Reply to Marquart:
Why There Must Be Voter Supremacy in the LCMS
By Rev. Jack Cascione

We appreciate Professor Marquart's time and effort in giving a public reply to the letter sent to every faculty member at Fort Wayne. At this time 6 of the 33 professors have agreed that they support Walther's position on Voter Supremacy as the official position of the LCMS.

The "confusion" to which Professor Marquart refers on Voters' Assemblies is found in both seminaries and the District Offices of the LCMS. If Marquart wants to address Clyde Nehrenz he should write to Clyde Nehrenz.

It seems strange to me that the man whom I regard of the Synod's most eminent scholar and theologian can be so confused on a secondary, even tertiary, but absolutely necessary teaching on congregational polity.

Professor Marquart's book on church and ministry is on my shelf. It is excellent reading on the subject. However, Marquart is incapable of dropping the second shoe, namely, a book on polity that teaches practical things like how to run a Voters' meeting, lay out a church constitution, and place the final judgment in all matters in the hands of the lay people. This is exactly what Walther did in his "The True Visible Church" and "The Form of a Christian Congregation."

Yes, I heard Marquart's paper in Chicago three years ago. I questioned it at the meeting. When I announced at the microphone in the presence of some 250 attendees, that I had a copy of Walther's "Church and Ministry" in my hand, I was summarily booed and jeered by the gathering.

When I quoted a selection from the Lutheran Confessions in Walther's "Church and Ministry," the booing and jeers grew louder. The Systematic Departments at both seminaries have created much of this confusion among the clergy.

Responding to Marquart's three points:

1. Correcting Some Misunderstandings

There were a number of pastors present when at least two of Marquart's graduates and I raised our voices in a rather heated fashion on whether or not Christ died for "Word and Sacrament" and not just the people. The "rubbish" will continue to pile up until a particular form of polity is instilled in the graduates.

Marquart leaves us with no explanation for the solution he says is "perfectly simple." We know that the Greek word for "Church" means a "gathering" or "assembly." But what does Marquart teach? Are the Voters "Church?" Marquart will not give us an answer.

We appreciate his candor in admitting that the CTCR has taken the definition of "Church" away from the lay people and identified it with the "worship service". Now the lay people know they are no longer a "Church" in the LCMS.

"Church" is now what you do instead of who you are. Hence, Christ died for what we do. So, why shouldn't the clergy come to the conclusion that Christ died for the marks of the Church, namely "Word and Sacrament." If the Voters or the membership roster are not "Church," then the worship service must necessarily be "Church".

Marquart's account of our conversation at the January 2000 Symposium is quite accurate, except to say he refused to agree that LCMS congregations should be governed by Supreme Voters' Assemblies.

Yes, I agree that my identifying a pay check as a heavenly instead of a spiritual gift was a bit of sophistry, but most of us count our pay checks as a gift from God and also when the lay people share what they have with the Church, whatever that word "Church" means for the CTCR.

Once again Marquart does not tell us what spiritual gifts the pastor receives at his ordination through the laying on of hands that the preschool and kindergarten children did not receive at their Baptism.

Yes, God answers prayers of the laity but do His answers come through the hands of the pastors at ordination? Marquart does not answer. How about adding a standard laymen's prayer at every ordination in the Agenda. "Oh Lord, send your spiritual gifts of the ministry through the hands of the pastors on top of that man's head. You answer all prayers, so we know that those hands are effective. Amen."

2. Synod as Church

I have never questioned the Synod's right to govern as a representative body with the authority that was given to it by the Voters' Assemblies of the LCMS.

In my reply to Logia, titled "Logia's Continued Assault on Walther and Voters' Assemblies" I quote, J. T. Muller who, in turn, quotes Pieper in support of the representative Church (eccleisa repraesentativa). (J. T. Mueller, "The Dogmatics of the Christian Church" CPH, St. Louis, 1934, page 561-2) ".This declaration rests upon the correct, Scriptural principle that the local church is divinely appointed and is vested not only with the Office of the Keys, but the supreme authority to direct all matters pertaining to church polity, Matt. 18:15-18; 1Cor. 5:11-13; 14:33-36. (Cp. Luther, St. L., IX, 1253f.; X, 1540ff.; XIX, 858ff.; Christian Dogmatics III, 492-501)"

The congregations of the Synod through their Voters' Assemblies have bound themselves to the Bible, The Lutheran Confessions, and the Synodical Constitution.

