Comment: More than a week ago
Reclaim News issued a release titled "Marquart Defends Scaer:
Our Rebuttal." A copy of Christian News had been faxed to Reclaim
News with the information from Fort Wayne. It appeared that the
information was written by Dr. Kurt Marquart but was unsigned in CN. We were
informed by CN that the information was actually from President Wenthe's
office.
I hope that Dr. Marquart will accept this apology for this error.
Doctor Wenthe wrote a noble defense for Dr. Scaer in response to the
article titled "Battle For LCMS Church Property
Intensifies."
In Defense of Scaer Wenthe Writes:
"Dr. Scaer's essay was meant to provoke discussion, and will no doubt
do so. Healthy debate is a good thing. Unfortunately Pr. Cascione's attach is
based more on assumption than on fact. For instance "[Scaer] calls 7-17a
[re. Walther's 'Church and Ministry'] personally disastrous for pastors and
worse, it denies Christ's establishment of the ministry.' Firstly, as even
Cascione's excerpted paragraphs prove, Scaer was not talking about Resolution
7-17a at all in the above statement. Secondly Scaer actually says the
opposite; "Christ's establishment of the ministry . . . is at the heart
of the Walther resolution (7-17a)."
The esteemed Seminary President's defense of Dr. Scaer's 2002 Symposium
essay, "Missouri's Identity Crisis: Rootless in America" is
appreciated.
Let's assume that Wenthe is correct and that the following sentence by Dr.
Scaer is a defense of 7-17a, a resolution reaffirming Walther's "Church
and Ministry" as the official position of the LCMS.
Scaer writes: "This is personally disastrous for pastors and worse, it
denies Christ's establishment of the ministry, which is at the heart of the
Walther resolution (7-17a)."
Assuming Wenthe is correct, first, Christ's establishment of the ministry
is not the heart of Walther's "Church and Ministry." If that were
the case it would reverse the title. Rather, the heart of Walther's
"Church and Ministry" is doctrinal proof for congregational autonomy
and self-governance, including the right to issue a divine call. God makes a
man a minister through the congregation. However, who would be surprised that
Scaer, if he is indeed speaking favorably about 7-17a, would consider the
ministry the "heart" of Walther's book instead of the congregation?
Second, Scaer also had pejorative comments about 7-17a in other parts of
his paper as follows:
"The group gathering around 'A Brief Statement' sees the church in
nineteenth century terms and is often called the bronze agers. . . "
(page 3)
"Its [the group gathered around 'A Brief Statement'] influence was
evident in a resolution . . . establishing C. F. W. Walther's understanding of
the church as "norma normans et normata." (see footnote 4 on 7-17a)
"It should be noted that the Walther resolution came out of the
Committee on Structure, Planning and Administration and not from the one on
Theology and Church Relations, . . ."
"Regretfully it [7-17a] could be used to encourage anti-clericalism
and does not resolve the confusion swirling around 'minister' and 'ministry,'
words which are incapable of redemptive definition in the present milieu.
Resurrecting antiquity, even in well-intentioned resolutions, is like
pretending we have not aged."
"In this case, [7-17a] we may have hindered resolving an issue which
divided confessional minded Lutherans from the mid-nineteenth century, as
Sasse noted already in 1961." (see footnote 14 [Loehe verse Walther] on
7-17a.)
"A theology [spoken in the context of 7-17a] that lives within the
past is reluctant to examine itself, because it assumes that in any
controversy it was and therefore is right. Historicism replaces
theology." Page 4
Scaer speaks favorably of a Brookfield, Illinois Pastor, Rev. Walther
Otten, who is petitioning the CTCR to learn if the LCMS believes that
ordination is a sacrament, the very thing that Walther denounces in 7-17a.
Even if we agree with Wenthe's defense of Scaer how does he explain all of
Scaer's other attacks on 7-17a above?
There is no question that Scaer objects to 7-11, which prevents the Synod
from owning its congregations. This resolution simply reaffirms the practice
of congregational autonomy in 7-17a. Therefore, coincidently, Scaer also
attacks resolution 7-11 as follows:
"Resolution 7-ll, 'To Move Property Ownership Bylaw to Constitution,'
reaffirms that the Synod is more a corporation than a church by asserting that
it has no equity in a congregation's property." Page 5
"It [7-11] allows for a bizarre congregationalism in which any number
of people can constitute a legal meeting and can deprive others not in
attendance of church property." Page 5
"Sadly the downside is that Synod loses its churchly character and we
see ourselves as members of a mere confederation at best and a free
association at worst." Page 6
As Doctor Wenthe knows very well, the LCMS is not a church and has never
been a church. The Handbook of the LCMS describes the LCMS in the very first
line to be "a Synodical Union."
Resolution 7-17a teaches that the congregations are churches because they
administer the Word and Sacraments. The Synod is not church because it doesn't
baptize, confirm, or commune anyone. Accordingly, the LCMS President doesn't
have the authority to consecrate the elements at the Synodical Convention.
The "bizarre congregationalism" which Scaer describes is the very
heart of congregational self-government promoted by C. F. W. Walther.
I am all in favor of "provoking discussion" and "healthy
debate." But these things don't happen at Fort Wayne. It is all one
sided.
The Chairman of the Board of Regents of Fort Wayne notified me in writing
in the Spring of 2000 that the faculty officially voted not to give an opinion
on following statement;
"'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)
When will there be a paper given at the Symposium denouncing ordination is
a sacrament, Episcopal hierarchy, and defending resolution 7-17a,
congregations owning their own deeds, and voter supremacy in the LCMS?
The hyper-euro-Lutherans at Fort Wayne will never permit this. This is
where all of the pleas for healthy debate come to an end.
One would think that a 73% approval of 7-17a would have had some impact on
Wenthe and Scaer.
The Seminary's priorities are in question. The faculty boldly and
rightfully speaks out about Benke's participation in the 'prayer service' at
Yankee Stadium, but what about defending the official polity of the entire
Synod? On this issue they remain silent on 7-17a and even use their forums to
attack it.