The Benke Case and American Civil Religion, By Martin R. Noland
Now that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has a new president, it can discuss the Benke case with less heat and more light. Maybe. At least the discussion is no longer REALLY about the next election.
The “Benke case,” for those who don’t know, refers to the participation of Atlantic District President David Benke in the “Prayer for America” at Yankee Stadium on September 23, 2001. LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick gave Benke permission to participate in that event, which would otherwise be considered a “syncretistic” act under LCMS Constitution Article VI.2.
Persons who believed that Benke violated the synod’s constitution brought charges against him, and the charges were processed under the synod’s “Dispute Resolution System.” The final result of the case was that Benke was exonerated, and his ecclesial judge, the Rev. Wallace Schulz, was summarily fired by his employer, the Lutheran Hour Ministries.
Many people were reluctant to discuss the Benke case for good reason. For one, the bylaws highly discourage publicity (LCMS bylaw 1.10.18.1 (d)), excepting the President of synod or the district president involved in the case. Secondly, any disagreement with Benke’s act could be, and was, interpreted as REALLY being about the next presidential election, since Kieschnick was involved personally in the case, not just officially. Finally, it had become a church-court case, and anyone who understands justice knows that judges should not be pressured by the crowd. Otherwise, we fulfill Wilhelm Loehe’s prediction that the Missouri Synod would be governed by “Poebelherrschaft” (tr. “mob rule”; or, “gang rule”).
The leaders of the Lutheran Hour Ministries not only pressured the Rev. Wallace Schulz, they fired him from his gainful employment. So much for “justice” in the church! Nothing has made me more ashamed of being a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod than the way that the Lutheran Hour Ministries directors treated Rev. Schulz, who was doing his job as an officer of the church in good conscience and with sound judgment. I am not angry; just ashamed.
Schulz ruled against Benke “straight from the book,” i.e., the LCMS Constitution which he was obligated to follow. Those who lashed out at Schulz, and those who were responsible for his firing, obviously disagree with the book, i.e., the LCMS Constitution and especially its Article VI.2 on syncretism. And this is where we still are today, nine years later, with no real resolution on this issue, though the case is finished.
There is some good discussion regarding the issues of syncretism from a Lutheran perspective in: David Adams & Ken Schurb, eds., “The Anonymous God: The Church Confronts Civil Religion and American Society” (St Louis: CPH). There were also excellent lectures on these issues in the last decade at both seminaries. Proceedings from those symposia are necessary reading for anyone who wishes to talk or write intelligently on this topic.
While beginning to unpack my library (finally!), I came across a book I had not opened for over 30 years: “The Righteous Empire: The Protestant Experience in America ” by Martin Marty (New York: The Dial Press). When I attended Concordia Teachers College, River Forest, it was required reading for one of the required theology courses. Most of my professors at River Forest, including the professor who assigned that text, quoted Martin Marty approvingly, and that particular text glowingly.
The book “Righteous Empire” was, in fact, about the development of American Civil Religion. Although couched in the objective language of the religious historian, it was pretty obvious that American Civil Religion was considered a mixed curse. Why? As Marty explained it, American Civil Religion has its uses, but it can be bad because it can blur the distinction between church and state, which is one of the buttresses of freedom of religion. Demagogic politicians can also use it to manipulate the electorate. I thought that Martin Marty’s analysis was accurate and useful.
So, then, I found it extremely ironic when all of the “liberal-leaning-Lutherans” in the LCMS came to Benke’s defense when he participated in an event that was the epitome of the American Civil Religion. Did they suddenly forget everything that Martin Marty taught them was wrong with American Civil Religion? (I don’t know what Marty said about the Benke case, if anything).
Those who want to get rid of the syncretism clause in the LCMS Constitution don’t understand Lutheran history or American religious history. That is the most charitable thing I can say about them. The LCMS syncretism clause is designed to prevent the pastors and leaders of the LCMS from getting involved in events of the American Civil Religion, among other things. Our forefathers saw what German Civil Religion did to the church in Germany. We owe our forefathers a debt of gratitude for helping to keep our church at arm’s length from the Homeric siren that is American Civil Religion.