3. "Voter Supremacy"

What Marquart calls "worldly, political sloganeering" is exactly what is written in the Lutheran Confessions.

Walther 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." (Treatise, Concordia Triglotta, page 507, par. 11)

"Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: 'Tell I to the Church.'" (Treatise, Concordia Triglotta 511 par. 24) (The word "supreme " is strangely missing from the Concordance to the Lutheran Confessions at this citation.)

Walther defined the Voters' as "Church" as follows: "The Congregational Meetings: 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)

Walther simply describes the entire congregation as holding the Office of the Keys, but God does not permit the women and children to speak in the public meeting. What could be simpler? Any other structure of government in the church is necessarily delegated and agreed to by the congregation. At this time the LCMS has agreed to this Voter Supremacy, but they now let women vote. They have yet to give children the right to vote.

I understand in view of woman suffrage that it was necessary for the CTCR to shift the definition of "Church" to the worship service instead of the congregational roster, thus giving the pastor "headship" over the congregation no matter who votes.

Marquart calls "Voter Supremacy" sloganeering, but Walther and many who followed him in the Synod spoke about supreme assemblies. It is unthinkable for Marquart that the scholars, the clergy, and the future graduates of the Seminary are all to submit to the will of ignorant lay people in LCMS Voters' Assemblies. If the lay people are so ignorant, then why not teach them?

Marquart knows very well that Walther continually held the Word of God as supreme over the church. He also held that the final judgment on the Word of God would be with Voters' Assemblies where the pastor gets one vote.

Marquart leaves us no choice but for the clergy to rule the congregation, since he takes this authority away from the Voters' Assembly and ultimately brings back the theology of Loehe.

Marquart makes adiaphora the major work of the Voters' Assembly, when Walther taught that the Voters "judge doctrine." If they can't judge doctrine, they must believe what the pastor believes. This is why there are no doctrinal controversies in the Roman Catholic congregations.

The following are Walther's words, not mine: '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)

Marquart twists and turns and denounces tyranny of every form. However, I ask the reader, after Marquart has finished, to tell me how things are to be accomplished in a Marquartian LCMS congregation? There we have silence.

Let us imagine how it might be:

First, we all gather together. There is no definition for "we" and there is no definition for "gather." This is a scholar's dream.

Second, doctrinal issues concerning a call or worship or excommunication or teaching in the congregation might be raised. We don't know who or how.

Third, the Bible is read.

Fourth, we all submit to the Bible. Perhaps there will be silence for a space of time so the Spirit can work on our hearts. But who will speak for and identify the nature of this submission? It can't be those, ignorant, controlling, usurping, tyrannical soviets, the Supreme Voters' Assembly (SVA). Wait, we know the answer. It is the pastor (P[ope]). Grabau was right.

There is little wonder that Marquart cannot agree with the letter sent to the faculty and with the statement of Rev. David Anderson, Chairman of the Board of Regents, who claims I have sinned because I say the faculty doesn't support Voter Supremacy. (Enter Kafka). Is this what Anderson calls support for Voter Supremacy?

I have much more to say about the false claims that Walther introduced democracy, hence mob rule, into LCMS congregations. Please read my article, "Logia's Continued Assault on Walther and Voters' Assemblies" on www.reclaimingwalther.org

After reading Marquart, Norbert Oesch will genuflect and cross himself, knowing that he couldn't have said it better. He will take Marquart's letter; send it the BHE study "group" on PLI and say, "This is what we teach. Marquart has written the theology for PLI."

The COP will say, "Thank you, Professor Marquart, this is exactly what we believe. You have defended our right to reorganize congregations around Leadership Training because the Synod has no official polity but the love of Christ."

Ralph Reinke will say "Amen." Any further comment would be theologizing on his part.

At least the layman knows why his Synod, and I said "his Synod," the one he bought and paid for, is imploding. There never was a church body without polity and Marquart's polity is like the hole of a doughnut. You just can't find it and there is all this wonderful space to fill in the blanks. A good pastor will know what to do.

It is little wonder that a group of clergy encouraged Dr. Martin Noland not to debate me in public for the good of the Synod.

Polity really does matter.

Once again we express our appreciation for Professor Marquart's willingness to speak on this issue.