far as I am aware, that gentleman kept a discreet public silence on the subject for the last fourteen years, since his views on the matter were conclusively refuted (see CN for 14 July and 1 September 1986). Now after all these years Brother Nehrenz comes back into print with the same false and impossible claims, as though nothing had happened (see CN for 3 January 2000, under the delightful title, "Layman Says Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 'Hopelessly Shambled"')! This sort of contempt for facts and evidence makes serious discussion difficult if not impossible.

I shall not impose on your readers by rehashing all the crystal-clear citations I have already put into the public record elsewhere. Let me cite only two typical samples, one from Walther and one from Pieper, since these are the men whom Pr. Cascione and Br. Nehrenz fancy themselves as representing. In his justly famous 1879 Iowa District essay regarding the chief duties of an orthodox synod, Walther wrote: "Here in America we too govern the church in the form of the synod" p. 86). Such a statement is "non-computable" in terms of "bronze age" Missouri clichés. Accordingly the official English version mistranslates Walther's plain theological language into nebulous bureaucratic jargon: "Here in America we also use the arrangement of a synod [council] to carry on the business of the church" (Essays for the Church, vol. II, p.46).

In his Christian Dogmatics (III: 422) F. Pieper wrote: "A congregation or church body which abides by God's order, in which therefore God's Word is taught in its purity and the Sacraments are administered according to the divine institution, is properly called an orthodox church (ecclesia orthodoxa, pura)."

Finally, when debating the intentions of the synodical founding fathers, why don't people pay attention to the original constitution? An English translation may be found in the "Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly," XIX: 3 (October. 1946). I translate a little more literally from the German (Der Lutheraner, 3:1, 5 September 1846): "Chap. IV. Sphere of Activity [Geschaeftskreis] of the Synod. . . # 3. Joint defense and extension of the church. # 6. Performance (Voliziehung) of the ecclesiastical ordination and installation into the office. # 7. Preparation of future preachers and school teachers for the service of the church. . . 14. Connection with the Lutheran church abroad."

Please note that "ordination' belongs to the synodical " sphere! Later, when the Synod was subdivided into districts, that churchly responsibility was of course assigned to the districts. It is nonsense to make of this an essentially local, "congregational" function. The whole point is to express unity and consensus with the wider church. "Afterwards a bishop, either of that church or of a neighboring church, was brought in to confirm the election with the laying on of hands; nor was ordination anything more than such confirmation [comprobatio-co-approval, recognition, attestation]" (Treatise, 70; Tappert, p.332).

3. "Voter Supremacy"

"Voter Supremacy" is worldly, political sloganeering. Zeal for any "supremacy" except Christ's is alien to His church. One might as well be shouting: "All Power to the Soviets!" How's that for Hyper-Euro-Proletarianism?

When it comes to the government of the church, we must heed neither Lenin nor Jefferson but Christ alone, Who says: "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister, And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (St. Mt. 20:25-28; see also Phil. 2:5). There is no dominion or "supremacy" in the church except Christ's - "for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren" (St. Mt. 23:8). Pieper:

"The Church is an absolute monarchy (Matt. 23:8: 'One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren'), subject to Christ alone, governed solely by His Word. The ministry has no power but the power of the Word and can enjoin only what God's Word enjoins. Things which are not enjoined in God's Word (adiaphora) are regulated by the Christians through mutual agreement [note: NOT "voter supremacy"! KM.] All government of the Church which does not bind the consciences of Christians to Christ's Word, but to the word of men, is pseudo-government (Christian Dogmatics 11:392,394)."

So much for "supremacy," including that of "voters." What then does it mean that "the congregation in its own sphere constitutes, according to Matt. 18:17, the final and highest court, (Walther, Pastoraltheologie, p 381)? The text shows exactly what is meant: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church [Luther's translation: Gemeinde, congregation] but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." This assumes of course that the local church is one which does not resist but eagerly embraces Christ's rule through His purely preached Gospel and His rightly administered sacraments. People unjustly excommunicated by heretics or tyrants, however, may not be regarded as heathens and publicans, but are to be embraced and honored for their sufferings! Luther: "But the [spiritual] tyrants have turned Christendom into a secular government (quoted in Walther, Church and Ministry, p.338). Five comments will round out the picture:

(a) The smallest "congregation" or "church" of two or three members has within it Christ, and therefore all authority and evangelical-sacramental fullness (St. Mt 18:20). For this reason every such local church is the one church of Christ at that place, and to attempt to impose anything on it beyond Christ and His Word and sacraments is to attempt to tyrannize Christ in it.

