Wohlrabe Reply to Cascione Questions
Dr. Wohlrabe’s comments are left-justified while the quotations of Rev. Cascione are indented.
Thank you for your response to my letter. I realize that this issue is of great concern for you. The only reason that I got involved was because I was requested to by Pastor Al Loeschman and others in view of the misinterpretation that you gave to statements that I made in "Ministry in Missouri until 1962." The last thing I want right now is to get into some sort of (excuse my bluntness, but I am a Sailor) "pissing" contest with you. I have just returned from over 50 days at sea. Even while my ship is in port undergoing repairs, my ministry and administrative duties require a good deal of time. Also, I intend to spend most of my free time with my wife and three children before I must go to sea again. Thus, this is the last you will hear from me on this issue. Furthermore, in order to save time, I will simply go through your e-mail response and make comments.
Dear Rev. Dr. Wohlrabe:
Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated and germane to the discussion.
You are in a position to shed some important light on this entire matter, particularly since the first National Free Conference on C. F. W. Walther is scheduled to take place on Nov. 5th and 6th in St. Louis. Your comments to me were on thousands of computers before I began to read them. My name, address, and e-mail address are in the Lutheran Annual and our website which you examined. I must assume that it was your intent to initiate this dialogue in a public forum and forgo any private discussion. This is certainly acceptable to me and based on your first public statement also acceptable to you.
[CDR Wohlrabe] The very first e-mail of the message that I sent was directly to you via this e-mail address. Following that, I sent a copy to Chaplain Craig Muehler to post on the Table Talk chat service. I do not subscribe to that (I do not have a lot of time for this sort of thing). However, the issue had already been discussed via this public forum. You actually initiated it by way of your website.
There are times when the proper understanding of a theological statement can be misunderstood until that theology is put into practice. The practice of theology explains what we mean by what we do. In other words the Doctrine of Church and Ministry by its very nature must have practical applications.
[CDR Wohlrabe] This is true. Yet, a theological statement can also be misunderstood by way of practical application as well. In additional, individuals may add things to the theological statement that were never intended, which is what I feel you have done.
You suggest that I claim that the first sentence of the following paragraph are your words. Please note there are no quote marks on the first two sentences of the article because they are my words. The only place I use quotation marks is when I'm quoting someone else such as yourself beginning at the third sentence of the following paragraph.
"After Loehe and Grabau met on this issue they both wanted Walther to view the authority of the pastoral office in regard to the Voters' Assembly as an open question. "'Yet, this was not to be. Walther believed that both Scripture and the confessions were clear on the matter and that any compromise would be a denial of Scriptural doctrine and would ultimately affect the teaching of justification by grace through faith. In August, 1853, Wilhelm Loehe broke relations with the Missouri Synod."' (Wohlrabe, page 10)
[CDR Wohlrabe] In response to your claim above, I was not suggesting that the first sentence of the above paragraph were my words. As I tried to articulate in my original post, that sentence was yours. What I maintain is that you quoted me out of context. The first sentence, which most certainly is yours, is not what I meant nor what I believe to be true. Yet, you quoted me as if I supported your statement, which is not true. I also tried to show you that within the context of the booklet where the first statement appeared, the quote did not mean what you were attempting to substantiate. When quoting someone, I strongly recommend that you maintain the meaning of the original quote. You should not quote a source out of context. You should not use a statement to substantiate your views when the view you hold is not the original intent of the author. This can be seen as either a form of deception or sloppy scholarship.
In your letter you refer to Walther's 1848 Convention address. I am well aware of this speech. It is posted on our www.reclaimingwalther.org website for anyone to examine and down load.
[CDR Wohlrabe] Then why do you ignore the statements of Walther in his 1848 Convention address concerning polity as "an inalienable part of the Christian liberty and that Christians as members of the church are subject to no power in the world except the clear Word of the living God"?
My questions are interspersed in this response. I've number the questions for easy reference.
You write: "Wilhelm Loehe was not happy with the constitution of the Missouri Synod. Loehe felt that suffrage on the part of the congregation was non-apostolic and down-right dangerous." ("Ministry in Missouri Until 1962" by Dr. John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., 1992, page 8).
