|
The question remains: “Should Dr. Wallace Schulz
appeal the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel?”
Our opinion is, “No.”
Schulz’s reasoning in his letter to LCMS Secretary,
Ray Hartwig, was well though out and to the point.
As Schulz explains, the point is, the Panel decided to follow
Convention resolutions and the CCM’s new interpretations of the Bylaws
instead of the Bible. Schulz writes:
“I am also deeply shocked, as I am sure others will
be, that the Panel states: ‘Rev. Wallace Schulz went on to present a very
thorough argument concerning the charges on the basis of the Holy Scriptures
alone,’ after which the Panel immediately writes: ‘However,’ and then
maintains that this case had to be determined on the basis of an LCMS
convention resolution. In fact,
the Panel's decision makes over 25 references to the controversial
resolution and an additional 35 references to bylaws BUT FAILS TO MAKE EVEN
A SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES!”
Why drag this out any further?
The Panel, the LCMS President, and the majority of the COP want to
pray with non-Christians without telling the non-Christians that no god is
listening to them. The final
decision actually rests with the 2004 Convention delegates.
The re-election of President Kieschnick will be a referendum on the
entire Benke Case. If the
delegates are not interested in placing the Bible above the Bylaws, there
really isn’t much point to maintain the LCMS.
Professor Kurt Marquart also wrote some excellent
advice on why this is not the time for concerned lay people and pastors to
leave the Synod. The Convention
is only 14 months away. It is
time to stay in there and fight for the survival of the LCMS.
However, what if the majority of the Convention is quite happy with
joint worship with non-Christians? Marquart
doesn’t address that point.
Marquart give some excellent quotations from the Bible,
the Confessions, Pieper, and others in his article and resolution. He
explains that the church is not to be ruled by a small group of powerful
people. However, he does not say
who is to govern the church on earth in the absence of the visible Jesus
Christ.
Yes, the Bible is the final authority, but who is to
make the final judgment on what the Bible says?
Here Marquart is silent. Will
power vested in Bishops be more effective than power vested in CEO’s?
It is not enough for Marquart to condemn the “ecclesiastical
supervisors.” He must put
something in their place. Walther
said the congregation was the supreme and the final judge.
Congregations, not clergy, Bishops, ecclesiastic supervisors, or
CEO’s created this Synod.
Here are some quotations that Schulz and Marquart
should quote:
"...the
keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as
many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning
the keys adds, Matt. 18, 19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth,
etc. THEREFORE HE GRANTS THE KEYS PRINCIPALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TO THE CHURCH,
just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of
calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and
immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the
entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby
this promise is communicated to everyone who desires it, just as it is
actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the
Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc.,
and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where
two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise CHRIST GIVES SUPREME
AND FINAL JURISDICTION TO THE CHURCH, WHEN HE SAYS: TELL IT UNTO THE
CHURCH.] Therefore it is
necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire
assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter
any prerogative or superiority, or lordship [which he had, or was to have
had, in preference to the other apostles.] (Treatise, Concordia Triglotta
Page 511 par. 24-25)
"For
when our Savior Christ says, ‘Tell it to the church,' He by these words
commands the church to be the supreme judge.
From this it follows that not only one state, namely that of the
bishops, but also other pious and learned persons from all states are to be
appointed as judges and have decisive votes.’"
("Church and Ministry" C.F.W. Walther, 1851, CPH 1987,
-page 343)
If the congregations don’t speak out about this
outrage and usurpation of their authority this will no longer be the LCMS
and all the appeals and all the good advice about restructuring the Synod
will be pointless.
The question is: Will Schulz and Marquart appeal to
congregations to follow the Bible and set the Synod in the right direction?
Humanly speaking, the congregations are the only ones who can do it.
We pray that God move His congregations through the Bible to clean up
the mess at the 2004 Convention.
|
|