The lay reader may have some difficulty with the
following the article because we are responding to a St. Louis Seminary professor.
However, the stakes are high, namely the ownership of church property and whether the
Voters' Assembly or the pastors are in charge of the congregations. We ask the lay readers
to examine these issues carefully. There was a time, just a generation ago, when there was
no question in the Synod that the Voters were Supreme and owned and operated LCMS
congregations. Reclaim News would like to preserve that.
Pastors gained
"headship" over the congregations when women were given the vote
A knowledgeable pastor and friend, who opposes my endorsement of
Voter Supremacy for all LCMS congregations, advised me to read Dr. Paul L. Schrieber's
article in the January, 2000 issue of the Concordia Journal as support for his
position. The article is titled, "Power and Orders in the Church 'according to the
Gospel': In Search of the Lutheran Ethos."
My friend's intent is obvious: Read this article and you will discover why LCMS
congregations don't need Voters' Assemblies and Voter Supremacy.
Long before the Fort Wayne Faculty stopped its public endorsement for Voter Supremacy,
President John Johnson, of the St. Louis Seminary, was endorsing the CTR document
"Women in the Church" which teaches that the pastor has "headship"
over the congregation. It offers something for everyone. The women get to vote, but the
pastor is in charge, the best Synodical innovation since they put bubbles in beer.
Now, the only remaining question for the LCMS clergy is, "Will there be corporate
or Episcopal hierarchy (headship)?" The battle lines for pastoral headship are now
drawn between the Church Growth/Leadership Training/PLI pastors, who like the General
Motors-Harvard School of Business model, and the Hyper-Euro-Lutheran pastors who appeal to
pre-Waltherian European Lutheran Hierarchy as the proper model for the church. They follow
a highly selective reading of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions to support their
position.
Both camps really have the same objective, power and control for the benefit of
Christ's Church. It may be a dirty job, but now that both sides have discredited Walther's
log cabin theory of Voter Supremacy, someone has to save the Synod from the ignorant
masses we used to call autonomous congregations. God wants it this way.
Neither Seminary nor camp is promoting Walther as a third position, unless they skew
the data. The voters are now inferior to the pastor because God says the pastor has to be
a man, but the voters don't have to be men. Both parties say God has no established order
for the lay people to express themselves in the congregation, just the establishment of
the pastoral office.
Concordia Journal
appeals to Hyper-Euro-Lutheran approach.
Doctor Schrieber's article appeals to the Hyper-Euro-Lutheran
position.
All of this is not to say that Schrieber doesn't makes some excellent statements, which
he must do if his false conclusions are to be believed by the "we only read certain
parts of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions" faction, the Hyper-Euro-Lutherans.
First, let's look at some excellent quotes by Schrieber:
"The major concern in the Confessions is that these human rites not take
precedence over or contradict the rites that are rights by divine authorization and
institutions (ACXVIII)."
"In other words, the administrative power of bishops applies in areas only
directly related to the divine call to preach the Word of God, administer the Sacraments,
and attend to the administration of church discipline (Office of the Keys)."
"The church cannot require its ministers to enter into a contractual arrangement
in its secular scene."
"The Scriptures set forth the qualifications for entering as well as remaining in
the ministry: confession of true doctrine, aptness to perform duties and life that is
above reproach."
"The Confessions do not split up the ministry into parts."
"Once the church turns to leadership techniques developed in the secular world,
even for use in service to the Gospel, it is hard to keep them subordinate in the Gospel's
service, because they were not especially designed to function as servant but to rule as
master."
The above statements by Schreiber are excellent.
Concordia Journal
promotes false doctrine on Church and Ministry.
Now let us delve into the false conclusions espoused by Schrieber,
which must eventually dismantle the LCMS.
The problem begins in the title of the article; because Schrieber is so focused on
theory he doesn't examine any physical manifestation for his definition of
"church." In his title "Power and Orders in the Church 'according to the
Gospel': In Search of the Lutheran Ethos" he never speaks about the local
congregation or the Missouri Synod. In other words, he never finds the "Lutheran
Ethos" in practice on this planet.
His entire view of the church is from the perspective of the pastoral office. One
wonders if there is anyone else in the church.
He says, "This paper will show that the Confessions (1) are flexible regarding
church polity as long as it is not imposed as something ordained or required by God."
In deed Schrieber's "flexibility" is nothing more than an expression of cultural
and historical relativism leading to nihilism. The favorite word of those with Schrieber's
viewpoint is "adiaphora" things neither commanded nor forbidden.
