Log Out | Topics | Search

Archive through February 28, 2021 Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Luther Quest Discussion Group » General Discussions » 3 Cases of Conscience » Archive through February 28, 2021 « Previous Next »

Author Message

Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 7:22 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Case I - Family Representation and the Voter Assembly: It is written in the Sacred Scriptures that "God setteth the solitary in families" (Psalms 68.6). The majority of conservative historians
(Casusconscientiae) have come to the conclusion that the political unit of society and of the State is the family. That was the established conventional wisdom of conservative Bible-believing Christians in the 19th
New member Century, However, a certain Lutheran writer, F. P. Mayser, in The Lutheran Church Review, Volume 18, page 484, 485, opposes the opinion of the then synodical committee that "A congregation
Username: Casusconscientiae
violates no Scriptural or Lutheran principle where a family is not otherwise represented by providing for the votes of communicant members without regard to sex" (Engl Min 1898 p 81) as being
Post Number: 1 contrary to the plain teaching of the Scriptures in the New Testament against women usurping ecclesiastical authority over men. His reasons are: (1) "If the Scriptures recognize us as voters at all,
Registered: 2-2021 they do not recognize us as families, but as individuals. No one votes for a family, but for himself only." (2) "The "opinion" assumes that "a family" - possibly composed of a number of male and
female members - may be "represented" by one male member at a congregational meeting, and one vote would be cast for the whole family. We deny the right of such representation of the female
members of the family, but granting this right, for argument's sake, it is very doubtful whether the one vote expresses the views and convictions of all the other members of the family." You only
need to read his 3rd and 4th reasons to see that he agrees that for women to vote in the voter assembly is a usurpation of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction the Scriptures reserves only for (duly
qualified, if not also specially appointed) adult males. His fifth and last reason is: (5) "It is also a fallacy to suppose, that a wife, who is "represented" by a husband at a congregational meeting
thereby exercises more rights and privileges than a widow or single woman, if the latter are debarred from voting. The husband of a wife votes only for himself and not for his wife, depositing only
one vote. The wife has, therefore, no more to say in the matter than the widow or single woman. If the right of voting is to be given to the widow and the female members of a family not otherwise
represented, as seems to be contemplated in the report of the committee, it must in justice be given to all women, whether single or married." The 1st, 2nd, and 5th reasons of his, however, are
contrary to the received conventional wisdom of his time, which held that women are represented by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons at the ballot box, and which held that the family is
the political unit. It is the plain teaching of Scripture that a house (including a family) divided against itself cannot stand (Mark 3.24/26, Luke 11.17/18). Therefore, it follows that the burden of
proof is on F. P. Mayser to prove from the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions that if "the Scriptures recognize us as voters at all, they do not recognize us as families, but as individuals", and to
prove his 1st, 2nd, and 5th reasons (however, everyone knows that his 3rd and 4th reasons are the natural result of C. F. W. Walther's doctrine of Voter Supremacy and the Bible's teaching found in
1 Timothy 2:12). So, is the claim of F. P. Mayser expressed in his 1st, 2nd, and 5th reasons the true teaching of the Scripture or not on this case of conscience? Please provide a sound theological
proof from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions. At least one thing is obvious: "woman suffrage" and "voter supremacy" cannot both be mixed together in the same congregation without resulting in
a violation of the Divine Order of the Creation.
Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 11:00 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Case II - Voter Assemblies and the Case of Adult Children living with their Fathers: A male member of some Confessional Lutheran congregation is a Voting Member of that congregation,
(Casusconscientiae) and he has a wife, but no daughters, but only two sons, both of which are of the minimum age necessary to be eligible to vote in the congregation. But both of them are still living with their father
New member and neither of these two sons has yet found a woman he would like to marry, and they are still searching. The Bible prescribes that sons (and daughters) should obey their fathers as head of the
Username: Casusconscientiae
home. Thus, according to the teachings of the Bible, Lutheran Confessions, and the doctrinal teachings of C. F. W. Walther on Church Polity, will these two sons be eligible to be members of the
Post Number: 4 Voter Assembly and vote in the congregation alongside with their father? Or will that be contrary to their duty of obedience to their father? Explain why or why not, using sound proofs of the Bible,
Registered: 2-2021 Lutheran Confessions, and the writings of C. F. W. Walther & the writings of the old German LC-MS synod before the year 1967 in which women were given the congregational vote in the LCMS.
Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 11:02 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Case III - Voter Assemblies and the Relationship between Masters and Domestic Servants living in the same Household: In some confessional Lutheran congregation, there is a married
(Casusconscientiae) male head of the home with a wife, children (all of them minor children and too young to vote in the Voter Assembly), hired and paid manservants and maidservants (and all the manservants are
New member old enough to vote in the voter assembly), and he himself is a voting member of the congregation in good ecclesiastical standing. Now, the Bible teaches in so many plain and explicit sedes
Username: Casusconscientiae
doctrinae that it is the duty of the manservants and maidservants to obey their master. One day, there is an important voter assembly in his congregation, and all the adult manservants, having
Post Number: 5 finished all their household duties for the day, decide to attend the voter assembly with their master of the house. Now, according to the teachings of the Bible, Lutheran Confessions, and the
Registered: 2-2021 doctrinal teachings of C. F. W. Walther on Church Polity, will these adult manservants be eligible to be members of the Voter Assembly and vote in the congregation alongside with their master? Or
will that be contrary to their duty of subjection and obedience to the master of the house? Also, is not the master of the house the fittest member of the house to represent the whole household by
his votes in the voter assembly? And if so, does that not prove that the extra votes of the manservants are needless and superfluous; and also that if these manservants decide to vote against their
master, does that not prove that they are divided against their master? Have you never read the Bible which says that a house (including a family) divided against itself cannot stand (Mark
3.24/26, Luke 11.17/18)? Thus in light of these considerations, it is lawful according to the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions for the local congregation to give these manservants the
right to vote in the local congregation's voter assembly along with their master? Or is that a violation of the plain sedes doctrinae which teach that servants must obey their masters? Explain why or
why not, using sound proofs of the Bible, Lutheran Confessions, and the writings of C. F. W. Walther & the writings of the old German LC-MS synod before the year 1967 in which women were
given the congregational vote in the LCMS.
Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 10:15 am:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) Hi Juan Jeaninniton:

Intermediate Member
Username: Cardinal
Thank you for your post. I would be glad to reply, but can you tell me your name? Do you know Rev. Todd Seaver?
Post Number: 419
Registered: 11-2004 Your interest in getting voter polity correct, while the LCMS is in collapse, is remarkable. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the LCMS never grew again after it made congregations unmanageable
by introducing woman suffrage in the 1969 LCMS Convention. All the COP's innovations of patchwork polity have been a miserable failure.

Much of your post reminds me of the Sadducee’s proof for why there was no resurrection of the dead.

Jack Cascione

Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 11:25 am:

Juan Jeanniton My name is Juan Jeanniton, but I do not personally know Rev. Todd Seaver. You said "Much of your post reminds me of the Sadducee’s proof for why there was no resurrection of the dead"; but
(Casusconscientiae) that is a misunderstanding of my real intentions and motives. Never in these posts have I ever assumed even once that C. F. W. Walther's doctrine of the supremacy of the Voter Assembly is false.
New member Oh, but on the contrary, my 3 cases of conscience have been SPECIFICALLY designed to make the assumption that C F W Walther's Missourian doctrine of the supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction
Username: Casusconscientiae of the voter assembly is the only true polity which agrees with the teachings of the Bible on Church Government!
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2021 Either the time-worn traditional notion that it is not the individual but the family that is the unit of representation of the laity within the voter assembly of a church congregation is the true Reine-Lehre
teaching of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, or else it isn't!

First of all, according to the true Reine-Lehre teaching of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, is the unit of representation of the laity within the voter assembly of a church congregation the adult
male individual whether he is head of his family or not, or is it the family as represented by its only lawful male head of the home?

Now, if it be the true teaching of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions that it is not the individual but the family that is the unit of representation of the laity within the voter assembly of a church
congregation, well then, under the assumption that C F W Walther's Missourian doctrine of the supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the voter assembly is the only true polity which agrees with the
teachings of the Bible on Church Government, is it permissible for adult unmarried sons living with their father in their father's house to each have a vote in the voter assembly with their father in the
same local congregation, or does the father lawfully represent his adult sons there, so that this father should do all the voting in order to represent his unmarried adult sons? Is it permissible for
adult unmarried manservants living in the same household as the master of the house to each have a vote in the voter assembly on a par with their master, or does the master of that house lawfully
represent his adult manservants there, so that the master instead should do all the voting in order to represent his unmarried adult manservants? Please provide a detailed point-by-point proof from
the Bible and Lutheran Confessions.
Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 1:07 pm:

Rev. Richard A. Bolland Actually, there is no biblically mandated form of governance for the Christian congregation. Congregations may be episcopal in structure, congregational in structure, and (during Apostolic times)
(Bolland) appointive in structure (with the Apostles appointing pastors/elders for each congregation - Titus 1:5).
Advanced Member
Username: Bolland There is a good argument to be made that as the husband is the head of the household and the head of his wife (as Christ is the head of His Church), that the family model of the husband
Post Number: 935 representing the family is certainly valid.
Registered: 8-2001
Second, there is no evidence that voter's meetings were the mode of governance during the time of the reformation nor for some time following the Reformation. Not that voter's meeting are bad,
they're not. They are merely one option for the Church to employ as a way of governance.