If one wants to understand the history of Benke’s Spiritual Adultery at Yankee Stadium, one needs to read the various sections of The Schultz Report, including The Main Report in pdf, which contains:
1. The Official Letter by Schulz to LCMS Secretary Hartwig (May 11, 2003): Dispute Resolution Panel Sets Aside Word of God
2. The Schulz Response to the Dispute Resolution Panel and, as adjudicator in this case, his response to the CTCR and CCM decision rendered after the Newark hearing (May 11, 2003)
3. Testimony of Rev. Wallace Schulz Given to the Dispute Resolution Panel at Newark, NJ (January 13-14, 2003)
The complete documentation contains all of the Appendices A through CCC-1 (485 pages, 10.6 MB)
From Rev. Schulz’s testimony to the DRP:
“When LCMS President Kieschnick agreed to permit Pastor Benke to ‘worship’ with unbelievers, by attending the Yankee Stadium ‘interfaith service’ President Kieschnick, in effect, consented to permit Benke to go to a spiritual house of ill repute, or the whorehouse of heathenism…. However, when President Benke asked pagan clerics to ‘join hands’ with him in prayer, this was the spiritually copulative act of adultery.”
Rick,
The “complete documentation” and “The Schulz Response to the Dispute…” links are not working.
Pastor Noland,
What is the origin of the Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process, and how does the process differ from the system it replaced?
Try this Schulz Response to the Dispute Resolution Panel htm link or this pdf link.
I can’t get the complete documentation link to work either. I’ll try again later or try working through one of the other links here. Otherwise one may have to download the appendices separately.
@wrl #3 “What is the origin of the Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process, and how does the process differ from the system it replaced?”
Pastor Noland knows a lot more than I do, but it has become a labyrinth of obfuscation. It’s very significant that, after this whole sorry episode, the dispute resolution process was completely changed in the 2004 Convention. The floor committee (#7) was in disarray, and the process is very confusing, taking up 13 pages in the Handbook (2007), section 1.10, pages 37-50. The BRFTSSG had instructions not to do anything with it. (How about them apples?) In 1991 the Commission on Appeals was abolished ostensibly because its $10,000 budget was too high. The Dispute Resolution process then went thru several changes, before the present process was adopted. I’ll leave it to Dr. Noland to clarify what I have muddied up. My hope is that the 2013 Convention can fix it.
If I remember correctly, Benke was exonerated, since his ecclesiastical supervisor had given him permission. If ever a door was opened to destroying the church, this was it. No longer are scripture and the confessions the rule and guide. Enough already–I’m getting all worked up and it’s 12:15 A.M.!
Johannes
I wonder if Wallace Schulz would be open to a new job as Lutheran Hour preacher?
If some have forgotten the details after 9 years, here’s good source:
http://www.gloriachristi.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/zillyankeestadium.pdf
I could deal with this if there were repentance. “Hey guys, we screwed up and we’re sorry. God forgive us. LCMS forgive us.” So why was there no repentance? It is either pride and shame, or they felt that they did nothing wrong. I have heard from clergy that they could not Commune these guys, due to their unrepentance.
If I have my history right, the beginning of the dispute resolution process is a direct result of the investigation into CSL (Seminex). Which conventions and committees and presidents of synod that were involved in concocting the current dispute resolution process would be an interesting history lesson. Perhaps Mr. Noland could help us there?
I’m an ignoramus, but wouldn’t it have just been easier on everyone if Kieschnick and Benke had just apologized for the lapse in judgement and promised not to do it again? I tell my kids they have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Obviously this had the appearance of impropriety even if technically it wasn’t prohibited in some article a, subsection b, heading c, etc.
@Mrs. Hume #10
“Wouldn’t it have just been easier on everyone if Kieschnick and Benke had just apologized for the lapse in judgement and promised not to do it again?”
Well, that’s a good idea, however after the CCM ruling, everything was OK, because DP Benke had been operating with his ecclesiastical supervisor’s permission, according to that CCM ruling. However, DP Benke did issue some kind of apology for offending anyone. In his 2004 Convention address, Pres. Kieschnick publicly gave DP Benke absolution. That particular act raised more than a few eyebrows.
