Doctor Norbert Oesch suggested we meet in the backroom at Rockwell’s Café and Bakery at 17853 Santiago Blvd. Villa Park, CA, at 9:30 a.m. on December 29, 2000. He greeted most of the staff as personal friends.

Doctor Oesch arrived with his witness, a lawyer with the Federal Election Commission, Attorney Darryl Wold. My witness was a Santa Ana, CA, housewife, Georgann McKee. Her name has been submitted as a candidate to the 2001 Synodical Convention to serve on the LC-MS Board for Higher Education.

Oesch became unsettled as McKee entered the room. He made some derogatory slanderous remarks to her and threatened to end the meeting if she was my witness. The attorney intervened with the ground rules that the witnesses must agree to never publish, speak about, or communicate the conversation between Oesch and Cascione unless required to do so as a witness. Ten minutes into the meeting, Oesch addressed further derogatory remarks to McKee and again threatened to leave the meeting if she continued to take notes. For the next hour and forty minutes McKee sat silently staring at Oesch across the restaurant table.

The first issue was Oesch’s objection to this writer’s characterization of the Pastoral Leadership Institute (PLI) as a "conspiracy" in Reclaim News. The first definition of a conspiracy is "a plot with evil intent." We agreed that an objective standard and not subjectivity or suspicion must determine "evil intent." In order to be evil, "evil intent" must attack the truth, the Word of God.

I then handed Doctor Oesch and his witness a list of ten items that would define PLI as a "conspiracy, a plot with evil intent." If he signed the document and agreed to reject the "ten evils" PLI could not be a conspiracy because it would be innocent of "evil intent."

As Oesch read the statement, I asked, "Is PLI the Phoenix of Seminex rising, the Trojan Horse of Church Growth masking the rebirth of Seminex theology in the LC-MS?"

Oesch responded with strong denials. He announced that he was opposed to everything on the list. However, I responded PLI isn’t about him but more about what kind of teaching he will tolerate at PLI. He reminded me that PLI is not a certifying body as are the two Seminaries. Again, I responded that that all pastors, as members of Synod, must oppose false doctrine in the church no matter what their office or duties.

The following is the statement he was asked to sign:

"The doctrinal position of pastors being trained for the Synod and those who teach them is of vital importance to all LCMS congregations.

"Pastoral Leadership Institute, as an organization that seeks to teach LCMS pastors, not only supports the doctrinal position of the LCMS, it also agrees that there should be no toleration on the LC-MS clergy roster for those who do not support the doctrinal position of the LCMS.

"TO WIT: Professors and pastors who teach the following (but not limited to) doctrinal errors should not be included on the LC-MS clergy roster:

1. Denial of the infallibility, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture;
2. Support for "Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord;"
3. Woman ordination;
4. Evolution as God’s plan of creation and that man may have evolved from a primary organism;
5. "Quatenus" agreement with the Lutheran Confessions;
6. The Bible contains errors in matters of history and science;
7. The JEPD theory for the writing of the first five books of the Bible;
8. The acceptance of abortion as a matter of choice for mothers;
9. Denial of Walther’s "Church and Ministry" and "Voter Supremacy" as the official position of the LCMS;
10. Acceptance of homosexuality as a biblically acceptable choice and lifestyle."

The document, I explained, was crafted with the aid of Rev. Herman Otten, Editor of Christian News. Oesch wanted to change "for those who do not support the doctrinal position of the Synod" to "those who have been convicted of false doctrine." He also made other suggestions. I asked him to sign it. He said he would sign it with some of his own rewording at the end of the meeting.

Oesch announced the he and I had more areas of agreement than disagreement. We discussed the problems of the two Seminaries and their abandonment of Walther’s understanding of the church and the pastoral office.

He was then presented with a second document for his signature as follows: "Finally the congregation is represented as the SUPREME TRIBUNAL, Matt. 18:5-18...." Note 7 on p 29 refers to this using the term "highest jurisdiction" and referring in turn to the "Power and Primacy Of the Pope," "highest and final jurisdiction to the church." (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.24)

"In public church affairs nothing should be concluded without the vote and consent of the congregation." (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W. Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.48)

The faculties of both Seminaries have refused to agree to the above words within the past year. While agreeing that the congregation was over the pastor, Oesch refused to sign his assent to the above two quotations. He described Walther’s wording as being over a hundred years old, inflammatory, and as never having been adopted by the Synod. There is little question that the writings of C. F. W. Walther are inflammatory to more than half the LCMS clergy almost 150 years after he wrote them.

The "Handbook" of the LCMS was placed in front of him with my finger on Article VI.4, "Exclusive use of doctrinally sound hymnbooks, catechism, and agenda in church and school." He replied "I reject this!" He said only agreement with Article II (the Bible and Lutheran Confessions) was necessary for membership in the LC-MS.

He was reminded that he asked our South and East Michigan District Pastor’s Conference in the Spring of ‘98 if we would "give up our hymnals to save a soul." Oesch then explained in the café that all that is necessary for worship is correct doctrine. He said, we don’t have to use a hymnbook and prescribed liturgies and worship forms.

Our conversation moved to reasons for founding PLI. In our meeting 10 months earlier in February of 2000 in suburban Detroit, it was difficult to criticize PLI because there was little information available. I couldn’t find out exactly what the Pastors were learning in their one-week sessions that meet twice a year over a period of four years or at annual cost of $6000.00 per pastor. Nor did Oesch volunteer any information about his program that requires 1.2 million dollars a year and a staff of 50. However, someone sent me the code to unlock the course syllabus and reading list from the PLI website.