Mundinger writes: "The removal of Martin Stephan on May 30, 1839, and all the misery that followed that event gave the laymen the necessary jolt to press for lay participation in the government of the Church. This misery drove them into the writings of Luther, and here the laymen found the weapons which they needed to win the battle for CONGREGATIONAL SUPREMACY from the power-jealous pastors." ("Government in the Missouri Synod," by Dr. Carl S. Mundinger, CPH, St. Louis, 1947 Page 205)
[CDR Wohlrabe] I do not have my copy of "Government in the Missouri Synod" with me (it is in storage, because I have only limited space on a ship). However, Mundinger is referring to the initial struggle that took place after Stephan was deposed. He also points out that pastors were held in high regard and obeyed when they were proclaiming the Word of God. They were also given a divine call, which meant the call was in no way conditional. They could not be fired except for false doctrine, immoral life, or malfeasance of duty.
I only assumed that if Loehe and Grabau didn't agree with Walther on voting in Conventions they also didn't agree with Voters' Assemblies in congregations.
(1) Did Loehe and Grabau only disagree with Walther on congregations voting in Conventions but not on men voting in Voters' Assemblies? From your comments it seems you are saying that the division between Loehe and Grabau had nothing to do with voting in the Convention or in the congregation.
[CDR Wohlrabe] Loehe and Grabau didn't agree with Walther on voting in Conventions as well as voting in a congregation. They disagreed with it on the basis of their doctrine of the ministry, and they disagreed with it because of their view on polity. Loehe and Grabau believed that the public office of the ministry was conferred, not through the church, but through the ministerium via ordination. They also believed that Scripture nowhere gave any form of church government to lay people. Walther disagreed with them on both issues. However, Walther did not combine the two issues (which I believe you are doing). In "Kirche und Amt" he dealt only with the issues of doctrine. In other writings, he dealt with the issues of polity. Yet, he did not maintain that polity was divinely prescribed. The democratic model was the most proper form for congregations independent of the state."
(2) Are you saying that Walther taught that voting in Conventions and voting in Congregations was adiaphora and of no doctrinal consequence or importance for the LCMS?
[CDR Wohlrabe] I am saying that Walther believed that a democratic polity was the most proper form in their situation.
I know that Walther placed the clergy and laity side by side in the Convention. Each congregation had one pastoral and one lay delegate. However, this arrangement can't possibly exist in the congregation between the pastor and the Voters' Assembly unless the Voters' Assembly has one vote and the pastor has one vote. I'm sure you would agree this would be a prescription for chaos or, as they say, the proverbial Mexican stand off. From my reading of Walther's "The True Visible Form of the Christian Congregation" and Walther's "Pastoral Theology" the pastor only has one vote in the Assembly, which Walther advises him not to use, and each man in the Assembly also has one vote.
(3) Practically speaking, what do you say should take place if the Pastor wants to serve Communion every Sunday and the Voter's out vote him, 40 to 15 so that Communion only be served once a month or twice a month?
[CDR Wohlrabe] The pastor has the power of the Word. He does not have the right "to introduce new laws and arbitrarily to establish adiaphora or ceremonies." Jesus says that we are to partake of His Supper often, or as often as we can. My wife and daughter and other confessional Lutherans in the area of Yokosuka, Japan must now go up to three months without the Sacrament (until I return from some of my deployments). The last LCMS convention encouraged congregations to offer the Lord's Supper every Sunday, as was the custom at Luther's time. Since this is an issue that is not definitely prescribed (how often is often?), I see a pastor insisting on Communion every Sunday as legalistic as a pastor insisting that voters' assemblies are divinely prescribed and to be placed over the pastor.
(4) Again, what do you say should happen if the Pastor wants to use contemporary worship and the Voters' Assembly out votes him 16 to 15 to use TLH?
[CDR Wohlrabe] "But the preacher has no lordship in the church. Therefore he has no right to introduce new laws and arbitrarily to establish adiaphora or ceremonies."