Our first obligation is to say no more, nor no less than what Scripture and the Confessions say. Please provide one example of our Confessions mandating a voter's assembly? Neither do they
forbid it.

“It does no good to say: I will gladly confess Christ and His Word in all articles except one or two which my tyrannical masters will not tolerate...but he who denies Christ in one article or word has in
this one article denied the same Christ who would be denied in all articles..." (W-Br 3)

Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 4:17 pm:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) Hi Juan:

Intermediate Member
Username: Cardinal I was wondering about your identity because your name on your personal email to me requesting my reply and your name here on Luther Quest have two different spellings.
Post Number: 420
Registered: 11-2004 Don't mind Richard Bolland. He is a great guy but he is wrong on this one. He believes all the nonsense the LCMS tells him about voter polity.

Before I give a more detailed answer, could you answer two questions? First, what verses do you quote that teach women cannot be pastors? You need two. I would sure also like to hear Bolland's
reply on this one. Let's see who throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Second, you are confessional guy, at least that is how you present yourself. So where are you a pastor?

Thank you
Jack

Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 4:55 pm:

Juan Jeanniton I am not a pastor but a layman who has decided to put the presumption in favor of C F W Walther, and more importantly, even though I am not a Lutheran, I have decided to pose these questions
(Casusconscientiae) from a Confessional Lutheran point of view.
New member
Username: Casusconscientiae
The scriptures that I am quoting that say women are ineligible for the office of pastor (or any other species of ecclesiastical jurisdiction) are precisely 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 (quoting Genesis 3:16
Post Number: 7 as the reason) and 1 Timothy 2:11/15 (reason is found in 1 Timothy 2:13) - those are precisely the two sedes doctrinae that the unbroken continuous perpetual universal church has quoted for
Registered: 2-2021 almost 2000 years. Both of them use the due subjection of woman to man as the reason for their rulings.

Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 5:56 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Rev. Bolland, you said:

(Casusconscientiae)
New member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 8 Actually, there is no biblically mandated form of governance for the Christian congregation. Congregations may be episcopal in structure, congregational in structure, and (during
Registered: 2-2021 Apostolic times) appointive in structure (with the Apostles appointing pastors/elders for each congregation - Titus 1:5).

There is a good argument to be made that as the husband is the head of the household and the head of his wife (as Christ is the head of His Church), that the family model of the
husband representing the family is certainly valid.

Second, there is no evidence that voter's meetings were the mode of governance during the time of the reformation nor for some time following the Reformation. Not that voter's
meeting are bad, they're not. They are merely one option for the Church to employ as a way of governance.

Our first obligation is to say no more, nor no less than what Scripture and the Confessions say. Please provide one example of our Confessions mandating a voter's assembly?
Neither do they forbid it.

But those claims of yours are unacceptable for the following reasons:

Firstly, a given church polity either agrees with the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions concerning church government, or else it doesn't. If the given particular form of church polity is
contrary to the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, it must be abandoned without delay. It is better to DIE than deny the pure doctrine of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, even in
what they teach on matters of church government.