I think several attempts have been made to over-rule that CCM opinion at every convention, including 2010, but they have not been successful. The overtures are submitted but do not make it to the floor.
This is a sorry episode in the histroy of the synod, and it isn’t going to go away. Dr. Noland could be criticized for bringing it up, but it’s necessary because of the far-reaching and dangerous implications of that event, both at the time and for the future of the LCMS.
Johannes
The old adjudication process was set up in the 1970s and was eventually replaced by the Dispute Resolution Panel.
According to Rev. Rolf Preus, the synodical Commission on Adjudication and Commission on Appeals were outside of Bohlmann’s control when the Commission ruled against him on the Robert Preus cases.
As a result, the replacement Dispute Resolution Panel, which would be under the SP’s control, was introduced and passed at the 1992 synodical convention, which ironically voted Bohlmann out of office.
@Carl Vehse #12
That sounds about right. In fact, it was Bohlmann who in 1991 abolished the Commission on Appeals because it was not under his control. It’s all about control.
J
The absolution Keischnick gave was for what Benke had previously confessed. In Kieschnick’s own words, this is what was forgiven:
“Here are the exact words of Dr. Benke himself, originally posted on Jan. 4, 2002, online and in print since that date, and referenced in my memo to the Synod almost two years ago:
I made a pledge very early on to take seriously those who differed with me. So in the area of specific wording, to whoever has had problems and criticisms, I am sorry that I didn’t get the words out more clearly or accurately or completely. Although it was never intentional, I know that my words have offended some in my denomination, and for that offense I apologize, sincerely, and ask for forgiveness.
David H. Benke
January 4, 2002
“As your ecclesiastical supervisor, Dr. Benke, as I have spoken to you before so I do so again this day assuring you of the forgiveness that you have requested, in the name of the Father, of the Son, of the Holy Spirit.”
Kieschnick’s absolution was applied to Benke’s indicated request for forgiveness for his “never intentional” offending some with his words. It applies to nothing else in his unrepentant actions of spiritual adultery.
I remember that Yankee stadium incident really well.
It was very surprising to me that Pastor Benke participated, and I thought it was disingenuous to imply that he didn’t know any better. How could anyone who grew up in the Missouri Synod, let alone a Missouri Synod pastor, let alone a Missouri Synod District President, not know better than to preside at a worship service with non-Christians? I read his words, and in addition to participating, he seemed to backpedal the Faith a lot in the way that he spoke. In fairness, though, I heard later that he did repent of that, and don’t hold it against him. (We’re Lutherans; when someone repents we have to forgive him, I figure.)
But there was something else that he did that also bothered me a great deal–he appeared on a PBS special afterwards, along with many other clergy, not all of them Christian. He was the only one of the whole group who focussed on himself and on the reaction to his stand, rather than on God and on the victims. He had an amazing chance to spread the Gospel, or at least bear witness to it, on national TV, and he completely blew it.
In fairness to him, I double checked the PBS Frontline website that had the full text of his interview, in case his words had been quoted out of context. No such luck. The whole interview was like that.
He might be a great guy in person, but as the public face of Lutheranism in New York City after the horrors of Sept. 11, he did harm to the Gospel. And afterwards, travelling all over the country drumming up support for his position in rallies at churches (there was one here in the next town), and being sarcastic (leading chants of ‘It’s OK to pray’) about the very real issues that his position raised, has lowered the respect and allowances that I would have otherwise had for someone dealing with an unbelievably difficult and shocking situation.
In my view, he needed and still needs to say, “I messed up, I’m sorry.”
I know in my own little corner of the LCMS this episode caused a bit of division between some of the members of our congregation and our Pastor. Our Pastor and some of the members took Rev. Benke and Rev. Kieschnick’s side while some of us bowed out and lost a bit trust in things LCMS.
I have forgiven these men for any offense they have caused me and, even though I still heartily disagree with them on many issues, I love them as fellow members of the Body of Christ. I know that Pastors are no less sinful than the rest of us poor miserable sinners, but I have to confess that I so highly esteem the office of the Ministry and yet have been offended by the actions of several who have held that office that I still do struggle with some hard feelings, wretched man that I am. Lord have mercy.