In the following quotation you state that Walther didn't teach that the congregation was over the pastor. "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."
Walther regularly speaks about the Congregation as the final tribunal. He also states the Congregation is the possessor of all church power in Theses VI and VII. As the possessor of all church power the local congregation must be divinely instituted by God. He regularly quotes the Lutheran Confessions on this point as follows: "In 1 Cor. 3, 6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that THE CHURCH IS ABOVE THE MINISTERS. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: "Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this." Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church. (Treatise, Concordia Triglotta, page 507, par. 11)
"...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)
Walther uses these citations from the confessions in his "Church and Ministry", "The True Visible Church on Earth", "The Form of the Christian Congregation" and "Pastoral Theology" to show that the local congregation has authority over the pastor and that the Voters' Assembly speaks for the entire congregation. In fact Walther rarely distinguishes between what the "Congregation" does and what the "Voters" do because the Voters' are comprised of the entire congregation less the vote of women and children.
(5) Is my understanding of Walther's structure for the Voters' Assembly correct?
[CDR Wohlrabe] Walther correctly states that the Office of the Keys (binding and loosing sins) belongs to the church. Thus, the congregation is the final tribunal regarding the office of the keys. That is why, in "Kirche und Amt," he states, "The preacher has no right to impose and carry out excommunication alone, without the preceding acknowledgement of the whole congregation."
Elsewhere, Walther discusses how a voters assembly can and does represent the congregation. Yet, he also maintains that church government is a matter of Christian freedom.
You maintain that the congregation is divinely instituted. The voters assembly represents the congregation. Therefore, the voters assembly is divinely instituted. However, your third premise does not follow from your second premise because nowhere does Scripture prescribe that a voters assembly must be the form of government for a congregation. Walther does not state that either. The form of government a congregation uses is a matter of Christian freedom.
As in many other places Walther identifies the authority of the Congregation with the authority of the Voter's Assembly. Walther writes on page 257 of his Pastoral Theology, "All Adult, male members of the congregation have the right to participate actively in the discussions, Votes, and decisions of the congregation since that is a right of the whole congregation."
(6) Why do you divide the authority of the Voters from the authority of the Congregation as if when Walther is speaking about the authority of the Congregation over the minister this exempts the minister from the authority of the Voters' Assembly?
[CDR Wohlrabe] As mentioned above, voters assemblies are one form of church government. An evangelical Lutheran congregation in a country where the state controls the church (as it was in Germany at the time of Walther and before) had a consistory (officials appointed by the prince) serving as the form of government and representing the congregation. In Sweden, they had an episcopal form of government, where the clergy represented the congregation. There may be other forms of government as well.
Walther also regularly quotes Matthew 18:15-20 as textual proof for the divine institution of the Congregation in addition to the divine institution of the Voters' Assembly. He writes in his pastoral theology: "Since, ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORD, THE CONGREGATION IS THE HIGHEST COURT WITHIN ITS CIRCLE (Matt.18:17 Col. 4:17), and the preacher has church authority only in common with the congregation (Matt. 20-25-26; 23:8; 1Peter.5:1-3; 2Cor.8:8), the preacher must be concerned that the congregational assembly, both regular and special ones as needed at times, be held in Christian order to consider and carry out what is necessary for its governing (Matt. 18:17; 1Cor. 5:4;2 2Cor.2;6 Acts 6:20 15:1-4, 30; 21:17-22; 1Tim.5:20)."
"All adult, male members of the congregation have the right to participate actively in the discussion, votes, and decisions of the congregation since that is a RIGHT OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION. See Matt. 18:17-18; Acts 1:15, 23-26; 15:5; 12-13, 22-23; 1Cor:5:2;6:2; 10:15; 12:7;2 2Cor.2:6-8; 2Thess. 3;15. Excluded from the exercise of this right are the youth (1Pet.5:5) and the female members of the congregation (Cor.14:34-35) [see also 1Tim.2:8-15]." (Pastoral Theology by C.F.W. Walther, CN New Haven Mo., 5th Edition 1906 page 257)
"It also belongs in the constitution that the congregation in its own circle is the final and highest court according to Matt. 18:17." ("Pastoral Theology" Walther, Page 264) He probably quotes Matthew 18:15-20 more than other author in his "Church and Ministry."