Now with this information and Mrs. Georgann McKee, who never took her eyes off of Dr. Oesch, who was sitting across the table from me, the conversation became much more substantive. We debated the definition of "change" that Oesch was trying to impose on LCMS congregations with PLI. Was it the "change" as defined by famed Wall Street Journal and Harvard School of Business writer Peter Drucker, that would turn congregations into corporations and pastors into CEO’s? Oesch made a great effort to convince me that the "change" he was talking about is helping pastors cope with the cultural, social, economic forces that continue to impact their congregations.

Again, I asked him why he asked our pastoral conference if we would "give up our hymn books to save a soul." He responded that Christ didn’t die for hymnbooks. Hymnbooks don’t save souls.

A copy of the December 2000 issue of "Affirm" was placed in front of him. It contained a three and half page article listing the financial, procedural, and structural objections to PLI. The gist of the article is why should the Synod fund another school to do the work of the Seminaries. However, I announced it didn’t quote one Bible passage in opposition to PLI. Oesch smiled and nodded his head.

We now arrived at the greatest danger PLI poses to the church. If Dr. Oesch signs the first document above, PLI may not be called a conspiracy, but its final impact will be that LCMS congregations may no longer meet the "test of church." The congregations may no longer be "real congregations" or true visible churches.

The God given foundation of the Lutheran Church and, at the same time, its Achilles Heel is proving the objective presence of the Means of Grace, which are the Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper in the congregation for it to be a true visible church. (Pieper Vol. III, 116, 126, 166)

For example, there is no real presence in the Presbyterian Church. God is not in their Lord’s Supper because they symbolize the words and there is no Baptism in the Unitarian Church because they reject the Trinity. Even though both denominations use the correct words, no one in the Presbyterian Church receives the true Lord’s Supper or in the Unitarian Church is truly baptized. (Pieper Vol. III 263, 371)

There is no Gospel in the Mormon Church, even though they quote it from the Bible, because they reject Christ as God and man and His complete suffering and payment for the sins of the world. As Paul writes, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal. 5.4) We also know the congregation at Galatia had the written Gospel but, at that point, it could hardly be called a congregation.

The PLI churches may grow, but will they still be true visible churches? Where is the assurance that their Gospel, Baptisms, and Lord’s Supper are valid and their members won’t lose their salvation?

After a 150 years of being in the cocoon of the LCMS, many can’t comprehend doubts about their congregation being a true visible church. Before the founding of the LCMS, their leader, Rev. Martin Stephan, had been found guilty of 8 counts of adultery. Without Stephan, the colonists had no proof that they were a church or that the sacraments were valid in their congregation or if they had the right to issue a call to a pastor. They planned to return to Germany.

At the Altenburg, MO debate on April 15 and 20, 1841, Walther won the debate against attorney Marbach. Walther added three more theses to the Marbach/Vehse theses that argued for congregational supremacy with quotations from the Bible and Luther.

Walther’s addition defended the objective presence of the Means of Grace in the congregation and invented the LC-MS with the following thesis: "Thesis VIII: The orthodox Church is to be judged principally by the common, orthodox, and public confession to which the members acknowledge themselves to have been pledged and which they profess." ("Government in Missouri" Mundinger Page 122)

In other words, the people are the church! Therefore, when the correct public confession of the Voters’ Assembly is in the church constitution this is public proof that a group of people is indeed a true church with the Means of Grace and the assurance of eternal salvation. Without the correct confession in the congregation’s constitution it loses the real presence in the Lord’s Supper as do the Assembly of God, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, and etc.

I asked Oesch if he agreed with Walther’s Thesis VIII, above. Oesch refused to agree. He said all that was necessary was Article II in the LCMS Constitution, not the correct confession of the congregation in its church constitution. We ask PLI, "How do we know if a congregation is Lutheran? Maybe they are Baptists and don’t know it?" The Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are not manufactured in the heart of the believer but must be confessed by the entire congregation in order to be a true visible church. (Mat. 18:20)

If the approved confession of the church is no longer spoken in the liturgy and hymnbooks and if Voter Supremacy is no longer necessary to make the correct confession of the church, how does anyone prove the congregation is receiving the true Body and Blood of Christ? In addition, Walther had no call to be a pastor until he invented Voter Supremacy, because there wasn’t anyone to issue him a call.

In the LC-MS the congregation used to believe what the Voters believed, but with PLI they are now to believe whatever the Pastor invents for worship on any given Sunday. One Sunday they may be Baptist, the next Unitarian, Presbyterian, or the next, nothing.

In the LC-MS we "believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Christian Church." We don’t confess what the pastor or PLI-Board of Directors believes, but what the congregation believes. However, Oesch doesn’t associate hymnbooks and liturgy with the confession of the congregation.

The ELCA has resolved the entire issue of trying to figure out what the congregation confesses by adopting the idolatry of apostolic succession of the clergy, the teaching of Martin Stephan. Oesch must inevitably lead us in the same direction, something he says he opposes.

I asked Oesch if PLI taught Walther? He said, "No!"

As the meeting drew to a close, I asked Dr. Oesch if the loss of liturgical forms and hymnbooks must inevitably fragment the Synod. He was convinced that it wouldn’t.

My reply is that the first thing Christ asked, was that the Church correctly confess His doctrine (Matt. 16:16) and then it was to make more disciples. (Matt. 28:19)

I asked Oesch to sign the original document. He was now adamantly opposed to number "9" on the list. He said he would take the document home, rework it, and mail me a signed copy.

At the end of the meeting I asked Doctor Oesch if he would reconsider his derogatory remarks to Mrs. Georgann McKee. He then addressed her a third time with continued derogatory remarks. I responded "I think you are making a mistake."

He and I parted with a handshake.

January 1, 2001