Ralph Bohlmann Guides Day-Star to Church and Ministry Abyss
By Rev. Jack Cascione

Former LC-MS President, Ralph A. Bohlmann, spoke on "LC-MS 2000: Advice for an Advisory Synod" at the Day-Star Free Conference II, One Body/One Spirit, Mundelein, Illinois, 31 October 2000. You can see his paper and others on www.Day-Star.net.

Operating a Synod without polity is like operating a country without laws.

Bohlmann writes with the expertise and insight on Synodical polity that one would expect from a former Synodical President. Bohlmann's perspective in his paper is a most intriguing read.

He puts his finger on a number of LCMS inconsistencies in church and ministry and then drifts off into his own inconsistencies. All said and done, he makes LC-MS polity look like a three-ring circus for which he partly to blame. He presents a dazzling knowledge of Synodical resolutions, actions by Synodical Commissions, and personal involvement with the history of the Synod. At the same time he ignores other recent significant facts that completely contradict his conclusions.

It is going to take more research and unraveling of the facts to clear the record of this marvelous cloud of confusion that only Ralph Bohlmann could contrive from the Bible, Confessions, and Synodical law. One has to wonder if the Day-Star constituency is actually able to follow Bohlmann's reasoning after reading Mary Todd's paper on the same website.

Lets take a look at just few of Bohlmann's reconstructions of history.

Is the Synod Church?

Bohlmann says no. He writes, "European and American Lutherans have used the word 'synod' since the early 19th century simply to refer to an association or organization of congregations." And again he writes: "Church and synod are not the same thing, but we are often both at the same time, in the same place and in the same action." On this point, Bohlmann is right on target.

Then he gives his synopsis of the Synod's history in relation to its member congregations. He says that from 1847-1879 the Synod emphasized the advisory, non-autocratic, non-consistorial and self-governing character of the congregation. He describes 1880-1955 as the "ecclesia repraesentativa" or representative church, (see Pieper's Dogmatics, 3:427-35) still maintaining the synod's advisory character. Then he includes himself as the antidote to the current Synodical problem with church and ministry as follows: "In contrast, the modern period, 1955-present (with the exceptions of 1962-1969 and 1981-1992, the years of the Harms and Bohlmann administrations), has been characterized chiefly by efforts to legitimize and expand the synod's right to adopt doctrinal statements and resolutions that bind members (to some extent, at least) and with minimal emphasis on congregational self-government."

What! I heard President Oliver Harms tell the joint Nebraska District Convention in the Summer of 1968 in the Concordia, Seward, Nebraska gym how the Seminex professors endorsed the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture. Harms said he had a signed statement in his briefcase. He didn't show it to the Convention. Some 18 or 19 years later he gave an interview in the AELC's "Missouri in Perspective" saying he agreed with ELIM. If it had not had been for a strong defense of Bohlmann at the '86 and '89 Conventions, Bohlmann would have been defeated for presidency in both of them. Now he numbers Preus and Barry with those who diminish congregational self-government.

At the January 1999 Symposium in Fort Wayne President Barry, when questioned about the Synod's position on Church and Ministry responded to the chagrin of hundred of pastors, students, and professors, that the LC-MS position was that of Walther and Pieper.

We challenge Bohlmann and Day-Star et al to endorse the following statement by Walther as the LC-MS polity for all congregations as follows: "Finally the congregation is represented as the SUPREME TRIBUNAL, Matt.18: 15-18....' Note 7 on p 29 refers to this using the term 'highest jurisdiction' and referring in turn to the 'Power and Primacy Of the Pope,' 'highest and final jurisdiction to the church..' (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W. Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.24)

'In public church affairs nothing should be concluded without the vote and consent of the congregation.' (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W. Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.48)

But why should Day-Star endorse the above when it is far more fun to make up your own position on Church and Ministry and condemn all the others.

Bohlmann's Church and Ministry overthrows the doctrine of justification.