(7) Did Walther correctly understand Matthew 18:15-20?
[CDR Wohlrabe] Yet. In "Kirche und Amt" he said: "The preacher has no right to impose and carry out excommunication alone, without the preceding acknowledgement of the whole congregation."
In any discussion of voter supremacy there is no question that the Word of God is supreme over the congregation and the pastor. However, I have often noticed that those who oppose congregational supremacy appeal to the supremacy of the Word in order to nullify the Voter's authority over the pastor.
(8) Why do the Lutheran Confessions claim that the congregation is "supreme" (which would also make the Voters' Assembly supreme) but you say that Walther doesn't teach that the Voters' are supreme?
[CDR Wohlrabe] In matters of the Office of the Keys, the church is supreme. Scripture, nor the Confessions, nor Walther prescribe how one is to "TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH." That can certainly be by way of a voters assembly. It could be by way of another form of church government as well. See my comment with respect to question #5. Again, I think that your reasoning contains faulty logic.
(9) Are you saying that Walther's "Church and Ministry" does not apply to the two phrases in the Lutheran Confessions above which read, "Therefore He grants the keys principally and immediately to the church," and "Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the church, when He says: Tell it unto the church," to Voters' Assemblies?
[CDR Wohlrabe] No, the church does have the power of the keys. It also confers that authority to its called pastor. It also has the right to choose whatever government it wants.
(10) My next question is how can a Voters' Assembly issue a divine call if the Voters' Assembly is not divinely instituted?
[CDR Wohlrabe] If the congregation chooses to give the authority to issue a divine call to the voters assembly, then it can given the authority to issue a divine call to the voters assembly, and it is a divine call. If a congregation chooses to give the authority to issue a divine call to the Counsel of Presidents (in the case of a new candidate from the seminary), then it can give the authority to issue a divine call to the Counsel of Presidents, and it is a divine call. If it chooses or allows itself to be under a consistory, and gives the consistory the authority to issue a divine call to the congregation, then it is a divine call.
You write as follows: "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."
(11) If Walther did not agree that the Voters' Assembly was divinely instituted, please explain how such a body could possess the Office of the Keys and administer these Keys for the entire congregation?
[CDR Wohlrabe] The congregation possess 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.
(12) Do believe that an identifiable group can administer the Office of the Keys and not be divinely instituted?
[CDR Wohlrabe] Yes and no. the form of the "identifiable group" is not prescribed. The congregation is free to delegate the administration of the Office of the Keys to an "identifiable group" if they so choose.
(13) Or, are you saying that the Voters Assembly does not administer the Office of the Keys?
[CDR Wohlrabe] See answer to question #12.
(14) If the Voters are not divinely instituted and do not have authority over the Office of the Keys, why does Walther insist that an Excommunication only be carried out by a unanimous vote of the Voters' Assembly?
[CDR Wohlrabe] We are going round and round on this. The voters assembly can be the chosen representatives of the congregation (actually representing the true believers of the congregation, known only to God, who actually possess the Office of the Keys).
(15) If, as you say, the pastor and the Voters' are side by side, why does Walther make the "Call" and excommunication a decision of the Voters' Assembly?
[CDR Wohlrabe] The Office of the Keys are given to the church (actually, the true believers of the congregation, known only to God). The congregation confers the authority to publicly administer the Office of the Keys and to carry out the marks of the church (preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments) to the minister through the call. The call and excommunication ("the preacher has no right to impose and carry out excommunication alone, without the preceding acknowledgement of the whole congregation") are voluntarily given to the voters assembly as the proper form of government for an evangelical Lutheran congregation independent of the state.
(16) When Walther made the comment about pastors being side by side with the laity wasn't he speaking about the Convention and not the Voters' Assembly?
