The following is a post on www.lutherquest.org from Pastor (Fr.) Gregory
Hinners, LCMS, that the Confessions and Walther support Episcopal polity followed by a
three-part response from Rev. Tom Bye, LCMS, titled "Whoring after an
Episcopacy." There are more than 600 posts on Lutherquest.org and you are invited to
offer yours.
Hinners writes:
Re: Is Marquart Protesting Too Much?
December 10, 1999
I just have one question for everyone, since you all like throwing the Confessions
around when it comes to questions about Mariology. If Walther's form of polity is
"Divinely inspired," then how do you interpret Apol XIV? I'll quote and comment
for everyone; "On this matter we have given frequent testimony in the assembly to our
deep desire to maintain the church polity and various ranks of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy, although they were created by human authority. WE KNOW THAT THE FATHERS HAD
GOOD AND USEFUL REASONS FOR INSTITUTING THE ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE IN THE MANNER
DESCRIBED BY THE ANCIENT CANONS. Melanchthon then goes on to describe why the canonical
form of government was abolished; It was on account that the RC bishops were seeking,
"to destroy the Word of God with their edicts, who even butcher anyone who teaches
what is right and true." Melanchthon continues with the last paragraph,
"Furthermore, we want at this point to declare our willingness to keep the
ecclesiastical and canonical polity, provided that the bishops stop raging against our
churches. This willingness will be our defense, both before God and among all nations,
present and future, against the charge that we have undermined the authority of the
bishops. Thus men may read that, despite our protest against the unjust cruelty of the
bishops, we could not obtain justice."
A closing observation; The extreme interpretation that you are putting on Walther, may
well verify the charge against us that, "we have undermined the authority of the
bishops." Whether one wants to have the "bishop" as the chief pastor and
teacher of a geographical diocese (with several churches "under him" [lack of
better choice of words], or if the word "bishop" is equated with the word
"pastor" in an individual congregation. The CEOs that you are so concerned
about, seek to destroy the Word of God by their actions, therefore congregations have the
right and bounded duty to rise up against such men.
One last comment with regard to the above; In a recent issue of Christian News an
article was written I think with this title; "If Walther was LCMS President
Today." In this article was a speech that presumably Walther would give if he were
President of the LCMS. Interesting....the President of the Eastern District removed at
once for participating in a Unionistic prayer service in New York (as he should have
been). Another DP told to discipline a pastor guilty of false doctrine or face removal
himself (which should actually happen). Everyone else is to line up with LCMS doctrine or
else face removal, suspension, etc. (as should happen). If the person who gave that speech
truly presumed to speak as Walther "would have spoken"....I'm sorry folks but
THATS EPISCOPAL!!! In that particular senario, Walther is now a Bishop and is wielding
Episcopal power per AC/Apol XIV and XXVIII.
His unworthy servant Pastor (Fr.) Gregory Hinners
Bye writes:
Whoring after an Episcopacy: Have some forgotten history? Part 1
From: Rev. Tom Bye, (Br.) Bishop of west-side Oshkosh, WI
Date: 11 Dec 1999
First, I write in reponse to Pastor Hinners 10 Dec 99 posting and, second, to offer
some food for thought in this matter of certain LCMS pastors that are:
1. Declaring ordination as a sacrament.
2. Calling themselves "father".
3. Pushing for the disempowerment of the voters' assemblies.
4. Wanting to institute a Greek patriarchate if not a "Lutheran Latin
Episcopate", in the LCMS.
5. Attempting to institutionalize a romanticized version of medieval ecclesiastical
custom and practice which has reintroduced veneration of saints, if not invocation,
reintroduction of "holy water" and its possession of mystical properties
(outside of the use of Holy Baptism), and the creation and recognition of a clergy caste.
The above 5 attributes of certain "hyper-Euros" are absolutely foreign to the
history and practice of the Missouri Synod.
As I said to a gaggle of liberal LCMS clergy at a "free conference" at
Bradley University in 1973, before I was a Lutheran, "You people should have the
integrity to leave the LCMS and join the LCA rather than attempt to claim that you
represent the historic Missouri Synod with your historical-critical method and secular
situational ethics."