I find this episode an interesting part of our history and well worth studying for the sake of the Gospel. I pray that any wounds still open can finally be dealt with and mended under the healing care of our Lord.
@Carl Vehse #14
We must all remember that Benke promised President Barry that he would never do such a thing again when Barry was ready to remove him from office for a similiar act while Barry was president. We must also remember that in the hearing Benke is quoted to have said that he told the president it would cause problems–twice–and President K told him to go ahead!!! So much for honesty on the part of both men and the keeping of their ordination vows!!!! And know I cannot lay my hands right now on the papers which contain the Benke quote about what President K told him.
@Carl Vehse #14
You said, “Kieschnick’s absolution was applied to Benke’s indicated request for forgiveness for his “never intentional” offending some with his words. It applies to nothing else in his unrepentant actions of spiritual adultery.”
“Spiritual adultery” is a strong term. Yet that is exactly what it is. Some may think that Wallace Schulz’s words were inflammatory, insensitive, over-the-top, and ill-chosen (see post #1 above). His words were hardly conciliatory or an invitation to continue “the conversation.” No, they were spot-on, and were nothing less than a call to repentance.
Rather than quote verbatim the passages in which God uses the image of adultery for apostasy, I’ll just list a few, from Francis Schaeffer’s “The Church Before the Watching World”:
Isaiah 1:21
Jeremiah 3:1-10
Ezekiel 16:20-32
Ezekiel 23
Hosea 4:12, 13
Hosea 9:1
That should cinch it, but just in case anyone wants a NT reference, how about Rev. 17:1-5 for openers?
Schaeffer’s little book ought to be required reading.
Johannes
@Carl Vehse #12
@Johannes #13
Thanks for the background info…that explains the “who” and “why”. The dispute resolution process/1992 has obvious parallels to BRTF/2010. Vague lawyerly language designed to shift power. Didn’t someone here say the process was crafted by a JF lawyer? Correct me if I’m wrong on that.
@wrl #19
“Didn’t someone here say the process was crafted by a JF lawyer? Correct me if I’m wrong on that.”
Yes, Rev. Phil Esala, former lawyer (don’t know if he still has law license). I believe he is now with PLI. At the 2004 Convention, the flow chart of the DRP process looked like a wiring diagram for the space shuttle.
j
@johannes #20
Cool analogy to the space shuttle. I read somewhere that the reason there are so many problems launching the space shuttle is that it has so many more moving parts than the Apollo rockets.
Sounds like the same holds true for DRP.
Well, you’re close, but I’m not sure that anything moves in the DRP.
j
@Johannes #22
Ha. DRP sits on the pad, postponing launch. Because it doesn’t work.
@johannes #11
“after the CCM ruling, everything was OK, because DP Benke had been operating with his ecclesiastical supervisor’s permission, according to that CCM ruling.”
That is the kind of technicality that is fine in a court of law between adversaries. However, we aren’t adversaries. There is the letter of the law and then there is the spirit of the law. The letter of the law, even if written by competent folks, can still fail to enumerate all of ways we devious critters can come up with to violate the spirit of the law which the letter of the law attempts to reflect.
No ruling is going to convince people that they agree with something they don’t agree with. The point isn’t to have someone tell us we agree. The point is to actually agree.
Is it about choosing to agree to disagree? Or is it just that Benke or Kieschnick didn’t think they had a lapse, or maybe thought they did but didn’t want to say so? Or did they hope to set a precedent and just test the water to see if it would float? Do we really want to be at a point where leaders can say that their supervisor said it was okay, therefore it is? Like I said, I am pretty ignorant on all this, but these are the first things that come to my mind. So, is that why folks don’t want to bring these things up, because they weren’t really settled satisfactorily and lay people like me won’t understand, rather just be left with a vague feeling of disunity and distrust?
@Mrs. Hume #24
Mrs. Hume, don’t sell yourself short–you are quite savvy.