Secondly, your statement that "there is no biblically mandated form of governance for the Christian congregation" needs to be carefully distinguished. There is a difference between GENERIC
authority and SPECIFIC authority. Generic authority gives us the authority and freedom to keep a given law or practice a given bible teaching in any way we like provided that it be not contrary to
the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, and yet even so, that one proviso fails to specify any ONE particular way of keeping the particular precept or particular teaching. For example,
Hebrews 10:25 is a sedes doctrinae which forbids us from forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, but according to the pietistic Campbellite sect calling itself Church of Christ
(https://focusmagazine.org/generic-and-specific-aut hority.php), "does not specify a place where they are to meet. Considering other Scriptures, we can see authority for Christians to assemble in
homes (Acts 20:7), in the temple (Acts 5:12), in a facility used as a school (Acts 19:9), and likely in a place set apart for an assembly (Jas. 2:2—“assembly” is the Greek word synagogue, used of
an assembly and the place of the assembly). So, we can see that Scripture grants general (or generic) authority for the church to meet in a variety of places and to do what is necessary to secure a
place to meet." But SPECIFIC authority is far more precise and stringent than this: it not only commands a certain thing to be done, it not only constitutes a sedes doctrinae for a given particular
teaching or practice: it does so with such specificity, clarity, precision, and punctiliousness that it prescribes the particualar manner in which the practice is to be practiced so peremptorily that it
denies us the entire liberty of observing the practice according to some other method or manner other than the one specifically prescribed and mentioned in the sedes doctrinae. For example,
when God commanded Noah to build an ARK, He specified an ARK. This excludes the entire liberty of building a GALLEON, a FRIGATE, a STEAMSHIP, a CAR, a BICYCLE, a TRICYCLE.
Furthermore when God commanded Noah to build the ark, He specified that it should be built of GOPHER wood. This specifies a type of wood and therefore denies the entire liberty of building the
ark out of any other kind of wood. In the Blessed Sacrament of Baptism, Jesus Christ specified that the baptism should be in WATER: all other substances like SAND, MUD, ALCOHOL, WINE,
BEER, WHISKY, GIN, VODKA, RUM, TEQUILA, etc. are all excluded. He also specified that the baptism should be in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: all other
names, whether the Virgin Mary, or St. Agatha, or St. Lucy, or the name of Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England, or the Prince of Wales, or the name of the State of Missouri,
Wisconsin, etc., are all excluded, just as verily as Allah, Mahommitt, Abu Baker, Bhudda, Hare-Krishna, Vishnu, Baal, Moloch, Chemosh, Ku, Kane, Lono, Pele, Quetzalcoatl, Tezcatlipoca, "Mother
Earth", Gaia, Thunderbird, etc. THEY'RE ALL EXCLUDED! Furthermore, Jesus Christ in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist commanded that BREAD should be used for the body of Christ: all
other farinaceous foods, like PIZZA, DONUTS, RICE, HOT-DOGS, POTATO CHIPS, PRETZELS, COOKIES, DORITOS, are all excluded. He also specified the FRUIT OF THE VINE in drinkable
form, alias WINE, to be used for the blood of Christ: all other liquid drinks, like KOOL AID, ROOT BEER, BUDWEISER, GIN, WHISKEY, VODKA, RUM, etc. are ALL EXCLUDED - not because
they are intrinsically evil, but because they are not the stuff the Bible and Lutheran Confessions SPECIFIED should be used in the respective SACRAMENTS in the divine liturgy! It is a maxim even
of English common law, that "if an affirmative statute, which is introductive of a new law, direct a thing to be done in a certain manner, that a thing shall not, even though there are no negative
words, be done in any other manner."

Even if the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran confessions give us a whole variety of differing options each of which is equally acceptable and equally lawful, the one thing that is NOT acceptable
is a polity that CONTRADICTS the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions on the question of Church Government! Nor on any other question or topic!
Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 7:03 pm:

Rev. Richard A. Bolland Jack, you're a great guy too. Please provide biblical/confessional citations that voter's meetings are to be done within the context of a Christian congregation. Don't get me wrong, voter's meetings
(Bolland) are fine, but they have no Scriptural basis any more than an episcopal structure or a pastor-led structure.
Advanced Member
Username: Bolland “It does no good to say: I will gladly confess Christ and His Word in all articles except one or two which my tyrannical masters will not tolerate...but he who denies Christ in one article or word has in
Post Number: 936 this one article denied the same Christ who would be denied in all articles..." (W-Br 3)
Registered: 8-2001

Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 7:19 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Rev. Bolland, the Rev. Cascione has ALREADY provided the citations in favor of the voter assembly. See www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/-400/jmc00083.htm. The question of whether the
(Casusconscientiae) voter assembly ought to have supreme authority is not under debate. My 3 cases of conscience were SPECIFICALLY formulated to make the a priori assumption that the supremacy of the voter
New member assembly is the ONLY true polity which conforms to the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions on Church Government!!
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2021

Posted on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 7:56 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Rev. Cascione, I have answered your two questions. Now, have you figured out what the Bible and Lutheran Confessions teaches about Case I: Is the scripturally and confessionally recognized
(Casusconscientiae) unit of representation in the Voter Assembly the individual, or is it the family?
New member
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2021

Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2021 - 8:58 am:

Juan Jeanniton And in order to prevent any misunderstanding, I define the unit of representation in the voter assembly to be: The smallest and simplest of all those possible electorally self-representing entities
(Casusconscientiae) (viz.: each of which is lawfully and justly competent to represent itself just as though it had no need to be actually nor virtually represented electorally by some larger group of which it is or may be a
New member member in order to be electorally represented at all), such that: firstly, each such self-representing entity is part and parcel of the local congregation, and secondly, there is no just or reasonable
Username: Casusconscientiae cause under the pretext of the teachings of the Bible and Lutheran Confessions, and/or the rules of the church constitutive of its polity for assuming that any such self-representing entity within the
Post Number: 12 local congregation is necessarily authorized by such biblical & confessional teachings and/or such ecclesiastical rules, to represent anyone outside of itself.
Registered: 2-2021

Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2021 - 10:37 am:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) Hi Juan:

Intermediate Member
Username: Cardinal You have obviously had significant theological training. Thank you for the two Bible passages you believe prohibit women from holding the pastoral office.
Post Number: 421
Registered: 11-2004 34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1Co 14:34-35 NAS)

11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.
15 But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (1Ti 2:11-1 NAS)

I’m waiting for Pastor Bolland to respond. He knows where I’m coming from and the trick I’m going to pull by quoting Scripture on the role of women in the congregation. Will he please tell us which
Bible passages (must be at least two) he believes prohibit women from holding the pastoral office?