I now will say to those who would attempt to put in place in the Synod the 5 points
above, reconsider, or:
Why not leave the LCMS and form what you consider "The Church" and quit
pretending you are part of the historic LCMS? Do economics play into your decision making
process? It sure did with the liberals. Maybe we could make some kind of "kingdom of
the left" accomodation that would keep, in place, the availability of health and
retirement benefits...if you had a congregation, in or out of Synod, which would call and
pay you.
As I attempt to address each of these items be advised that I am in no way a proponent
of "church growth" methodology or "contemporary worship." I am
"higher" church than "lower." I am also aghast at the tidal wave of
American secular pop-culture that has infiltrated the U.S. churches in general, and the
LCMS in particular.
First, a response to Pastor Hinners: I am not saying that your are necessarily one who
holds to the 5 points above. Now to your posting...
Since "we like throwing the Confessions around?" I want to assure you that I
was with serious intent and evangelical attitude in referring to AC and Apol. XXI.
(excuse me, I have a computer glitch, I will post the rest soon) Thank you for your
forbearance. Auf wiederlesen, bald! –Tom
Whoring after the Episcopacy, continued
From: Rev. Tom Bye
Date: 14 Dec 1999
Time: 22:04:27
Returning to my commentary on the "5 points" That certain LCMS Grabau-Loehe
parties propone:
1. Ordination as a Sacrament:
The Book of Concord, Tappert, page 211 (Article XIII, Apol.)para 3: "If we define
sacraments as 'rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace have
been added', we can easily determine which are sacraments in the strict sense. By this
definition, rites instituted by men are NOT sacraments in the strict sense since men do
not have the authority to promise grace. Hence signs instituted without God's command are
not sure signs of grace, even though they may instruct or admonish the simple folk. THE
GENUINE SACRAMENTS, THEREFORE, ARE BAPTISM, THE LORD'S SUPPER, AND ABSOLUTION(which is the
sacrament of penitence), for these rites have the commandment of God and the promise of
grace which is the heart of the new testament."
To declare ordination as a sacrament without this first part of article XIII as context
is deceptive and dishonest. What an amazing addition "ordination as a sacrament"
would make to Luther's small catechism! What a novel idea of new doctrine in the LCMS!
2. Calling themselves , "Father." Why abandon the historic "Pastor"
label? I propose that the venerable term "pastor" is lacking in the authority
force of "father"for the neo-episcopalians. The label has been changed to
redefine the position of service to that of more power and authority, a "pater
familias." It is a term distinctive to the episcopate. That is truly the context.
3. Pushing for the disempowerment of the voters' assemblies. This is a new, popular
clergy sport! It is played by bureaucrats who want a CEO style, and the Grabauers who view
the laity as too ignorant or unspiritual to have a true voice in church affairs. I believe
this movement will be self-limiting because it is difficult to get Americans to part with
their money by the word of a local mini-pope. Although David Koresh and Jim Jones pulled
it off for awhile both of them are dead. The command to 'Pay, Pray, and Obey' is not well
received by the solid middleclass constituents of the Missouri Synod.
The Missouri Synod IS DEFINED by its HISTORIC POLITY as well as its CONFESSIONS. You
cannot separate the two or you will no longer have the LCMS. This is what made it
different from the Buffalo Synod--this episcopacy-ordination-sacrament issue was the
defining cause of the split of Missouri and Buffalo. Note:
There are some observers of the Synod who see the FTW Seminary running after Grabow,
and the STL Sem. after the CEO's and Bureauracracy. I have yet to come to solid
conclusions, personally. But both the Garbow and CEO factions have no use for voters's
assemblies.
4. Wanting to institute a Greek "Patriarchate" if not a "Lutheran Latin
Episcopate." How does it happen that a young man heads off to a Lutheran Seminary not
even knowing what the Greek Orthodox Church really is, and exits seminary and Synod to run
off and join the Greek Orthodox Church?? Where did he learn this stuff? There is more than
one or two cases of this in the LCMS! This item 4 naturally is a result of Item 3, and is
manifested in item 5.