You ask what is it about? My opinion is that it’s about a somewhat misguided effort to reach out. As I recall, there wasn’t much outreach–I can’t remember if Jesus was mentioned. His name was mentioned by other Christians present. When I heard GK at our district convention in 2000, he was openly critical of Barry’s exercise of Ecclesiastical Supervision with respect to at least one, if not two, DP’s, as I recall. I don’t know if the above referenced incident (post #17) was one of those or not. So when this “opportunity” came along, PK acted in accordance with his philosophy.
If I’m President Johannes, I give DP Benke the following unequivocal instructions:
“1. You may take part in the ceremony.
2. You cannot pray with the other participants
3. You may not acknowledge them as equals
4. You may say a few words:
5. Here’s what you will say, and nothing else:
‘I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from all eternity, and also true man, born of the virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with his holy precious blood, and with his innocent suffering and death, that I may be his own, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even has he is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true. Amen.’
6. Furthermore you will say:
‘As Pastor of St. Peter Lutheran Church in Brooklyn, and on behalf of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, I invite you to attend our week-long services of prayer and repentance, which will be held each day at noon and 7 o’clock, beginning this evening. I will share with you the Word of God, and the message of forgiveness and salvation in my Lord Jesus Christ.’
7. That is all. Do you understand? Good. The Lord be with you. Click”
If that ain’t outreach, I don’t know what is.
Johannes
Great idea, President Johannes.
If I were president, I would say, “Pastor Benke, you know that we really don’t do this. I understand that these times are very difficult. That makes it all the more important to BE WHO WE ARE. We are blessed to know the Light that shines in the darkness, the Word made Flesh. We can’t dim that Light by implying that there are other lights that are just as valid. That would, indeed, be the worst thing we could do right now. I know that you know this, and that you’re really hurting right now along with your parish, or you wouldn’t even suggest this. My brother in Christ, let us pray together now for healing, rescue, and salvation for all hurt by this tragedy, and then let’s think about a better way to minister to the lost in that wonderful city whose people you serve.”
This was before the time when I “awakened” to the jewel that is the Lutheran Confessions and by Grace was given to understand the Bible with the clarity they impart. Thus I don’t even remember that this happened at the time, not being aware of anything beyond my own congregation (and aware of little there).
Looking back on this with knowledge of the blessings imparted to us by the Lord God, seeing our confession before the world crumpled up and thrown in with the other rubbish is tragic indeed. I hope that both of these men are led to repentance, could that happen with the pastoral guidance of the newly elected president? Let us pray that it is so. We can never ‘fix’ this in the eyes of the world, but hopefully the synod can be taught, so that we take a more faithful approach to the next tragedy that strikes this fallen world.
It seems that nine years have not dimmed the animosity toward Pastor Benke, nor has love or forgiveness overtaken his detractors’ hearts.
Reaching out to millions of unbelievers who have not heard of Jesus’ love seems of less interest than trying to make sure that Pastor Benke get his come-up-ins. Apparently the thought is “better now than never.”
I am disappointed in most of the comments on this thread, but grateful that God sent His Son to die for all of us, even when some of our actions don’t seem like sin to us at the time. If His blood did not cover us even then, we would be in danger of hell’s fire if we happen to die in the midst of a sinful thought.
Jesus felt compassion for sinners and cautioned us not to judge one another; but to look at our own error; to compare our actions to His. Please prayerfully consider whether your comments more closely reflect Jesus’ attitude, or the attitude of the Pharisees whom He often chastised. Is it more important to persecute a person for failing to conform perfectly to the synodical constitution, or to exhibit the compassion and forgiveness of Jesus for those He loves?
@Sue Wilson #28
You are absolutely right that we should be forgiving of Pr. Benke and our current president. At the same time, there needs to be genuine repentance on the the part of those that knowingly violated Scripture, our confessions, and our polity. Instead of true repentance, there has been the “sorry I got caught” response. “We knew this was wrong, but we did it anyway,” is not repentance, either. IMO, this was an attempt to “look like we care” in the emotional heat of the moment following a national tragedy.
Having had private confession last night. and having used Ps 40 as my Scripture reading, I don’t think that, “I knew it was wrong, but did it anyway because I had good intentions,” would be considered contrition.
