Thursday, November 12, 2015

The strange phenomenon of individual bishops going their own way. . .

In my seminary days I often argued that the Missouri Synod already had bishops but we need to name them such and dispense with such democratic holdovers as re-elections and term limits.  I still feel much the same about this.  But at the time (mid 1970s) I never envisioned the situation we would have today in which bishops (in the churches that have bishops) have increasingly flaunted their episcopal collegiality and unity in order to go their own way on any number of issues (gay clergy and marriage being but one).

At the time I argued thus, bishops more or less acted as a unit even in more liberal church bodies.  Bishop James Pike was an abnormality and treated somewhat as an embarrassment for his eccentricities.  In the LCA there were clandestine ordinations of women before the church moved to approve the ordination of women but this happened at the same time and within the context of a still somewhat congregational bent in Lutheranism -- even of the LCA stripe!  Bishops were for the most part those who challenged and reined in such aberrations.

Since then we have had dioceses and bishops almost glory in their complete independence to define the faith as they see fit and this has spilled over from the traditionally liberal churches (Episcopal Church) now to the German bishops (and cardinals) fomenting change in the Roman Catholic Church and at the recent Synod in Rome.  Now we read of a Finnish Orthodox bishop who is likewise unlocking hands with his fellow bishops and choosing to chart his own way in ecumenical and sexuality issues.  It is a strange and unheard of idea that would surely have shocked and appalled the bishops of the early church (think Nicea through the seven great ecumenical councils).

The whole point of having bishops is the issue of catholicity.  Novelty comes through every crack in the church door.  One was consecrated to an office as guardian of the sacred deposit and custodian of the tradition handed down through the generations.  The bishop was never thought to have had innovative power to redefine the faith or depart from apostolic doctrine or practice but to ensure the continuity of what was believed, taught, confessed, and lived out from one generation to another, from one place to another, the same.

One might have thought that Rome might be insulated from the episcopal independence of gay bishops or bishops who were intent upon retaining power even at the sacrifice of basic Christian teaching (such as John Shelby Spong or Gene Robinson was in the Episcopal Church or someone like lesbian Swedish Bishop Eva Brunne who wants to remove Christian symbols to create Muslim prayer room).  The Synod in Rome has proven that bishops have an independent streak even in Rome and where a confusing Pope like Francis will seem to allow it, they are more than ready to go their own way and flaunt papal authority and unity.  Now I read the following:

Met. Ambrosius of the autonomous Finnish Church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate is well-known as a very liberal bishop, even among the other liberal bishops of the very liberal Finnish Church of the liberal Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Recently, Met. Ambrosius, who has been noted as a supported of ‘gay rights’, and ‘inclusion of women in ordination’, etc, invited a Finnish Lutheran female bishop into the altar during an ordination he was performing; he even commanded his deacons to commemorate the Lutheran bishopress.  Complete with an organization such as the “Orthodox Rainbow Society” and their report encouraging ‘discussion’ and ‘re-evaluation’ of traditional dogmas, the recent report and conference held on marriage is not surprising.

The American Greek Archimandrite John Paneleimon Manoussakis stated that “when the rule about priestly celibacy was overruled with the reformation, it was the first step towards the goal, that we are now about to give marital status also to homosexual couples.”  The “Marriage Seminar” was hosted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Diocese of Helsiniki.  Met. Ambrosius has made additional statements encouraging more ecumenism with the Finnish Lutherans and other groups.

The teachings of Met. Ambrosius, the Finnish group under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as well as the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on these issues of morality as well as their embrace of modernistic and ecumenistic theology is rejected by True Orthodox Christian clergy and laity, who refuse to have any communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate or any group in union with it.

