|
Pastor
Jack Cascione criticizes the
Ft.
Wayne
faculty in today's
Reclaim News. He writes:
". . . most of the faculty at
Fort Wayne
, including its
president, are opposed to Walther's teaching about congregational
self-government and falsely believe that the pastor is equal to or is a
higher authority than the Voters' Assembly.
"Left to their own desires the
Fort Wayne
faculty would lead the
LCMS into the same kind of Episcopal Hierarchy now practiced in the ELCA.
"Am I wrong? Then let President Wenthe and the Faculty publish that
they whole-heartedly agree with and teach the following quotations from
Walther's 'Church and Ministry' adopted by the 2001 Convention . . ."
Pastor Cascione then provides several quotations.
I object both to the substance and the method of Pastor Cascione's argument.
First of all, he does not prove his point. He has not shown that Dr. Wenthe
disagrees with Walther on any point. The fact that the CTS faculty wish to
emphasize certain contributions that Walther made while neglecting to
mention others in no way proves that they disagree with Walther in the areas
they do not address.
I disagree with Pastor Cascione's method. He makes an assertion about
Wenthe's alleged position, and then he challenges Wenthe to prove him wrong
by publicly agreeing with statements with which Wenthe has never disagreed.
It is not fair to insist that Wenthe and the CTS faculty respond to an
attack by a brother in order to prove that they aren't guilty of false
doctrine. The brother in question -- Pastor Cascione -- has the prior duty
to prove that they are guilty of false doctrine.
I believe that Dr. Wenthe agrees with Walther's Theses on Church and
Ministry. Unless Pastor Cascione can show that this is not the case, his
challenges to Dr. Wenthe and CTS on this subject amount to demands that a
man prove he has stopped beating his wife when no evidence was presented
that he ever did such a thing.
Pastor Cascione concludes by writing:
"President Wenthe will never publicly support the above statements as
the correct practice for all LCMS congregations because he does not agree
with
Walther's congregational polity for the LCMS. Wenthe should resign."
I think that Pastor Cascione should prove his assertion that Dr. Wenthe does
not agree with Walther's congregational polity for the LCMS. It is one thing
to say that the faculty emphasizes one thing when it should be emphasizing
another thing. Theological faculties tend to be rather insular organizations
that follow various fads. CTS is no different than any other school in this
respect. Theological institutions need a little criticism now and then.
Criticism is one thing. No one is above criticism. It is another matter to
accuse a man of holding to a position without proof. Is Pastor Cascione
accusing Dean Wenthe of false doctrine? Do church polity considerations
trump substantive doctrinal issues in importance? Should confessionalists in
Missouri
devour one another over
matters of church government while the openly impenitent syncretists and
unionists retain control over the institution?
Dean Wenthe and CTS are not the enemy! Please consider the stand they have
taken since the Yankee Stadium episode and give credit where credit is due.
Such attacks on CTS and Dean Wenthe do nothing to promote congregational
polity. IMHO, they confirm Loehists in their erroneous opinions.
Pastor Rolf Preus
---------------------------------------
Reply
to Rolf Preus:
First, I want to thank Rev. Preus for his reply. People who write critical
comments, as I did, should be prepared to be criticized.
Secondly, the articles about Walther published in “For the Life of the
Word” did not directly show that President Wenthe disagrees with
Walther’s polity for congregational governance. Though, in a prior
conversation with Wenthe in 1999, he told me that the pastor was at least
equal to the congregation. He illustrated this by placing his hands at the
same level. This is not what Walther taught.
Wenthe’s article in “Church and Ministry: The Collected Papers of the
150th Anniversary Theological Convocation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod” never addresses the issues of LCMS congregational polity.
The Fort Wayne Chairman of the Board of Regents, Rev. David Anderson, and
the Board of Regents refused to answer my letters asking about the
Seminary’s position on Walther’s “Church and Ministry.”
When I polled the faculty individually, Board Chairman, Rev. David Anderson,
wrote to me that in a Faculty meeting it was decided not to respond to my
questions about quotes from Walther.
Faculty members have written and spoken to me in opposition to Walther’s
writings on the office of the ministry and Voters’ Assemblies. They have
also written and/or told me that they disagree with Walther.
Wenthe was repeatedly asked in Christian News and Reclaim News to publicly
support Resolution 7:17A. He and the Seminary did not reply and did not
publicly support the resolution at the 2001 LCMS Convention.
My advocacy of Voters’ Assemblies was the butt of numerous jokes and song
parodies at the 1999, 2000, and 2001 LCMS Symposium banquettes and, at
times, during the lectures themselves.
A number of the faculty, including the Academic Dean, sang along to a number
of song parodies (now in my possession) at the 2001 Alumni reception,
ridiculing my support for Voters’ Assemblies.
Over the past five years I have received negative comments about Walther’s
Voters’ Assemblies from well over a hundred
Fort Wayne
graduates at
Fort Wayne
, in print, and in many
gatherings and conferences outside the Seminary.
I have finally come to the opinion that a majority of the Faculty, including
President Wenthe, does not agree with Walther’s structure for
congregational polity.
All that being said, I may have been excessive in suggesting that Wenthe
doesn’t agree with Walther’s teaching on Congregational polity. After
all, they only published 12 pages about Walther without explaining his most
significant achievement as the author of LCMS Synodical and congregational
polity.
Facts are facts. I do not have any written statement that shows that
President Wenthe does not support Walther’s views on congregational polity
as the model for all LCMS congregations.
Rolf Preus asks: Do church polity considerations trump substantive doctrinal
issues in importance? Should confessionalists in
Missouri
devour one another over
matters of church government while the openly impenitent syncretists and
unionists retain control over the institution?
The answer is, “Church polity considerations do not trump substantive
doctrinal issues in importance. God’s Word and the cardinal doctrines of
the Bible will continue till the end of time. It is just that without its
doctrine of church and ministry, the LCMS will cease to exist and God does
not need the LCMS. Preus is really asking “Does the existence of the LCMS
trump substantive doctrinal issues in importance?” and again the answer is
“No.”
Soup
is more important than the bowl; it is just hard to eat without the bowl.
Communion wine is more important than the cup.
People are more important than cars, it is just harder to get
anywhere without cars. Doctrine
is more important than congregational and Synodical polity.
It is just that there won’t be a Synod without a polity to which we
all agree.
All this could be so easily settled. All Wenthe has to say is, “Of course
I agree with those quotations from Walther’s “Church and Ministry” as
the correct congregational polity for LCMS congregations. Perhaps Rolf Preus
can get an answer from Wenthe, the Fort Wayne Board of Regents, and the
Faculty.
Preus’s comments did get to the heart of the issue, for which I thank him.
|
|