@Sue Wilson #28
You said, “Please prayerfully consider whether your comments more closely reflect Jesus’ attitude, or the attitude of the Pharisees whom He often chastised. Is it more important to persecute a person for failing to conform perfectly to the synodical constitution, or to exhibit the compassion and forgiveness of Jesus for those He loves?”
There is no doubt animosity expressed toward Pastor Benke and Pres. Kieschnick here. But I think if you read the transcript and also watch what Pr. Benke did, he was “unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14-18). True, that is in violation of our constitution, but it’s also a violation of Scripture, on which our consitution is based. That action simply gives the impression that we are one of many paths to God. What I find most unfortunate however, is Pr. Benke’s lukewarm witness, which he more or less owned up to. As I said in Post #25, he could given an extremely powerful witness, and hosted a truly Christian-Lutheran service at St. Peter. The effect of his participation at Yankee Stadium was not to build fatih, but to dilute our witness. I’d also suggest a review of the tapes and transcripts, including the PBS program, and see if what Pres. Benke did and said had the effect of building unity within the LCMS (see especially post #14 above).
The charge of “Pharisee” is not uncommon when such situation present themselves, and when someone calls another to account. One of the effects of the Y.S. event is to further divide the synod. Pastor Benke knew what would happen–he warned Pres. Kieschnick, twice, as I recall, then received permission and went ahead anyway. When I tried to express my concerns about this business on the Daystar website, I was “trashed” and told I would be ignored. Is that not a pharisaical thing to do? It is not helpful to use labels to describe those with whom we disagree.
Many of us contributors to BJS are not interested in hounding or “persecuting” Pres. Benke, or publicly humiliating him. However, this whole business has not been put to rest, and until it is, the synod is not at rest. Dr. Noland has raised the issue of a very significant danger to our unity and our witness. He has done us a service. We should all hope and pray that Rev. Harrison will find a way to deal with this whole mess, and put it behind us.
Johannes
“It seems that nine years have not dimmed the animosity toward Pastor Benke, nor has love or forgiveness overtaken his detractors’ hearts.”
Sue, such a judgment by you may apply to something that you may have heard or read somewhere else, but your judgment here is not substantiated by Rev. Noland’s article or any of the responses on this thread that deal with the unionism and syncretism which occurred at Yankee Stadium (and their approval in the Purple Palace).
Also, please document and substantiate with specific examples your judgment that this article or its responses “tried to make sure that Pastor Benke gets his come-up-ins” and that the various posters have stated that their motives contain less interest in reaching out to millions of unbelievers.
@Sue Wilson #28
What we as a Synod are disagreeing on is sin, and what defines it. Not only was participation in Yankee Stadium unbiblical as others here have stated, its insidious legacy is that maybe a good half of the Synod thinks it’s okay to defend actions with bylaws rather than the Scriptures. In my congregation, I would say over half of the members think that what DP Benke did was RIGHT–not wrong, not weak–but RIGHT. But their judgment is based on current worldly mores about evangelism in a post-modern Oprah culture. President Benke’s sins–like all of ours–ARE covered by the blood of Christ, but speaking forgiveness when lukewarm repentance has been shown is not a proper dividing of Law and Gospel.
President Benke has sadly weakened his own ongoing Christian witness. When he cries “schism” I don’t think of current controversies. I think of Yankee Stadium, which one could argue was THE most divisive event in recent LCMS history.
President Benke needs come out very strongly and directly for deciding such issues on the basis of Scripture, not only for his sake, but for those in our Synod that look up to him as a Christian leader and have been lead down the path of bylaws.
Not to mention for the unsaved.
Sue @ 28,
“It seems that nine years have not dimmed the animosity toward Pastor Benke, nor has love or forgiveness overtaken his detractors’ hearts.”
I will take your word for it that you can see in to our hearts.
“Please prayerfully consider whether your comments more closely reflect Jesus’ attitude…”
“Jesus felt compassion for sinners and cautioned us not to judge one another;”
So Jesus can see into our hearts too, and his advice is to us (including you) is what?
