May 30, 2000
The Rev. Herman Otten
Christian News
3277 Boeuf Lutheran Road
New Haven , MO 63068
Fax 573-237-3858
Dear Brother Herman:
Greetings in the name of our ascended Lord.
Although I hadn't intended to respond, in the current issue of Christian News there is
an article to which I must take exception because of a couple of the writer's comments
that are something less than completely untruthful.
First of all even though he rightly quoted me as saying: "Where he finds the time
to write all this nonsense is more than I can see, especially with the pressing concerns
of being a parish pastor." He then goes on to say that I had thereby accused him of
neglecting his duties as a pastor. I did no such thing! After all, Herman, I often am
amazed at all you're able to accomplish in the Lord's kingdom along with carrying out your
duties, as a parish pastor- and I certainly intend no accusation by saying so. When the
writer goes on to list his duties as outlined in his report to his Board of Elders, I felt
that perhaps he is protesting too much.
And, secondly, he said: "At our meeting in Chicago after Easter, Anderson told me
that same thing to my face with a few added expletives." I phoned him and told him
that was a lie. He replied that I had called his writings "crap." I don't
remember saying that but perhaps I did. Anyway, "The Living Webster Encyclopedia
Dictionary" gives this slang definition of the word, "nonsense; junk; misleading
statements." Thus my comment seems to be right on the mark. What is more, in the
above-quoted statement he used the plural "expletives," leaving it open for your
readers to imagine the worst as to what I may have said. I don't think such an open-ended
innuendo that can destroy another's mane and reputation, is worthy of any professing
Christian.
In closing I would just add that the more he attacks the Fort Wayne Seminary, the more
it seems that he is still unhappy about being defeated for election to the Board of
Regents in 1989. He's free to attack me all he wants, but I do wish he'd leave the
seminary alone. There are many more-pressing issues facing our Synod today than the cause
of voter supremacy. (Hopefully this can be my last word on the subject.)
Blessings to you and your readers in this season of Ascension and Pentecost
Your friend in Christ,
David L. Anderson
1413 9th Avenue North
Fort Dodge, IA 50501
Fax 515-576-3698
In my attempt not to repeat his comments about my publications supporting Voter
Supremacy, I characterized Rev. David Anderson's words, as "expletives." The
truth is, the chairman of the Fort Wayne Board of Regents, repeatedly called them
"crap" and that was the only "expletive" he used, lest readers think
he said something else.
This is the same man who responded as follows when I said that the Fort Wayne Faculty
did not support Voter Supremacy:
"I talked with a number of our professors at CTS this past week and found no one
who teaches or who knows anyone who teaches that the congregational voters' assembly is
not supreme. If you know someone who does, it would seem to be the Christian thing to
approach that a brother privately and talk to him about it. If he listens to you, you have
won your brother (Matt. 18:15). Having thus done all I can to run down the basis for your
rumors, I asked Dr. Weinrich to reply to your questions.
What bothers me the most is that a few people, at least will believe your charges
without checking whether they are true. It seems that you are Ralph Bohlmann's successor,
seeking to destroy the greatest seminary in the world."
So on January 24th, 2000, Anderson accuses me of being like Ralph Bohlmann because I'm
destroying the greatest seminary in the world for suggesting that the faculty does not
support Voter Supremacy.
It appears Anderson got his signals crossed.
I polled the faculty on their support for Voter Supremacy and discovered that only 6
out of 33 agreed to it.
Then on May 11, Anderson did a reverse and begins accusing me of attacking the greatest
Seminary in the world for suggesting that as many as 6 of their faculty might agree with
Voter Supremacy.
Anderson writes: "So his [Cascione's] statement, 'At this time, 6 of the 33
professors at Fort Wayne have agreed with Walther's Voter Supremacy' doesn't mean too
much."
Anderson had to go back to the faculty to find out what the greatest Seminary in the
world believes about Voter Supremacy so he could defend their position, whatever it is at
the moment.
I'm well aware that Anderson believes my writings about Voter Supremacy are
"crap." Who needs those stupid lay people? The Synod can do very well with no
polity, thank you very much.
It is amazing, 150 years after the Voters' Assemblies of the LCMS established two
seminaries, now the Chairman of the Board of Regents calls writing that supports Voter
Supremacy, "crap."
Anderson is convinced that "Balance," who supported his election, is the
reason I'm bringing up Voter Supremacy. From his view, what else could it be? How could
any pastor really be interested in supporting Voter Supremacy? He thinks that I must be
using it as a political tool just like "Balance" does with all kinds of other
issues.
Walther was president of Fort Wayne and he supported Voter Supremacy. My seminary
textbook by Fritz supported it. My congregation's constitution from 1921 supports it. But
now both seminaries no longer teach and support Voter Supremacy.
The only alternative is clergy supremacy, unless we have those special congregations
that only support the "Word of God" and Jesus comes to their meetings and votes.
Those who prefer "Congregational Self Government" to Voter Supremacy have the
same problem that Luecke does with "Contemporary Worship." Both terms have no
definition. These terms are used so people can look righteous and not know what they
talking about at the same time.
There is no question that there are more pressing issues than Voter Supremacy in the
Synod, but they won't be handled by a politicized LCMS clergy. If the Voters' don't take
action like they did in '69, '71, and '73 the Synod as we know it must disintegrate.
The way to always win in court is to get rid of the courts. If the Voters don't take on
the "more pressing" issues no one will.
The Libs made the mistake of thinking that they had to get rid of Jack Preus. Today, it
is correctly understood by the "Church Growthers" and the Hyper-Euro-Lutherans,
that they will succeed where the Libs failed by getting rid of Voters' Assemblies.