Met. Ambrosius of the autonomous Finnish Church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate is well-known as a very liberal bishop, even among the other liberal bishops of the very liberal Finnish Church of the liberal Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Recently, Met. Ambrosius, who has been noted as a supported of ‘gay rights’, and ‘inclusion of women in ordination’, etc, invited a Finnish Lutheran female bishop into the altar during an ordination he was performing; he even commanded his deacons to commemorate the Lutheran bishopress.  Complete with an organization such as the “Orthodox Rainbow Society” and their report encouraging ‘discussion’ and ‘re-evaluation’ of traditional dogmas, the recent report and conference held on marriage is not surprising.
The American Greek Archimandrite John Paneleimon Manoussakis stated thatwhen the rule about priestly celibacy was overruled with the reformation, it was the first step towards the goal, that we are now about to give marital status also to homosexual couples.” 
The “Marriage Seminar” was hosted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Diocese of Helsiniki.
Met. Ambrosius has made additional statements encouraging more ecumenism with the Finnish Lutherans and other groups.
The teachings of Met. Ambrosius, the Finnish group under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as well as the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on these issues of morality as well as their embrace of modernistic and ecumenistic theology is rejected by True Orthodox Christian clergy and laity, who refuse to have any communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate or any group in union with it.
- See more at: http://nftu.net/met-ambrosius-finnish-church-greek-archimandrite-we-re-evaluate-understanding-marriage/#sthash.Y3dUrxrg.dpuf

The point is this.  This localization of doctrine and practice within the smaller jurisdiction of a single bishop is not merely a breech in the face of unity within the tradition but it empties the very witness of Christianity before the world until faith becomes merely an extension of the personal conscience and opinion of the individual alone.  The bishops were made bishops not to substitute their own personal opinions for the teaching of the Scriptures or the church but to safeguard the church from the tyranny of self, preference, and individual judgment that renders the Word of the Lord one voice among many subject to the whims of the individual mind and heart and will.

I still feel that the structures of a church should not be borrowed from political or secular source but be true to biblical words and structures (like bishop) but it is worthless to have bishops unless they are willing to defer their own ideas to the words and witness of Scripture and the catholic tradition.  For Lutherans, this is a betrayal of the very Reformation principle that insisted we were not those introducing novelty but those who were intent upon holding to the catholic doctrine and practice of the ages.  Scripture alone does not place the Word of God under the shackles of personal and individual opinion -- not even a bishops.  To see this same episcopal independence so cavalierly flaunted in Rome and Orthodoxy raises grave concerns about the ability of any church to speak with one voice before the world and to have that voice carry the authority of the Lord.

19 comments:

Kirk Skeptic said...

Thank you for demonstrating how episcopacy per se fails to protect against heresy, and how the real issue is corrupt men in office cum church unwilling/unable to protect the flock - as with perverts, so with heretics. No amount of Law in the form of titles and ceremonies will change this.

Carl Vehse said...

"I still feel that the structures of a church should not be borrowed from political or secular source"

In his Government of the Missouri Synod (CPH, 1947) describing the history of the Missouri Synod’s polity, Carl Mundinger spends most of Chapter 7 refuting the fairy tale notion, apparently foisted on LCMS seminarians in the late '70s and still being hawked on Lutheran blogs today, that American political democracy influenced Missouri Synod polity. To the contrary, Mundinger states:

“Any democratic political theories which the founders of the Missouri Synod might have entertained, they did not get from America, but from the same source from which they derived their theory and church polity, viz., from the writings of Martin Luther. Walther’s political democracy was not that of John Locke nor of Jean Jacques Rousseau.”

Even C.F.W. Walther had to contend against such lying attacks, as when Wilhelm Loehe in 1849 described the new Synod’s polity as “American mob rule” ("amerikanische Poebelherrschaft").

In Der Lutheraner, Vol. 17, No. 8 (November 27, 1860: 57-60; included in The Congregation’s Right to Choose a Pastor, Fred Kramer, trans., Concordia Seminary Publications, 1997, pp. 57-8), Walther quotes from the Evangelienharmonie of Chemnitz, Leyser, and Gerhard describing a congregational polity in which the congregation calls a pastor. Walther then notes:

"If we had been the first to write this, our opponents would cry murder against us. They would exclaim: There you see how the Missourians introduce their American democratic ideas into the church’s doctrine. However it is well known that neither Chemnitz, nor Leyser, nor Gerhard were Americans or democrats."

