Preus Defends Wenthe: Cascione Replies

By: Rev. Jack Cascione

 

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.

 

October 23 , 2003