Wohlrabe to Cascione (1):
Insisting on Voters' Assemblies is Legalism
By Rev. Jack Cascione

It is indeed an opportunity to engage in this dialogue with Doctor John Wolhrabe over the necessity of Voters' Assemblies, in of all places, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The length of Wohlrabe's answer to my questions will require a series of articles. This is reply number 1.

Voters' Assemblies Must Be Imposed on LCMS Congregations

Confusion on Church and Ministry must inevitably fragment the Synod. We can't walk together when we are walking in different directions. Most LCMS congregations today don't know why they have constitutions or what their constitutions say or should say. This confusion has opened the door for every kind of pastoral and lay opportunist to take advantage of unsuspecting congregations for their own objective, and God forbid, for their own material gain.

During the struggle to maintain the use of the name "Lutheran" in the 1995 LCMS Convention I was regularly called a "legalist". The same thing occurred in the struggle to maintain the confession of three and only three Creeds in the 1998 Convention.

Once again, I welcome and I expect the label "legalist" because I insist that LCMS congregations must be governed by Voters' Assemblies.

My goal is to impose tyrannical, legalistic, mandatory, compulsory, absolutely necessary, dictatorial Voters' Assemblies in every LCMS congregation if they wish to be part of the Synod. All those who want to be ruled by a super board of directors, CEOs, bishops, Stephanites, Loeheists, and Grabauists will have to find another Synod to enjoy their hierarchy. We will call this new position, since Wohlrabe says Walther didn't teach this legalism, "Cascione Curias."

Wohlrabe Claims LCMS Congregations Can Choose Hierarchy?

The sad truth is, that the Synod has moved from promoting Voters' Assemblies to operating with Voters' Assemblies, and now, to tolerating Voters' Assemblies as one option among many for LCMS congregations. Hence, the laity loses.

At the 1999 Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, I asked President A. L. Barry if the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod had an official position on Church and Ministry. President Barry announced that the official position of the LCMS was that of Walther and of Francis Pieper in his "Christian Dogmatics."

Throughout his reply, Dr. John Wohlrabe sees the possibility for other forms of church government in LCMS congregations with comments such as follows: "It [the congregation] also has the right to choose whatever government it wants."

"However, most Missouri Synod congregations hold to a democratic form of polity. It is not mandated in the Synod's constitution."

"In Sweden, they had an Episcopal form of government, where the clergy represented the congregation. There may be other forms of government as well."

Wohlrabe Claims Voters' Assemblies Optional in LCMS

I was truly surprised when Wohlrabe said that I had misrepresented his position by placing the following sentence in front of a quote from his book: "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)"

Wohlrabe replied: "I am writing in an attempt to clarify one particular statement that was misrepresented by you and to correct a mistaken understanding that you have with respect to C.F.W. Walther's position on the doctrines of church and ministry."

"There is a big difference between 'the exact nature of the ministry,' which is my statement, and 'the authority of the pastoral office in regard to the Voters' Assembly,' which is your statement. Let me explain further."

"By 'the exact nature of the ministry,' I meant the doctrine of the ministry that Walther articulated in the theses of 'Die Stimme Unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt,' which were formally adopted by the Missouri Synod at convention in 1851. If you read these theses carefully, you will see that they make no mention whatsoever of a voters' assembly, or the authority of the pastoral office in regard to such. 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. 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)."

Cascione Originally Replied: "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)."

Cascione Now Replies: 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.

Wohlrabe Now Replies: "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."

Cascione Now Replies: After reading the above response and the rest of Wohlrabe's reply I was stunned to realize that Dr. Wohlrabe believes that Voters' Assemblies are one option among many for LCMS congregations. He also believes that Walther separated his theology from his polity or his doctrine from his practice. I now see that my problem is not understanding that Walther was schizophrenic on Church and Ministry.

Wohlrabe Claims Walther Separated Theology from Polity

Note how Wohlrabe writes about Walther's view on the separation of doctrine and polity as follows: "I, and many others, see no contradiction in separating the doctrines of church and ministry from polity.".[For Walther] "Doctrine and polity were kept separate."