The Loeheist-style denigration of and false teaching about Missouri Synod polity by seminary professors are to a significant degree responsible for the lackadaisical behavior of pastors in teaching their congregations about Lutheran doctrine of church and ministry. As a result, we get from the graduates of one LCMS seminary a push for CGM-everyone-is-a-minister polity, and of the other seminary, a continuing thrill-running-up-the-leg longing for a Romish or Eastern episcopist polity.

Kirk Skeptic said...

@CV: you may be right; but, as a former EOC priest acquaintance of mine once said, "all American churches are congregationalist regardless of their stated polity;" ie warped American egalitarianism is all-pervasive. Teaching to the contrary in a church which has no real authority structure except the whim of hte pews is and will be an uphill battle at best.

Aidan Clevinger said...

Carl,

Say what you will about LCMS polity, but episcopal polity is not forbidden by Lutheran doctrine. The Church at the time of the Reformation, and for some time thereafter, largely held to an episcopal policy. It is not inherently "Romish" or "Eastern".

That doesn't necessarily mean we should adopt it, but it certainly means that it would be permissible to do so if we were convinced it was the way to go.

Pax,

Aidan

Anonymous said...

I wonder how on earth the Church survived from the time of the Apostles forward and the first 18 centuries without a Voter's Assembly, Board of Directors, Laity voters?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Francis, Pr. Peters said, "... where a confusing Pope like Francis will seem to allow it, ..." Please bear in mind that Francis motto is "make a mess." This explains much.

Fr.D+

Carl Vehse said...

Aidan: "Say what you will about LCMS polity, but episcopal polity is not forbidden by Lutheran doctrine."

It is also not forbidden, especially when the episcopal itch occurs, to practice what was done at Trinity Lutheran Church, St. Louis, one of the mother churches of the Missouri Synod, as described in Government of the Missouri Synod (CPH, 1947, p. 125), where Prof. Carl Mundinger quotes (pp. 125-167) from the church minutes:

August 1, 1842, it was resolved that Pastor Walther read the testimonies in Vehse's book [Stephanite Immigration to America] which refer to the rights of the congregation. August 3, 1842, it was decided to continue to hear the testimonies which Dr. Vehse had collected in his book regarding the relationship between pastor and congregation. August 10, 1842, the reading of the testimonies which Dr. Vehse had collected was completed.

Such an exercise is also recommended for current (and past) seminarians at the LCMS seminaries.

Carl Vehse said...

Some Anonymous sophisticates: I wonder how on earth the Church survived from the time of the Apostles forward and the first 18 centuries without a Voter's Assembly, Board of Directors, Laity voters?"

The early Church congregations did vote, even though they didn't wear t-shirts or hats embroidered with "Voters Assembly" (in Greek or Aramaic), or were not incorporated as 501(c)(3) corporations with a Board of Directors. To further alleviate your ignorance, read J.T. Mueller's Christian Dogmatics, particularly p. 572, which states, in part:

Luther replies (St. L., XIX, 347) : "Although Paul commanded Titus to 'ordain elders in every city,' Titus 1, 5, it does not follow that Titus did this in an arbitrary manner ; but he, after the example of the apostles, appointed them after their election by the people; otherwise the command of Paul would be in conflict with the general custom of the apostles." There are indeed weighty reasons why Luther's explanation should be believed and accepted. In the first place, the text (Acts 14, 23) itself suggests the calling of elders by a popular vote (χειροτονηθεὶς, not constituebant (Vulgate), but rather "stimmwaehlen" (Meyer), that is to say, having chosen them by the raising of bands. In the second place, it was the general custom of the apostles, Acts 6, 2-6, to have the "whole multitude" (παν τὁ πλῆθος) elect by popular vote the ministers of the churches (Stephen, Philip, etc., Acts 6, 5). For this reason we rightly infer that the verb χειροτονἐω (to stretch forth the hand, to elect by the raising of hands, "durch Aufheben der Hand abstimmen") has this special meaning both in Acts 14, 23 and 2 Cor. 8, 19 ("the brother chosen of the churches": χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν).