Perhaps yesterday’s vote by the House of Representatives to remove all legal distinctions between men and women is preventing him from speaking. The LCMS has gone from congregational
polity to multiple choice. In the public square marketplace, the LCMS has chosen to abandon its differentiation from the broad spectrum of American congregations and surrender considerable
“market share.” They have posted a sign, “Hey everybody. We are just like all the other churches.”
Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2021 - 11:00 am:

Juan Jeanniton Rev. Cascione, that still does not answer the question about Case I: Is the scripturally and confessionally recognized unit of representation in the Voter Assembly the individual, or is it the family?
(Casusconscientiae) And here is the meaning of "unit of representation": click here.
New member
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2021

Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2021 - 11:59 am:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) It all depends on how the above passages are interpreted. The LCMS has vacillated from applying these verses to the voters' assembly, and then to the pastoral office, and now to uncertainty if
Intermediate Member they apply to the church today.
Username: Cardinal

Post Number: 422 Bolland’s reply raises the question as to whether the LCMS negation of polity actually negates the pastoral office. Do these verses apply to the pastoral office, congregational polity, the family, two
Registered: 11-2004 of the three, or all three? The so-called and misnamed “headship principle” is in constant flux because the LCMS separates this principle from gender whenever convenient. They gave themselves
lots of wiggle room by moving from the specific to generalizations.

For example, your casuistry about a man with sons having more influence in the voters’ assembly than a man with no sons, also applies to a woman in the voters’ assembly, who has four
daughters as did my mother-in-law. Believers are not saved by families but as individuals. Therefore, the above verses apply to women in the church as individuals. This is why Paul says, “a
woman” and not "women".

Let's give Bolland more time to reply before we continue.

Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2021 - 12:40 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Cascione, you have still not answered my question. Instead, you said,
(Casusconscientiae)
New member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 14 It all depends on how the above passages are interpreted. The LCMS has vacillated from applying these verses to the voters' assembly, and then to the pastoral office, and now
Registered: 2-2021 to uncertainty if they apply to the church today.

But that misses the point. My 3 cases of conscience were SPECIFICALLY formulated to assume (EXACTLY AS C. F. W. WALTHER, the founder the LUTHERAN CHURCH MISSOURI SYNOD'S
VOTER ASSEMBLIES DID!!!!) that those two verses 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 apply to the so-called voter assembly no less than to the pastoral office! And more importantly,
you have FAILED to provide detailed proof from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions. The thing I asked is that if these two verses of the Bible apply to the so-called voter assembly no less than to
the pastoral office, is the unit of representation in the voter assembly the individual or is it the family? Now if it is the family, then certainly it would be adult MALE heads of the home that are the
most fit and suitable to exercise the right to vote on behalf of his family; and of course it also follows that all females, even widows who are guardians of their minor children, are excluded. I never
even ONCE pleaded on this LutherQuest Forum for the right of widows with all their children minor children to harangue and vote in the Voter Assembly any more than CFW Walther ever did! And
the author I quoted in my first case of conscience wrote what he did SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of OPPOSING the right of women to vote in the congregational voter assembly! So the question
of whether women should vote at all in the voter assembly is not the point of these 3 cases of conscience, but you continue to act as though it were! The real question is whether the unit of
representation in the voter assembly is the individual or the family.

And when you answer these 3 cases of conscience, please provide detailed proof and citations from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions for your position.

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 7:09 am:

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) The church (i.e., the local congregation) is above its ministers (Of the Power and Jurisdiction of the Pope, 11). The local congregation (Augsburg Confession, VII, VIII) administers the gospel and
Senior Member has the sole authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers (Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops, 67-72).
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 4467 The candidates for the ministry must meet all the requirements of Small Catechism, Table of Duties. The nomination of qualified candidates for the ministry is performed by men of the congregation
Registered: 11-2004 (1 Tim 2:12).

I find the discussion of Cases 1, 2, and 3 to be very confusing and totally irrelevant to the necessity of congregational polity according to the doctrine of scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
However, I do accept voter supremacy with two provisos:

1. I reject the necessity of every adult male being enrolled. It could be a few as one or as many as all.

2. I reject the call, election, and ordination of ministerial candidates by any body other than the local congregation itself. The process is not complete until every assembled baptized man, woman,
and child of the congregation says “Amen”.
Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 10:25 am:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) You wrote: “The real question is whether the unit of representation in the voter[s’] assembly is the individual or the family.”
Intermediate Member
Username: Cardinal By the way, it is not “voter” but “voters’ assembly".
Post Number: 423
Registered: 11-2004 Thank you for the real question.