Bohlmann claims that Barry's public position against the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, in opposition to the ELCA's agreement with the Catholic Church, is an example of Barry's confusion on Church and Ministry. He writes: "Think, for example, of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, celebrated by Roman Catholics and Lutherans one year ago today in Augsburg; unfortunate as President Barry's newspaper ad was, the even greater shame is that Missouri, with its rich theological heritage, has seen fit to offer its criticisms as a spectator, not a participant. Imagine!"

Bohlmann's complaint is almost incoherent. All Barry did was state publicly the position taken by the LCMS Convention in RESOLUTION 3-08, "To Express Regret Concerning ELCA Actions." Are we to believe that Bohlmann's understanding of Church and Ministry is the reason the LCMS President should not speak out on the overwhelming vote of support by the delegates for 3-08?

Bohlmann strikes out on justification but hits another home run on Church and Ministry.

Following the above confusion Bohlmann makes the following marvelous statement about the LCMS: "It is as church that we have created a human organization called a "synod" in order to act on our behalf (when we request it) and in our support as we carry out our mission as church-not vice versa!"

Fort Wayne's Professor Kurt Marquart will say just the opposite. "Another is the fantasy that 'Synod is not church,' and therefore does not govern free Christian consciences with the truth of the divine Word and the orthodox Confessions, but oppresses them with the man-made rules and regulations of a so-called 'covenant of love'! Nothing could be farther from Walther's churchly vision, but it is regularly trotted out as if it were his very last will and testament!" Marquart also writes, "'Voter Supremacy' is worldly, political sloganeering."

At this time only six faculty members from Fort Wayne and three from St. Louis will agree that the Voter's are Supreme in their congregations.

Bohlmann has plenty of criticism for those who want to limit congregational self-government from the basis of the Confessions and the Bible but he and Day-Star turn a blind eye to the total top down control of congregations proposed by PLI and the Church Growth Movement. We assume he is opposed to hierarchy in the name of theology but not in the name of Peter Drucker, Fuller Theological Seminary, and the Harvard School of Business.

Bohlmann handpicked Dr. Norbert Mueller to replaced Dr. Robert Preus, whom he had fired. In 1989 Mueller published the Synod's new "Pastoral Theology" that removes all references for the necessity of Voters' Assemblies. Mueller teaches that polity is a matter of culture. While Bohlmann defends congregational autonomy he did more to remove it than any another LCMS President.

Bohlmann draws a bead on Communion Fellowship and Dr. Sam Nafsger's "covenant of love."

Bohlmann picks the eyes right out of Nafsger's "covenant of love" by explaining that love is part of our faith response to our doctrine and not to Synodical By-laws and resolutions. He questions those who blur the distinction between doctrinal and non-doctrinal resolutions. Polity is not faith. He then proceeds to question nearly ever-doctrinal point that supports the Synod's practice on fellowship and closed communion. What a waste of a previously great observation.

Bohlmann then reminds us that since 1962 the no one in the Synod can use the Brief Statement as the Synod's position on fellowship. We quote: "LUCF (Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship) conveniently fails to notice that the Brief Statement as a litmus test for fellowship was rescinded at the synod's own 1962 Cleveland Convention because it added to the synod's own confessional article of subscription to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions alone."

Bohlmann concludes by asking: "Should we continue walking together? Absolutely! But not in some forced lockstep pattern devised by us!"

We ask, "Walk together? On the basis of what?" Bohlmann guts the Synod's confession of the doctrine of justification, gives no support for Voters' Assemblies as the only LCMS polity, attacks the Synod's historic position on communion fellowship, negates the Brief Statement, and asks us to walk together on the basis of a fill-in-the-blank polity devised by himself.

I suggest that Day-Star turn up the lights. Professor Marquart, who as regularly criticized this writer in Christian News, has declined our invitation to debate. We make the same offer to debate a representative of Day-Star.

My advice is to read Bohlmann's article for yourself on www.Day-Star.net.

November 21, 2000