For example, God never said there had to be a United States Government, Missouri Synod,
any particular local congregation, a church constitution, the deed to Schrieber's house, a
Seminary that pays his salary, a "Concordia Journal," Synodical resolutions, or
that anyone should read what he says. God never said the clergy couldn't own and operate
the church. Now that we know these things are adiaphora and not in the Bible and the
Lutheran Confessions, we can do as we wish with them because they don't really matter.
Schrieber is an apologist for the Hyper-Euro-Lutherans who are still asking why pastors
can't run churches in America like they did in Europe when the State owned the church? Oh,
for the good old days of clerical rule.
Rather than repeat numerous statements by Schrieber that reflect his
"flexibility" with church administration his following statement is patently
false doctrine.
Speaking of the Lutheran Confessions he writes, "External matters regarding
organization and governance [of the church] were left entirely by the wayside."
The Confessions mandate a
structure and organization for the congregation.
In direct opposition to Schrieber we offer four specific statements
from the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions where they do in fact teach organization and
governance of the church:
- The Confessions specifically say that the congregation elects its own pastor. (Trig.
523-24 par. 62, 69, 72, "Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the
authority to call, ELECT, and ordain ministers." Also Eph. 4:8, 1Pet. 2:9)
- The Confessions specifically say the local congregation is supreme over the pastor.
(Trig. 507 "the church is above the ministers" Trig 511 "Christ gives
supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church" also, Matt. 18:17, Col. 4:17, 1Peter
5:1-3, 2Cor.8:8)
- The Confessions specifically say that the congregation is the final judge in church
discipline. (Trig. 511 "Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the
church" also Matt. 18:17-18; Acts 1:15, 23-26; 15:5, 12-13, 22-23; 1Cor. 5:2, 6:2,
10:15, 12:7, 2Cor. 2:6-8, 2Thess: 3:15)
- The Confessions say they agree with the Bible and the Bible teaches that the sheep judge
their shepherd in all doctrine. (Mat. 7:15-23, 1John 4:1, 1Cor. 10:15, Matt. 23:10,
1Thess. 5:1, Matt.10: 42-44, Acts 17:11, 2Pet. 2:1, 1Cor.14:29, Rev. 2:2- We would have
used Walther's name with these four points above, but both Seminary faculties immediately
discredit his views and will not agree to statements written by him.)
This is doctrine and never, according to Schreiber, to be "left entirely by the
wayside."
In his false conclusion Schreiber writes: "The Confessions never acknowledge any
aspect of church organization or structure as something mandated by God or man." How
wrong can an LCMS Professor be? The four above points all deal with structure and
organization mandated by God!
Concordia Journal's
"flexibility" jeopardizes laity's ownership of church property.
The Confessions do not deal with the operation of a congregation
that is not owned by the State, which means every congregation in America is independent
of the State. However, the American courts will not recognize the rights of lay people to
control their own property and administrate their own congregations if the Voters' are not
Supreme. Hence, the laity of the Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, Episcopal or Presbyterian
Church USA have no status in the courtroom in regard to their congregations, only the
hierarchy and/or clergy.
As of this writing, the American Courts still recognize every member of an LCMS
congregation as an individual owner of his church property. The faculties of both
seminaries and the District Presidents are working hard to change this. There are two
recent court cases where the Districts supported testimony that the lay people did not own
and operate their own congregations.
While trying to argue out of two sides of his mouth, Schreiber inevitably contradicts
himself in his own article as follows:
First he says, "The church cannot require its ministers to enter into a
contractual arrangement in its secular scene." This is because it is against God's
Word. Then he says, "The Confessions never acknowledge any aspect of church
organization or structure as something mandated by God or man."
If the Confessions never acknowledge any aspect of church organization or structure as
something mandated by God or man, then the church is free to "require"
contractual arrangements.
When theology is no longer connected to practice, every "thing" is relative.
Even though the LC-MS has an official polity of Voter Supremacy written by C.F.W. Walther,
Schrieber never mentions Walther's name or the position of the Synod. How could he?
Other church bodies run their denominations from the top down, why not the LCMS? Those
who defend Schrieber's paper can easily argue that it doesn't matter who runs and operates
the local congregation. God never said the clergy couldn't take over the ownership and
operation of the congregations from the laity. Adiaphora has become the new Law of Corban
(Mark 7:11) for LCMS Seminary Professors. The freedom of choice, adiaphora, and
"flexibility" have become a church realestate shell game, a lust for power and
control of laymen's property.
The laity will never hear either Seminary faculty teach that they want to defend and
protect the LCMS laity's ownership and administration of their church property, worship,
and doctrine, namely through Voter Supremacy taught by the Synod's first President, C. F.
W. Walther.
My friend and his "Confessional friends" love Schrieber's article. But
haven't they confused the love of power and things with the love of God's Word? It works
for the Catholic Church.