The answer is that the unit of representation in Walther’s polity is based on the individual and not the family because in the New Testament salvation is identified by baptism. In Israel only the males
were circumcised. Females were automatically born into the congregation of Israel, unless of course they renounce the God of Israel. There is nothing about this in the Lutheran Confessions. This
is from the Bible. Yes, there are cases where the New Testament refers to the salvation of the whole family, but each member of the family had to be baptized. (The Baptists are wrong when they
say this does not include infants.) No one can be baptized for another. Thus, the Israelite concept of family is directed by Mosaic Law, but not in the New Testament.

This is why Paul says I do not “permit a woman,” a quote from the Bible. Paul is not talking about families but a generic woman of any status in adulthood.

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 10:55 am:

Juan Jeanniton Mr. Gorman, you stated:

(Casusconscientiae)
New member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 15 I find the discussion of Cases 1, 2, and 3 to be very confusing and totally irrelevant to the necessity of congregational polity according to the doctrine of scripture and the Lutheran
Registered: 2-2021 Confessions.

But if the Bible and Lutheran Confessions do teach that it is not the INDIVIDUAL but the FAMILY that is the basic unit of society, well then no interpretation of the teachings of the Lutheran
Confessions on Church Polity that goes contrary to what the Bible and Lutheran Confessions teach about the basic unit of society, or tends to undermine the unity and harmony of the family can be
the true and accurate interpretation. Servants whether male or female must obey their masters; according to ancient conventional wisdom, the adult male master is the fittest and most suitable
person to represent the adult male manservants working in his household at the Voter Assembly, so why should these adult male manservants be considered eligible to vote there? Cannot the
adult male master of the house represent his male manservants there?

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 11:11 am:

Juan Jeanniton Rev. Cascione, you stated:

(Casusconscientiae)
New member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 16 You wrote: “The real question is whether the unit of representation in the voter[s’] assembly is the individual or the family.”
Registered: 2-2021
By the way, it is not “voter” but “voters’ assembly".

Thank you for the real question.

The answer is that the unit of representation in Walther’s polity is based on the individual and not the family because in the New Testament salvation is identified by baptism. In
Israel only the males were circumcised. Females were automatically born into the congregation of Israel, unless of course they renounce the God of Israel. There is nothing about
this in the Lutheran Confessions. This is from the Bible. Yes, there are cases where the New Testament refers to the salvation of the whole family, but each member of the family
had to be baptized. (The Baptists are wrong when they say this does not include infants.) No one can be baptized for another. Thus, the Israelite concept of family is directed by
Mosaic Law, but not in the New Testament.

I thank you for your reply. Therefore it follows that Mr. F. P. Mayser was right when he said, "If the Scriptures recognize us as voters at all, they do not recognize us as families, but as individuals.
No one votes for a family, but for himself only." But presumably even C. F. W. Walther himself, and his Missouri Synod, would have thought as many male heads of their families thought at that time
that since God "setteth the solitary in families", and has made man to dwell by families rather than individuals, and organized society by families, well then, ""a family" - possibly composed of a
number of male and female members - may be "represented" by one male member at a congregational meeting, and one vote would be cast for the whole family"!

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 11:55 am:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) I'm not convinced of your assessment of what Walther and his contemporaries thought versus what he statemented from the Bible and the Confessions.
Intermediate Member
Username: Cardinal In my experience with Voters' Assemblies (notice the capitalization), members usually voted in blocks, the same was true of friends, cousins, and followers, but not always. The result does not
Post Number: 424 prove the rule.
Registered: 11-2004
Excommunication requires a unanimous vote. I recall at least seven excommunications and some that failed. Excommunications that received a unanimous vote included one based on the
Masonic Lodge and six based on cohabitation. The community finally got the point. If you live together at that church, they will throw you out the door. After that, all I had to say was, "Get married,
separate, or get out, and they stopped challenging me. The Voters' Assembly is all about doctrine, the rest is fluff and stuff.

Some important issues were decided by one vote.

The community knew we were a real church and we set records for evangelism. Surpluses over the budget were common.

The congregation was more governable when women could not vote. That way men could argue without being embarrassed in front of their wives and they knew they were not in the ladies society
meeting.

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 12:18 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Rev. Cascione, you said:

(Casusconscientiae)
New member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 17 I'm not convinced of your assessment of what Walther and his contemporaries thought versus what he statemented from the Bible and the Confessions.
Registered: 2-2021

But you ought to know that surely these HUSBANDS can represent their WIVES at the Voters' Assembly of the local congregation without any NEED for the wives even to ATTEND at ALL!
Likewise, FATHERS can represent their DAUGHTERS, and adult SONS can represent their MOTHERS there, without any need for the daughters or mothers to even attend the meeting! Give me a
good reason from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions why this objection of mine is invalid.