5. Attempting to institutionalize a romanticized version of medieval ecclesiastical
custom and practice which has reintroduced the veneration of saints, if not blatant
invocation, the reintroduction of "holy water" and its possession of mystical
properties outside the use of Holy Baptism; and the recreation and recognition of a
special "clergy caste."
The manifestations of #5 may take Greek Church customs or Latin Church customs
depending on the episcopal preference of the adherent: East or West?? But both have a
romanticised view of tradition. Sort of a "Wagnerian" vision of the medieval
church replete with fairy tale Neuschwanstein buildings of stone and spire and
hagiographic myth... a new "Dungeons and Dragons" eccesiastical motif and geist
despite the petite bourgeois concerns of the laymen.
Now, Pastor Hinners, regarding your idea that we are "guilty of undermining the
authority of the bishops."
First, the LCMS has never recognized the "power of Bishops" in the episcopal
sense of the 16th century Roman Church. If Walther, or Stephan for that matter had, there
would have been no Missouri Synod! If you believe the Synod is in violation of such
polity, and is therefore invalid, you had better jump ship for conscience sake. Where
shall you go? WELS? ELS? ELCA? or Greek or Roman?
Apol XIV was a very irenic document. The reformers at this juncture were not only
avoiding areas of needless offense, but were pressing to be as status quo and conciliatory
as possible--especially in terms of medieval stations of life and order.
By there own statement that bishops "were made by human, not divine
authority" demonstrates that no one, then or now, may convict consciences about
obeying bishops. The reformers were willing to maintain the existing polity fornthe sake
of peace and order provided the hierarchy behaved itself regarding allowing the true sana
doctrina to be confessed and taught. THIS FINALLY BECAME IMPOSSIBLE.
The Biblical model for the church is LOCAL. The Biblical model for the Office of the
Keys is revealed in local congregations. This is our Synodical Polity: Love it or Leave
it! Go on a great quest for the "lost Buffalo"...synod, that is. (More Later)
Re: Whoring after the Episcopacy, continued, part III
From: Rev. Tom Bye
Date: 14 Dec 1999
Time: 22:32:46
Have we learned from history vis-a-vis episcopal polity?
I wish to cite some denominations who lost their best and became a wreck when they went
episcopal in polity:
United Methodists: They voted out major doctrines and began teaching heresy and
ordaining unbelievers, then women. This ocurred from the top down. Here in our county in
Wisconsin a UMC congregation did battle with the bishop over homosexual issues. They took
the conservative rejection of homosexual behavior and taght it, the Bishop and his
mionions sought to remove the church and sieze the property-- the little rural
congregation won in civil court against the episcopacy and retained the 105 year old
country church as their congregational property.
Episcopal Church USA (of which I was once a member) in the 1960's the top clergy began
the systematic institutionalization of liberalism tom all parishes. The identy for
episcopalians was the paternal, now MAternal bishoprics. The poison had episcopal arteries
through which to find its victims in basic conservative parishes.
ELCA: need any more be said than what has happened here! What happened there, could
easily happen in the LCMS if you get your prescious bishops!
The answer to Walther or others in terms of discipline... we have voters elect others,
we have congregational polity that makes major decisions, not a board of an episcopate,
but unfortunately that has been slowly changeing, to the detriment of our church.
The seminary elete should not be the judges, but as Luther said that the simple laymn
armed with the scriptures and catechism is mightier than the highest clergyman without
them. This points out that no office makes one right or orthodox, but possession and
adherence to the Scriptures,and our confessions does.
The episcopacy and bureauracracy cannot exist without the peasant laymen's money, and
our people quit buying masses and indulgences. It will be a matter of time before people
start holding back money from the big foundations who, quite apart from the legitimate
policy of Synod, are making programs happen with endowments.
Dear Pastor Hinners, you need no episcopate, you have one Father, even God, you have
your flock. Have nothing to do with my five points.
In Christ, your brother, TOM BYE tbye@execpc.com