Aidan Clevinger said...

Carl,

An episcopal form of government does not necessarily remove the consent of the laity in calling pastors. As you point out, and as the Tractatus says, the consent of both laity and presbyters/bishops were necessary to ordain a pastor in the earliest Church. This was not contrary to the structure, by human ordinance, whereby bishops were above pastors and pastors above deacons, which is all that the phrase "episcopal polity" denotes.

Anonymous said...

Even today, no matter how perfunctorily, the prelate assigned the new office must still obtain the axios from the laity assembled during the ordaining service. It is a foregone conclusion as the church is most certainly packed to the rafters with family and friends of the new prelate who are there for that very moment.

Carl Vehse said...

"An episcopal form of government does not necessarily remove the consent of the laity in calling pastors."

What you are talking about is a bastardized episcopist/congregational hodge-podge. These is as lilttle good that can come from such polity as the polity of an episcopist hierarchy present in the Romish church, or the many Lufauxran church bodies in the LWF. The Missouri Synod needs to build up its congregational polity and teach the laity.

On the other hand, CPH might make a lot of money in their sale of curved walking sticks, colorful gold-embroidered mantles, and funny hats.

James Kellerman said...

Carl Vehse wrote: "In his Government of the Missouri Synod (CPH, 1947) describing the history of the Missouri Synod’s polity, Carl Mundinger spends most of Chapter 7 refuting the fairy tale notion, apparently foisted on LCMS seminarians in the late '70s and still being hawked on Lutheran blogs today, that American political democracy influenced Missouri Synod polity. To the contrary, Mundinger states:

'Any democratic political theories which the founders of the Missouri Synod might have entertained, they did not get from America, but from the same source from which they derived their theory and church polity, viz., from the writings of Martin Luther. Walther’s political democracy was not that of John Locke nor of Jean Jacques Rousseau.'"

To confirm what Vehse and Mundinger have said , I would like to add that the term "president" is not a term taken from the secular realm, but from the religious realm. The German term for the Synod (and District) President is "Präses," not "Präsident." The latter is what heads of state are called, but the former is an ecclesiastical term, akin to the term "presiding pastor" used in some churches.

Anonymous said...

So then why don't we call the DPs and SP presiding pastor?

Carl Vehse said...

"So then why don't we call the DPs and SP presiding pastor?"

So let me explain.

Except for a couple of DPs and the current SP, most DPs and previous SPs (since Pfotenhauer) have not been divinely called pastors during their elected terms as synodical presidents. And in his duties as a noncompensated assistant pastor, having occasional preaching, limited visitation, and no administrative responsibilities, the current SP has no pastoral supervision over the DPs, only a constitutionally based supervision as synodical president.

Because its polity is not episcopal, the Missouri Synod does not employ the term,"bishop," for its SP or DPs in its Constitution and Bylaws. Furthermore a previous synodical convention resolution made this clear, as noted in CCM Opinion 00-2202 (p. 67 of 80), when the English District tried to change the title of its district president to "Bishop":

Opinion 00-2202: The Commission [on Constitutional Matters] notes that Overture 3-42 to the 1981 synodical convention asked for permission to use the title “Bishop.” It resolved “That the Synod in Convention assembled permissively grant as an alternate title the Scriptural term Bishop to the President of the Synod and the District Presidents and the Vice-Presidents of both the Synod and the Districts, but for legal purposes the designation President/Vice-President be retained in the constitution.”

In response, Resolution 3-19, “To Retain the Terminology of ‘President’ and ‘Vice-President’,” respectfully declined Overture 3-42. The Commission notes, therefore, that while a resolution to remove term limits for the President of the English District is acceptable, the use of the term “Bishop” in the overture and any ensuing convention action advocating the removal of term limits is out of order.
Adopted June 15, 2000


And in an October 26, 2000, Opinion 00-2215, the CCM had to remind the English District again when it stated:

The Commission again notes that Overture 3-42 to the 1981 synodical convention asked for permission to use the term “Bishop” as an alternate title for the President of the Synod, the District Presidents, and the Vice-Presidents of both the Synod and the Districts. In response, Resolution 3-19 of the convention, “To Retain the Terminology of ‘President‘ and ‘Vice-Presidents,‘” respectfully declined Overture 3-42.