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 2:58 pm:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) In practice I regularly told women that their husbands can speak for them in the Voters' Assembly. I also told the widows, single women, and women whose husbands did not belong to the church,
Intermediate Member that it was the elders' duty to represent them in the Voters' Assembly. I also told them that the Voters' Assembly is intended for service, not to exercise power or act as a legislative body. Women
Username: Cardinal
also have the right to object to any candidate on a Call List. Votes in church are not a democratic process, but an act of service. The Bible and the Confessions cannot change. The most important
Post Number: 425 act of the Voters' Assembly is to maintain the doctrine of the congregation. Every vote determines who agrees with the doctrine of the congregation.
Registered: 11-2004
The color of paint on the wall is not a doctrinal issue unless someone comes up with some legalism about what colors the Bible says should be used. Holding church suppers has nothing do with
doctrine, unless someone says Christians should not eat pork or drink beer.

I also told them (many of them union-worker families), that their husbands would be glad to stay home, watch TV, drink beer, and let their wives go to the Voters' Meeting, if we instituted woman
suffrage.

In one of my congregations, that had woman suffrage, men and women would use it as an opportunity to "fraternize" with people they were not married to in local establishments after the meeting.

In another congregation with woman suffrage, marriages of the three previous congregational presidents ended in divorce while they were president. Woman suffrage in congregations stinks and
has been largely replaced in LCMS congregations with clergy hierarchy, Sacerdotalism, CEO Pastors, or a board of directors. Thus the Synod falls apart.

I also witnessed men and women argue with each others' husbands and wives in the Voters' Assembly, a violation of the Order of Creation.

The most important event in the congregation is a Law/Gospel sermon. However, if the Voters cannot maintain Christian order, there will not be a sermon for the people to hear. Just ask the Apostle
Paul. Many LCMS congregations have become impotent drones.
Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 3:28 pm:

Pastor Cascione (Cardinal) One more thing:

Intermediate Member For all those pastors who yearn for the days of state-run religion, and clerical hierarchy, its over. Today, if you can't convince the MEN to be stakeholders instead of spectators, your future in
Username: Cardinal congregational ministry will be uneventful if not short. Instead of watching the congregation grow, you can watch it shrink. You cannot possibly be effective by yourself.
Post Number: 426
Registered: 11-2004

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 3:53 pm:

Johannes Kolb (Jkolb) In one of my congregations, that had woman suffrage, men and women would use it as an opportunity to "fraternize" with people they were not married to in local establishments after the meeting.
Junior Member
Username: Jkolb Considering the utter collapse of marriage within the LCMS and birthrates, is it not the foremost duty of the congregation as a group of faithful community members to foster as many more fruitful
Post Number: 27 marriages as possible? It's one thing if people are getting drunk & fornicating. But I'm curious why you seem to have a per se objection to singles meeting at church.
Registered: 6-2020

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 4:59 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Cascione, you said:

(Casusconscientiae)
New member quote:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 18 In practice I regularly told women that their husbands can speak for them in the Voters' Assembly. I also told the widows, single women, and women whose husbands did not
Registered: 2-2021 belong to the church, that it was the elders' duty to represent them in the Voters' Assembly.

But you have not really answered my question. I said that the women don't even NEED to physically ATTEND the Voters' Assembly if their husbands, brothers, fathers, and sons can represent
them there, so why doesn't that PROVE that the unit of representation at the Voters' Assembly is not the individual, but the FAMILY???

And once again, the question in my 3 cases of conscience is not whether or not it is lawful for women to vote at the voters' assembly. But on the contrary, I formulated my 3 cases of conscience
SPECIFICALLY to make the assumption that to allow women to VOTE at the voters' assembly is contrary to the divine order of creation according to which the man is the head of the woman. The
real question is: is the unit of representation at the Voters' Assembly the FAMILY or the INDIVIDUAL???

Next, you said:

quote:

I also told them that the Voters' Assembly is intended for service, not to exercise power or act as a legislative body. Women also have the right to object to any candidate on a
Call List. Votes in church are not a democratic process, but an act of service.

But you believe in Voter Supremacy, and that the act of voting IS an exercise of authority, and that the Voters' Assembly HAS supreme authority within the local congregation even over their own
PASTOR! See: http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc000 56.htm, in which you write "The Voters' Assembly Is Invested With Authority from God"! That is to say, the voters' assembly is a de
jure divino institution. See also http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/-400/j mc00051.htm.