A practice or polity that is accidental and not directly based on theology can only result in the confusion we now see in the LCMS. The separation of doctrine from practice is the stuff that theologians are made of. Doctor Wohlrabe serves the Synod very well as a Chaplain on a ship in the U. S. Navy where he can speculate on theology that doesn't relate to Voters' Assemblies. However, I have yet to meet a Voters' Assembly that thought its existence was adiaphora.

I challenge Wohlrabe and anyone else to show me one place where Walther or Pieper tolerated any other polity but Voters' Assemblies for the LCMS. Doctor Wolhrabe is the one throwing out the adiaphora of options for LCMS Congregational Government, calling me a legalist and comparing me to Major. Dear Doctor, where, tell us where, are these other options of church government taught by Walther and Pieper for the LCMS?

Now that we know, as Wohlrabe says, the Synod has never adopted any particular form of polity for its congregations, why is all the literature on polity in the Synod prior to 1975 about Voters' Assemblies? Wohlrabe has written the theological defense for every pastor in the LCMS who wants to be called "Father" and rule like an Episcopal Bishop, (and there are plenty of them) and accomplished the same for every aspiring clerical CEO (and there are even more of those).

Cascione to Wohlrabe: Who has the final authority?

(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?

Wohlrabe Now Replies: "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."

Voters' Assemblies Were Always Required in the LCMS!

Wohlrabe's comparison of a pastor compelling the reception of the Lord's Supper with my compelling congregations to adopt Voters' Assemblies equates the Voters' Assemblies with the means of grace. He needs a different comparison. Voters' Assemblies are no more a means of grace than the mandated custom of public ordination.

Back in the bad old legalistic days of 1947, the Synod published a three Volume set titled, "The Abiding Word." In Volume II, page 460, we find the following legalistic comments about Voters' Assemblies in the LCMS with which I wholeheartedly agree in the article titled "The Lutheran Congregation" by G. Perlich:

"A. The Voters' Meeting: If the congregation is to function and fully exercise its DIVINELY IMPOSED RIGHTS AND DUTIES in a conscientious, profitable, and God-pleasing manner, IT MUST, [just look at the outrageous legalism here] in the first place, hold public church assemblies in which it considers and determines all things THAT ARE NECESSARY [more legalism here from the LCMS] for its special church management. Such public executive church assemblies Christ presupposes when He commands Matt. 18:17-18 "Tell it unto the church." Such executive assemblies were generally maintained in the first Christian congregation, as the Book of Acts records, 1:15. 23-25, Acts 15:5: 23.

"We call these assembly's voters' meetings, [as we do today] for we admit to them as authorized to vote only the adult male members of the church. Since the final authority in all matters is vested in the congregation and not in a few members of the congregation, it would seem evident that all of the members of the congregation are responsible for what the congregation does. But God Himself has made certain restricts." (The article goes on to explain why women and children cannot vote).

I also agree with Mundinger's "legalism" when he writes on page 165: "Walther states that their ultimate aim was to introduce uniform church government in all congregations served by them according to the pattern set by Luther."

Obviously, if Wohlrabe had been in Walther's place, there would not be an LCMS today. One wonders what Walther's reaction would be if he knew that 152 years after the Synod's founding an LCMS pastor of Italian descent from New York City was debating an LCMS theologian of German descent on why there must be Voters' Assemblies in the LCMS? Is the genetic pool running dry? Sieg heil! The comedy must soon become calamity.

One can also see from above that those who led the 1969 LCMS Convention to adopt woman suffrage were actually bent on sabotaging and removing the entire system of Voters' Assemblies in the LCMS. With theologians such as Wohlrabe, and many more at both Seminaries, they have accomplished their goal.

Doctor Wohlrabe leads us to believe that Walther didn't require Voters' Assemblies in LCMS Congregations. The Council of District Presidents in 1999 agrees with Dr. Wohlrabe. Therefore we now see a zoo of congregational structures in the Synod. Wohlrabe is eager to call me a legalist yet any congregation that rewrites its constitution in the LCMS will soon experience the wrath of the District President if it doesn't have the proper wording about Synodical and District affiliation. Where did Walther require that? The COP's concern is not about congregational polity but District control of the pastor and the congregation. Wohlrabe is their apologist.

October 12, 1999

[ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]