In an extraordinary letter dated January 18, 2001, Doctor Norbert Oesch has responded to the list of "ten evils" he was asked to sign at the Rockwell Meeting on December 29, 2000. Once again he has exhibited his unique penchant for drama, timing, innovation and revision.

Expressing his disappointment with our meeting, Dr. Oesch writes; "Therefore I believe my obligation to you as a brother, based on Matthew 18, is concluded." Amazing! I'm the one who originally suggested that we meet in California after he objected to my calling PLI a "conspiracy" but he is the one who has "concluded his obligation."

It is absolutely true that the Synod has never appointed me to produce any documents worthy of confessional subscription. However, I object to Dr. Oesch saying I have no "calling to request such signature." Not only as a member of Synod do I have such a calling to examine another pastor's doctrine, every baptized member of the LC-MS has the same duty and "calling."

We read, "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh" (1Pet.3:15). We should know how "to answer every man" about our faith (Col. 4:6). Our goal is that God lead those in error to, "repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2Tim.2:25). We must "not be ashamed" to speak the truth (Ps 119:46) and we must "not believe every spirit" but must see if they are true or "false prophets" (1John 4:1). Every Christian is to "search the scriptures daily" to see whether what a pastor teaches is correct (Acts 17: 11). We must be "wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil" (Rom. 16:19). After testing everything we are to, "hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). The congregation is called to "try them which say they are apostles, and are not" but are liars (Rev. 2:2) "for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee" (1Tim. 4:16).

The agreement was that if Doctor Oesch signed the original document, The Pastoral Leadership Institute (PLI) could not be a conspiracy because it was not evil by the test of Scripture.

The original goal was to prove that PLI was attacking Walther's doctrine of "Church and Ministry." To my surprise, Oesch has declared himself to be a card-carrying member of Seminex. Herman Otten was adamant that PLI is nothing more than an attempt to resurrect 1973 Seminex theology in the LC-MS. He believes this is why it has such strong support from St. Louis Seminary President, Dr. John Johnson, former LC-MS President, Ralph Bohlmann, Texas District President, Dr. Jerry Kieschnick, LC-MS Chairman of the Board of Directors, Dr. Donald Muchow, LC-MS Board for Higher Education Executive Director, Dr. Bill Meyer, the LCEF, the LC-MS Foundation, the COP, "Jesus First" and "Day Star." Otten called his shot and hit the bull's eye. There is little wonder why Otten is not allowed on the LC-MS clergy roster.

With razzle-dazzle leadership, Oesch responded by agreeing to the inspiration of Scripture, full subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, and the Seminex manifesto "Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord," all at the same time!

Oesch, the self proclaimed proponent of "coloring outside the lines," creativity, risk-taking, entrepreneurial initiative, and seeking approval after implementation of a program, has outdone himself.

It has been 28 years since the 1973 LC-MS Convention and "The battle of New Orleans." However, in 2001, we live in different times. Too many are asking if doctrine, catechisms, hymnbooks, liturgy, agendas, and denominational differences are really all that significant, as Dr. Oesch is well aware. So why not agree with both camps? Who will be the wiser and who will really be concerned?

The "test of evil" has been sent back over the net with a solid forehand volley. Instead of testing him, Oesch is testing those who oppose his plan to retrain LC-MS pastors for "leadership." In 1973 Doctor John Tietjen had not considered Oesch's strategy. Oesch is now wiser and bolder than his teachers. With the Seminex banner unfurled, he writes, "I hereby joyfully witness to my faith and my confessional position" which includes "Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord."

A reasonable guess is that only 20% of the 2001 Convention will be opposed to "Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord" nor are the vast majority aware that the 1973 Convention condemned it as false doctrine. How could PLI be "a conspiracy" when Oesch is so open with his agreement to Seminex? In fact, most of the people who read Oesch's agreement with the number two (2) statement think he is conservative because the title sound's so confessional. A number of young conservative pastors have already responded to Oesch's letter and said it looks fine to them.

The doctrine of Church and Ministry must always take second stage to a full frontal Seminex revival assault at the 2001 LC-MS Convention on the fundamental doctrines. The libs were looking for a leader, and now they have one. In one bold move, Oesch has not only shown his true colors, he has also "outed" the identity of those who support him. It looks like they plan to win.

The reader will also notice that Dr. Oesch removed statement number nine (9) from the original list of "ten evils" he had originally agreed to reject. The original number nine (9) read, "Denial of Walther's 'Church and Ministry ' and 'Voter Supremacy' as the official position of the LC-MS." This is the only statement that he removed from the list.

On the surface, his agreement with Voters' Assemblies sounds quite appropriate unless it is understood in comparison with what he rejected during the Rockwell Meeting:

1. He rejected Article VI.4 of the LC-MS constitution requiring the use of orthodox hymnbooks, catechism, and agenda in church and school.
2. He refused to support Walther's definition of Voter Supremacy.
3. He rejected Walther's thesis that established the existence of LC-MS congregations, "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."
4. He rejected the necessity of a correct doctrinal statement in the Congregational Constitution in order to prove that it is a true visible church.
5. He claimed that PLI did not teach Walther.