Also, http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc002 03.htm:

quote:

The following are four points on doctrine that specifically address polity in the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions and are fundamental to Voter Supremacy:

A. The Confessions specifically say that the congregation elects its own pastor. (Trig. 523-24 par. 62, 69, 72, "Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to
call, elect, and ordain ministers." Also Eph. 4:8, 1Pet. 2:9)

B. The Confessions specifically say the local congregation is supreme over the pastor. "…the church is above the ministers" Trig. 507, "Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction
to the Church" Trig 511, also, Matt. 18:17, Col. 4:17, 1Peter 5:1-3, 2Cor.8:8, and Walther agrees that the clergy are not the church.

C. The Confessions specifically say that the congregation is the final judge in church discipline. (Trig. 511, "Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the church…" also Matt.
18:17-18; Acts 1:15, 23-26; 15:5, 12-13, 22-23; 1Cor. 5:2, 6:2, 10:15, 12:7, 2Cor. 2:6-8, 2Thess: 3:15)

D. The Confessions say they agree with the Bible and the Bible teaches that the sheep judge their shepherd in all doctrine. (Matt. 7:15-23, 1John 4:1, 1Cor. 10:15, Matt. 23:10,
1Thess. 5:1, Matt.10:42-44, Acts 17:11, 2Pet. 2:1, 1Cor.14:29, Rev. 2:2)

The sheep form the final tribunal in the congregation, not the clergy. When the pastor speaks the Word of God correctly, he should expect 100% obedience, or they are not
sheep. When the congregation speaks the Word of God correctly, they should expect 100% obedience from the pastor, or he is no pastor.

6. The effort to give the pastors authority over the congregations, something Walther never taught, is coming from many different directions in the Synod.

Walther taught that the Voters, not the pastor, were Supreme in the congregation.

C F W Walther OFFICIALLY taught that the Voters' Assembly IS a legislative body for the local congregation, and its authority and jurisdiction is SUPREME over the local congregation in all things
neither contrary to the Bible nor the Lutheran Confessions.
Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 5:22 pm:

Steve Schmidt (Sschmidt) “Women also have the right to object to any candidate on a Call List.”
Senior Member
Username: Sschmidt
This is an old Missouri Synod practice that I don’t understand the theology behind. If women can object to a pastoral candidate, they are voting. What is the difference between that and voting to
Post Number: 1400 pass the budget?
Registered: 3-2017
Also, 1 Corinthians 14 tells women to be silent in worship and ask questions at home. 1 Timothy 2 does not allow a woman to hold authority (i.e. be a pastor) in worship. How do these passages
prohibit women voting?

Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 5:37 pm:

Juan Jeanniton Rev. Cascione,

(Casusconscientiae)
New member Steve Schmidt said:
Username: Casusconscientiae

Post Number: 19 quote:

Registered: 2-2021
“Women also have the right to object to any candidate on a Call List.”

This is an old Missouri Synod practice that I don’t understand the theology behind. If women can object to a pastoral candidate, they are voting. What is the difference between
that and voting to pass the budget?

Also, 1 Corinthians 14 tells women to be silent in worship and ask questions at home. 1 Timothy 2 does not allow a woman to hold authority (i.e. be a pastor) in worship. How do
these passages prohibit women voting?

First of all, it is you yourself, that gave women the right to object to candidates on the call list, but you have failed to understand that this is not the question involved in the 3 cases of conscience, so
you are committing the fallacy of ignorantia elenchi. I formulated my 3 cases of conscience SPECIFICALLY to make the assumption that to allow women to VOTE at the voters' assembly is contrary
to the divine order of creation according to which the man is the head of the woman. The real question is: is the unit of representation at the Voters' Assembly the FAMILY or the INDIVIDUAL???

Secondly, Mr Schmidt says:

quote:

Also, 1 Corinthians 14 tells women to be silent in worship and ask questions at home. 1 Timothy 2 does not allow a woman to hold authority (i.e. be a pastor) in worship. How do
these passages prohibit women voting?

(Incidentally, I wonder how the act of participating vocally in the devotional responses with the rest of the congregation is an act of keeping silence in church.) But that is not the question involved in
these 3 cases of conscience. I SPECIFICALLY assumed that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 apply today EXACTLY AS WRITTEN AT FACE VALUE! The real question is: is the basic
and indivisible unit of representation in the Voters' Assembly the FAMILY or the INDIVIDUAL?
Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2021 - 5:56 pm:

David Jay Webber (Djw) Adult men do not participate in the governance of the church because they are heads of an earthly household, but because they have been baptized into Christ's household, the church. From
Senior Member within their baptism they represent the authority of Christ to govern his own church, which is why they are to be guided by God's Word in their collective discernment of what the will of Christ is or
Username: Djw
probably is: with certainty if it is a matter of revealed doctrine, and tentatively if it is not a matter of revealed doctrine.
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 12-2004