Yet again, in its February 18-20, 2011, minutes (p. 151), the CCM, in reviewing district bylaws, reminded the English District:

Under Article III (p. 4-9), the commission encourages the district to consider former CCM Opinions 00-2202 and 00-2215 regarding the parenthetical use of the title “Bishop” (copies will be provided to the district with this review by the commission).

A check of its 2015 convention minutes indicates the English District may have to be reminded by the CCM still again, or perhaps, better still, the 2016 synodical convention should dissolve the English District and merge its individual and congregational members into appropriate regional districts.

Verstehen?

Anonymous said...

So any guy who is ordained but not under call to a congregation is not a pastor??? Vehse, you are operating with a vocabulary completely at odds with the way Missouri Lutherans have talked for a hundred years!

Carl Vehse said...

Anonymous, you bathe in your ignorance.

In his Christian Dogmatics A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology for Pastors, Teachers, and Laymen (St. Louis:CPH, 1934), John Theodore Mueller states

Luther also writes (St. L., V, 1037) : “Though we all are priests, yet we all neither can nor should for this reason preach, teach, or rule. But from the whole throng we must select and choose some to whom we entrust this office; and whoever conducts it is not a priest on account of his office (which they all are), but a servant of all others. And if he can no longer preach or serve, or if he should no longer desire this, he again steps among the common throng, entrusts his office to another, and is nothing else than an ordinary Christian. Thus you must distinguish between the ministry, or the office of service, and the common priesthood of all baptized Christians. For this office is nothing else than a public service, which is entrusted to one by the whole congregation, who are all priests at the same time.” ( Cf. X, 1589.) [p. 566, emphasis added]

Similarly Dr. Walther says Kirche und Amt, p. 221): "The public ministry is not a special estate, which exists in contradistinction to the common state of Christians or is holier than it, but it is a ministry of service."

For this reason the churches have also the right and the duty to watch over the ministry of their pastors and teachers, Col. 4, 17, and to dismiss them in case they refuse to preach the Word of God in its truth and purity and to adorn it with a holy life, Col. 4, 17; John 10, 5; :Matt. 7, 15; Rom. 16, 17. 18. (Cp. Luther, St. L., X, 1591.)

Ministers, of course, hold their office only so long as they administer the functions of the public ministry which they have received through the call.
[p. 577]

With respect to the power which Christian pastors possess by virtue of their call our dogmaticians rightly say that all power which they have as ministers is conferred upon, or delegated to, them by the congregation, so that their jurisdiction is limited by the call. [p. 578]

Carl Vehse said...

Going back further in Missouri history, C.F.W. Walther noted during the presentation of Kirche und Amt at the 1851 Synodical Convention:

“If [a preacher] has laid down his Office voluntarily, then in that case he lost all the authority of the Office. If the Call of the congregation has ended, to which he was called, then his Office authority ends, because there is no universal Call for the whole Church; only the Apostles had this Call.”

Dr. Carl Eduard Vehse observed in his 1841 Stephanite Emigration to America (p. 144):

"On 30 May [1839], therefore 25 days after the first revelations, Stephan was deposed by the council of the reverend clergy, who actually were not of the clergy at all, but rather citizens and farmers, as we were, since they had relinquished their office in Europe and had no regular call, only the irregular one from Stephan. Quite rightly the wicked but astute Stephan ridiculed this council."

Anonymous said...

Dr Strickert, the CCM opinion did not state much of anything regarding the use of the term Bishop by the English District except to state the obvious - that the constitution and by-laws of synod use the term President and District President exclusively. So if the English District wants to refer to their DP informally, they may as long as formally they follow the constitution and by-law of Synod.

Carl Vehse said...

It's the English District's camel's-nose-under-the-tent way of defining "informal" vs. "formal" that has become the obvious issue.