There is no question that God's Word gives validity to the Gospel, Baptism, and Lord's Supper according to the first definition of the word "valid." However, according to the second definition of the word "valid" the congregation must confess the truth and affirm correct doctrine of these three Means of Grace according to Walther's theses above. Without the correct confession, the Means of Grace are not present and the gathering is not a congregation.

The Apostles' Creed says we, "believe in the Holy Christian Church" and this must include that the local congregation is a true visible church. With Oesch's objections above we can't be sure there is a local congregation! Otherwise, the Presbyterians who use the correct words in the Lord's Supper and the Unitarians who use the correct words in Baptism are all really Lutherans. Oesch's teaching will turn LC-MS congregations into "community churches," many of which will not be true visible churches.

So take your pick. With "Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord" you get no doctrine and no faith, and without Article VI.4, Walther's thesis, and the clear, correct confession of the congregation, you get no church.

The 2001 LC-MS Convention will be one for the books.

---

Oesch Rescinds Seminex Endorsement But Still Rejects Walther

Upon further consideration, Dr. Norbert Oesch has rescinded his endorsement of Seminex's "Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord" which the 1973 LC-MS Convention in New Orleans denounced as false doctrine.

Doctor Oesch responds with the following reply on January 30, 2001 as follows:

PASTORAL
LEADERSHIP
INSTITUTE

Rev. Jack Cascione

January 30, 2001

Dear Jack:

I just returned from being out of town for several days and my mail contained a note from Herman Otten double checking my statement of 'Support for Faithful to Our Calling; Faithful to Our Lord.' I erred. I do not support 'Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord.' I confused it with 'A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles' the CTCR document of 1973, which I do support. I'm not sure the best way to correct the document I sent you on January 18, but desire to do so. Sorry for the error.

Sincerely,
Norb Oesch

---

Item number two (2) in the "ten tests of evil" to which Oesch had originally agreed to refute at the Rockwell Meeting on December 29th read: "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: 2. Support for 'Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord.'"

In his reply of January 18th Oesch had written: "I, as a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, have committed myself to the doctrinal position of the LCMS. 'This includes my belief in the following doctrinal and interpretive matters: 2. Support for 'Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord.'"

We might ask how it is that one of the "ten tests of evil" could be confused with "A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles" that was not on the original list? Is the heat on? However, if he says "I erred" we will have to take the man at his word.

After his first reply was published on Reclaim News we have received a great deal of e-mail on the subject. Many pastors are asking what is "Faithful to Our Calling: Faithful to Our Lord?" Pastor Al Loeshman is preparing to post it on the internet and is currently scanning the document. The next issue of "Christian News" will publish some of the events connected with the document including the resolution adopted by the 1973 Convention.

Oesch's retraction has helped to protect the reputations of Seminary President, Dr. John Johnson, Dr. Jerry Kieschnick, Chairman of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, and Dr. Bill Meyer, Executive Director of the LC-MS Board for Higher Education, who all recommended that Oesch begin PLI.

His retraction has also removed any tarnish from the reputations of "Jesus First" candidates for LC-MS President, Texas District President, Gerald Kieschnick, Dr. Donald Muchow, Chairman of the LC-MS Board of Directors, and Dr. Loren Kramer, Past President of the Pacific Southwest District, who have all promoted PLI.

Reverend Herman Otten's primary concern with the list of "ten evils" was not that Oesch wouldn't personally agree that they were evil, but that Pastoral Leadership Institute and Oesch himself would not tolerate those on the LC-MS clergy roster agree with these evils. Does PLI ignore Matthew 16:16,18 "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God . . . and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" while promoting the great commission in Matthew 28:20? Surely Matthew 16:16,18 has a higher priority.

We should also remember that Doctor Oesch shortened the original list of "ten evils" to nine by eliminating:

"9. Denial of Walther's 'Church and Ministry' and 'Voter Supremacy' as the official position of the LC-MS" as a test of evil for PLI."

1. During the Rockwell Meeting, Doctor Oesch was presented with a second document for his signature as follows:

"Finally the congregation is represented as the SUPREME TRIBUNAL, Matt. 18:5-18..." Note 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)

He described Walther's words above, as inflammatory and rejected them.

2. The "HANDBOOK" of the LC-MS 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.

3. 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 replied 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. He later added that Christ didn't die for hymnbooks. Hymnbooks don't save souls.

4. Doctor Oesch was shown a copy of Walther's thesis: "Thesis VIII" from Mundinger's "Government in Missouri" (page 122) where Walther identified the existence of the LC-MS Congregation as follows: "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. Oesch refused to agree with it. He said all that was necessary was Article II in the LC-MS Constitution, not the correct confession of the congregation in its church's constitution.

5. When asked if PLI taught Walther, Oesch replied: "No!"

Oesch has not retracted these five points. As this writer has originally predicted to Herman Otten, Oesch would agree with everything on the list except Voter Supremacy as taught by C. F. W. Walther. By their support of PLI the Council of District Presidents is attacking the autonomy and identity of LC-MS congregations in the name of "Church Growth" and Leadership Training.

The LC-MS Convention is asked to reaffirm Walther's Voter Supremacy at the 2001 LC-MS Convention.