Balance: Two Years Too Late on PLI
By Rev. Jack Cascione

More than two years after this writer published numerous articles in Christian News, warning the readers about the "Pastoral Leadership Institute" (PLI), the proposed third LCMS Seminary, "Vision" by Tom Baker of "Balance Inc." and "Affirm" have decided to speak up on the subject in their February 2000 issue. Their article is titled "A 'Seminary' Without Control?"

We can speak about "Balance" with the same words, "A Secret Organization Without Control." Balance is little more than a "conservative" lodge/pot calling PLI Inc./kettle black.

Nearly everything the "Vision" article says about PLI is right on target, but just two years too late. This writer's book "Reclaiming the Gospel in the LCMS" dedicated its first 19-page chapter to the subject of the Church Growth Movement in the LCMS and PLI.

At the 1995 LCMS Convention, our insisting on the name "Lutheran" on all LCMS congregations was not a "Balance"/Tom Baker, idea so they wouldn't support it. The resolution, however, passed 67% to 33%.

At the 1998 LCMS Convention, our insisting on the use of the original three Creeds and opposing the confession of invented Creeds was not a "Balance" /Tom Baker, idea so they wouldn't support it. This resolution passed 83% to 17%. Baker won't even agree that the Apostle's Creed is the Gospel.

Christian News sent "Reclaiming the Gospel in the LCMS" to every delegate at the 1998 LCMS Convention. So, why didn't "Balance"/Tom Baker stop PLI right there at the Convention? The answer is simple. "Balance" claims all the rights to the conservative agenda for the LCMS. All other ideas that do not originate with "Balance" must necessarily not be conservative.

This writer has waited to see when "Balance" would speak out and finally recognize how seriously Oesch and company have outmaneuvered them. "Balance" is ill prepared to deal with another corporation that isn't openly attacking Biblical inerrancy and the Lutheran Confessions.

Now, before Palm Sunday 2000, the Board for Higher Education (BHE) has selected a 9-member committee to report back to them in October of 2000 on the theology of PLI. Oesch demonstrated his "leadership training" skills by maneuvering a reported 6 to 3 majority in favor of PLI on the BHE committee.

Not only is Oesch in a position to leverage the entire Board in October, his former congregational president has just replaced Norm Sell as the treasurer of the LCMS Foundation.

The COP and Oesch knew they risked losing the new Church Growth PLI Seminary at the 1998 Convention if it came to the floor but "Balance" let PLI slide. If Otten published anything about PLI, that was enough reason for "Balance" to ignore it. For "Balance," political control a priority over conservative theology.

The privately funded PLI Seminary is already operating with a nearly two million-dollar budget and needs RSO status to gain more donations and official LCMS status.

The "Vision" article offers no solution to the PLI problem, except "to write to the BHE and request, in the strongest possible way, that PLI not be granted RSO status."

They continue with this thought, "And that needs to be done now, not later. To do nothing is worse, and unthinkable." But "Balance's" doing something to stop PLI was certainly "unthinkable" in 1998 because it wasn't their lead.

The layperson has to ask, "What's going on here?" After experiencing the attack of "Balance" operatives, when attempting to promote the name "Lutheran" in '95 and the Creeds in '98 it became quite clear that the operative word is "control," not theology.

"Reclaim News" is now putting forth every effort to promote the very thing that PLI, Balance, and the Seminary faculties will not support, Walther's Voter Supremacy in every LCMS congregation.

Oesch and Company have made great advances because average LCMS laymen are not being taught how to operate their congregations and the Synod from their Voters' Assemblies. Neither PLI nor "Balance" nor "Jesus First" nor the faculty at Fort Wayne will endorse a resolution from "Reclaim News" supporting Voter Supremacy at the 2001 LCMS Convention.

Baker writes, "The PLI literature falsely gives the impression that it is an official LCMS organization. Not so, not yet and, if conservatives act now, maybe...hopefully...not ever." He is correct, however, "Balance" is also not an official LCMS organization.

He says "conservatives," but by whose definition? "Balance" is so conservative they will not support resolutions on the name "Lutheran" or on the "Creeds" or that supreme Voters' Assemblies, as designed by Walther, rule their congregations and the Synod. Why should the laymen reject an Oesch-designed "Board of Directors" ruling their church, only to have a "Balance" style second coming of dictators like Loehe or Grabau rule it?

Pastors know best, not in this Synod! Let the pastors preach and teach and let the lay people take care of the rest, or did the pastors enter the ministry for other reasons?

The power groups all justify "their" own noble cause, but it is always their cause. The lay people are paying for this Synod and they should take it back from the politicians.

April 20, 2000