[CDR Wohlrabe] No. Look at the structure and theology of "Kirche und Amt." Church and ministry stand side by side before God.
(17) Isn't it true that Walther did not teach that the Convention was "the church" but the local congregation was "the church" which is why local pastors serve Communion to the Convention and the Convention cannot serve itself the Lord's Supper?
[CDR Wohlrabe] Walther did not consider the Synod to be church in the proper sense. WELS (by way of August Pieper) adopted the erroneous position that Synod is church and can carry out churchly functions.
(18) If Walther did not have in mind from beginning of the Synod that the Voters ' were supreme, why does he constantly make the Voters' Assembly the highest court and not equal with the pastor?
[CDR Wohlrabe] Why didn't Walther argue polity as an issue with Grabau and Loehe in "Kirche und Amt" and elsewhere? He didn't because the real issue was doctrine. The true Holy Christian Church is invisible and is wherever God's Word is preached and enough of the Sacraments are rightly administered (as opposed to Grabau who held that salvation came only through the Lutheran church). This true church has the office of the keys (as opposed to Grabau and Loehe who held that the ministerium possesses the office of the keys). Christians have an obligation to join orthodox Christian congregations. The ministry is a separate office from the priesthood of all believers and the highest office in the church and is to be obeyed when he is proclaiming the Word of God (as opposed to Vehse). Yet, it is conferred through the church and ordination is an apostolic rite and good churchly practice which recognizes the call (as opposed to Grabau and Loehe). The pastor has no right to set forth new laws or ceremonies or impose excommunication alone (as opposed to Grabau and Loehe).
He prescribed voters assemblies as the proper form for evangelical Lutheran congregations independent of the state, and so the proper form for the Missouri Synod.
"It also belongs in the constitution that the congregation in its own circle is the FINAL AND HIGHEST COURT according to Matt. 18:17. Therefore all its officers are responsible to it and may be removed from office in Christian order. But also all decisions and resolutions of the congregation which are contrary to God's Word or the [congregation's] confession are to be declared in advance null and void." ("Pastoral Theology" C.F.W. Walther, Fifth Edition 1906, CN, 1995, page 47)
"For the Lord Christ teaches in Matthew 18:17 that the ban should be put ON THOSE WHO WILL NOT OBEY THE CHURCH OR HIS CONGREGATION." Thus the church truly teaches nothing else than God's Word. (Luther's Works LW 34:33)
Please notice above that Luther makes the congregation supreme and not the pastor. Paul also tells the congregation to carry out an excommunication, otherwise he would have done it himself.
(19) If Walther thought that any form of Church Government was acceptable for LCMS congregations, why did he only tell pastors how the Voters' Assemblies should be structured and why the Voters were the highest court?
[CDR Wohlrabe] Please read Walther's Forward to "The Proper Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation Independent of the States." Walther believed this to be the best form. He wanted to show the practical application of the doctrine set forth in "Kirche und Amt." But, mainly, he wanted to show that a democratic polity actually worked to those in Europe and the U.S.A. (Loehe and Grabau) who said that it would lead to "anarchistic, ochlocratic [mob rule] anabaptistic, and separatistic conditions." It was originally presented as a district convention essay meant only for discussion. But, the delegates to the convention encouraged Walther to present it as a book. It was never adopted as an official Synodical position as were the theses of "Kirche und Amt."
(20) What other forms of church government did Walther teach besides Voters' Assemblies for the local congregation?
[CDR Wohlrabe] He did not prescribe any other forms of church government for the Missouri Synod or congregations in the U.S. However, in his 1848 convention essay, he acknowledge that God had blessed the consistorial form of church government in Germany and the episcopal form of church government in Sweden.
I have also noticed the J. T. Mueller, Fritz, Pieper, Mundinger, and other authors always speak about the supremacy of Voters' Assemblies and how they are the highest tribunal in the congregation.
(21) Are you suggesting that these theologians did not understand Walther?
[CDR Wohlrabe] No -- I think that they understood Walther as I have understood Walther, and as articulated in all my answers above.