(b) When "properly ordered," that is, according to divine, not human order, a church "consists of both preachers and hearers" (Walther, Church and Ministry, p.220). One lot without the other does not constitute a church. Since the purely preached Gospel and the rightly administered sacraments are the church's infallible marks of recognition (notae ecclesiae, see Augsburg Confession and Apology VII, VIII), also "voters' assemblies" need to document and authenticate themselves as proper churches by a right relation to these marks of the church.

(c) Christ rules His church by faith and love: the faith (Word and sacraments) is fully revealed in the divine Word, and is not debatable, or subject to majority decision. "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" (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, III: 430). Indeed, it belongs to a proper constitution "that also all decisions and resolutions of the congregation, which [are] contrary to God's Word or the Confession, are in advance declared to be null and void" (Walther, Pastoraltheologie. p.381). No one's "supremacy" has any standing against the truth of Holy Scripture and the Book of Concord.

(d) Everything not sealed in the Word of God is a matter of freedom, to be settled in love and mutual accommodation- not by anybody asserting "supremacy" over anyone else:

"In adiaphora a vote is taken to ascertain what the majority regards as the best. The natural order is that in adiaphora the minority yields to the majority and acquiesces, not because the majority has the right to rule, but for love's sake. Since, however, love is queen here it may happen that the majority will yield to the minority (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, III:430)."

Walther observes: "adiaphora are required as necessary to salvation not only when that is expressly taught, but also whenever the necessary (schuldige, owing) keeping of them is derived from the necessary obedience, and not solely from free love; whether this be done by a single preacher, by a ministerium, by a synod or by a whole congregation or church" (Pastoraltheologie, p. 374n). See also Walther's "Foundational Propositions" (Grundlegende Saetze) about church government, printed in 1864, the very first of which states that by faith in Christ every believer is free also from "the necessity of obedience to human-ecclesiastical laws and ordinances."

(e) Finally, given the legal-civil realm, in which both congregations and synods own and manage properties, "voter supremacy" ought to be fully in charge of local property. The reason is prudential; given the Lutheran realism about fallen human nature, e.g. that "all power tends to corrupt, etc.," it is better to risk losing this or that congregation, rather than to put all the eggs into one synodical basket, when there is no guarantee that it will always remain straight and orthodox. Here, at last, is the proper place for "voter supremacy"- in the civil, temporal sphere, not in the sphere of spiritual, churchly rule and government. The distinction of these two spheres or governments is part and parcel of the right distinction between Law and Gospel, and is a distinguishing mark of our evangelical Lutheran Church.

In conclusion, a personal observation or two. I deplore and oppose all forms of tyranny by clergy-whether it be the bossy posturing of sacerdotalists or the equally bossy windbaggery of "Church Growth" demagogues. But surely we must also oppose the tyranny of crowds, which in the name of "voter supremacy" want to intimidate, control, or get rid of faithful pastors. Things like close communion, unionistic worship, or heterodox sectarian worship practices, are not subject to popular whim and vote. When pastors suffer oppression and persecution here on account of their faithfulness to Scripture and Confession, it is the solemn duty of district and synodical officials to come to their aid-just as they must also defend congregations against abuses by the clergy. On the other hand pastors must remember that it is their solemn duty to provide the kind of doctrinal instruction, which will enable congregations to exercise sound and sober judgment. Christian people need and want such solid instruction. Pastors have themselves to blame if they do not provide it, and their congregations as a result become ignorant and fickle, "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph- 4:14). The solution then is not autocratic clericalism, "the historic episcopate," and other such conceits of a nostalgic; medieval imagination, but plain old evangelical instruction in basic Christian doctrine. Our Risen Victor-Lord graciously protect His people against the devil's wiles and raging!

Yours faithfully,

K Marquart