(22) If they did understand Walther, are you saying they changed what he originally taught? You seem to speak as if Voters' Assemblies were coincidental to or an after thought that had nothing to do with Walther's "Church and Ministry."
[CDR Wohlrabe] 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.
(23) Could you please explain why all four of the Congregations of which I have served as a pastor, founded in 1947, 1937, 1905, and 1921 all stated in their constitutions that the Voters' were supreme?
[CDR Wohlrabe] 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?
(24) Was it a coincidence the I became the pastor of the only four congregation in the LCMS that were structured on congregational supremacy? None of them taught that the pastors were side by side with the Voters' Assembly.
[CDR Wohlrabe] Just because a congregation's constitution states the voters assembly is supreme in matters dealing with the office of the keys, does not mean that the voters assembly is over the pastor. When a congregation has issued a divine call, conferring authority to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments publicly in their midst, then the congregation is not over the pastor in that regard. They cannot arbitrarily withdraw a divine call (contra Will Sohns and other DPs).
(25) Was it a coincidence that such language appeared in the Constitution of a neighboring congregation that was founded in 1847, the same year as the Synod, especially since you say Walther didn't teach this?
[CDR Wohlrabe] See my answer to questions # 22 and 23.
From my observation you have placed some serious contradictions between Walther' s theology and practice. One could conclude from your statements that the structure of the Synod and LCMS congregations in the first hundred years of the Synod are accidental and not the result of Walther's "Church and Ministry." Your claim that Walther did not teach congregational supremacy and the authority of the Voters' Assembly over the pastor gives an open door for every Church Growth Movement abuse we now witness in the Synod. Both the pastors and the congregations originally agreed to the form of worship as published in TLH and LW in the Synodical Constitution under Article VI. 4. Your position makes the congregation powerless to prevent these Church Growth aberrations.
[CDR Wohlrabe] I, and many others, see no contradiction in separating the doctrines of church and ministry from polity. One may conclude many erroneous things in many different situations and from many people's writings, even God's Holy Word. However, I believe that if one reads even the condensation of my doctoral dissertation carefully, one would not necessarily conclude that "the structure of the Synod and LCMS congregations in the first hundred years of the Synod are accidental and not the result of Walther's "Church and Ministry"." Your argument that my understanding of Walther's teaching on church and ministry opens the door for every Church Growth Movement abuse does not hold either. According to your understanding of congregational and voters assembly supremacy, a congregation that bought into the Church Growth Movement could force this abomination upon its pastor, and there is nothing he could do about it. At least my understanding allows for checks and balances. In my understanding, which is also Walther's understanding, the pastor cannot "introduce new laws and arbitrarily establish adiaphora or ceremonies." Thus, a congregation could resist a domineering pastor. Likewise, a pastor could stand up to a congregation that wants to subscribe to an erroneous teaching or practice and boldly proclaim God's Word without fear of losing his position.
My purpose for defending the supremacy of Voter's Assemblies, as originally taught by Walther, is to preserve the marvelous God given Christian freedom that was the great gift and biblical heritage of the LCMS. In many parts of Synod we now witness the abuse of church power by financial institutions, District Offices, Boards, and pastors who claim divine right to alter and reinvent worship and church polity in the name of God.
[CDR Wohlrabe] We share the same goal. I hope you can see that. However, I believe you are incorrectly placing the congregation over the pastoral office (similar to the position of Vehse) in an effort to combat clerical and bureaucratic abuse. In pushing the pendulum, you have pushed it too far.
Since you have initiated this dialogue and criticism of my articles your comments to these questions would be very helpful.
[CDR Wohlrabe] The only reason I did so was because I was encouraged to respond by others, and I wanted to show that you quoted me out of context.
In Christ,
Pastor Jack Cascione[CDR Wohlrabe] Pastor Cascione, I wish you no ill. I believe we have a common goal. However, I do not agree with you on placing the congregation via a voters assembly over the pastoral office. I believe they must stand side by side. I believe that this was Walther's intent.
In Christ,
Chaplain John C. Wohlrabe, Jr.
October 2, 1999