“Reaching out to millions of unbelievers who have not heard of Jesus’ love seems of less interest than trying to make sure that Pastor Benke get his come-up-ins.”
I always thought we were called primarily to be faithful. If in our sin-ridden lives we miss opportunities to reach out because we are being faithful with the message we are given I
will leave that in Gods hands. My angst over it would produce nothing. The doctrine of Election is provided as a comfort in this sort of circumstance. I wonder if you have heard of it? I wonder if Rev. Benke has for that matter.
@Sue Wilson #28
Sue, it looks as though your comments have triggered substantive and animated discussion here. I’m somewhat surprised at the reactions to your comments and questions. I may be using up my credibility and blogability capital here, risking over-exposure, but I’ll take my chances. I’d like to respond to your concerns by approaching them from a somewhat different perspective.
Let’s go back to the Augsburg Confession, Article V (Kolb-Wengert, German Text):
“To obtain such [saving] faith, God institutued the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit who produces faith, where and when he wills, in those who hear the gospel. It teaches that we have a gracious God, not through our merit but through Christ’s merit, when we so believe…”
What this says in effect is that the Holy Ministry is given to build faith–both in those who have never heard the gospel, and in those who are believers. And, the Holy Spirit works only through means–the Gospel in Word and Sacraments. So the question is–after all is said and done, was the Gospel proclaimed? Did the thousands at Yankeee Stadium, and millions of viewers world-wide hear a clear proclamation of the Gospel? In follow-up interviews with PBS and others, was the Gospel presented at least in some fashion? Even if we ignore God’s prohibition of unequal yoking with unbelievers, was there no doubt that the Gospel had been presented, so that faith could be engendered, or built up? Even if we forget our constitution and bylaws for the moment, can we say that at least there was a resounding and unequivocal presentation of the Good News?
The Great Commission, Mission, Evangelism, witnessing–all are accountable to Justification–that is, Justification by grace through faith in Christ Jesus–that is, the Gospel. This is the “Bottom line” this is what is ultimately at stake here–no more, no less.
I hope this puts things in clearer perspective–for you, and for all of us.
Johannes
Warning: Long post
Why won’t this subject be laid to rest?
At the outset of his presidency, now outgoing Pres. Kieschnick furnished some of the worst ecclesiastical advice ever offered by a president of the Synod, i.e., the permission given to Atlantic District president, David Benke, to offer a prayer at the interfaith service at Yankee Stadium in September 2001. It was predictably divisive. The division in the Synod that this ecclesiastical “supervision” caused during the incumbent’s first term and beyond cannot be overstated. Had the incumbent and the participant quickly admitted their errors and asked for forgiveness, some semblance of unity might have been restored. That the incumbent dared to raise the issue again in his recent book published by CPH — as a positive example of his ecclesiastical supervision — is almost impossible to comprehend. It may have played a part in the recent election.
From the onset of the Yankee Stadium controversy, the incumbent and others had attempted to use a clause in a church fellowship report of district discussions “commended” in Res. 3-07A (2001 Convention) as a criterion for permitting Dr. Benke’s participation in the prayer service. (You may recall the key terms: “pastoral discretion” and “once-in-a-lifetime experiences.”) On their face, however, the documents commended by Res. 3.07A apply only to church, i.e., Christian, fellowship. The best construction one could have put on the matter, at least initially, is that the resolution and its intent were misunderstood and thus wrongly applied.
Despite the clearly limited meaning of Res. 3-07A, it continued to be used by the incumbent and others to defend Pres. Benke’s action in the interfaith service, as well as the incumbent’s permission for same. Following Pres. Benke’s suspension by the then 2nd vice president of the Synod, Dr. Wallace Schulz, a Dispute Resolution Panel was formed to deal with the disputed suspension. As part of its deliberations the DRP inquired of the CTCR regarding the relevance of Res. 3-07A to the case. Note this point well: The CTCR responded that the pastoral discretion referred to in the report commended by Res. 3-07A did not apply to interfaith events, i.e., it could be used neither to prohibit nor to permit participation in same (see documentation below). The Dispute Resolution Panel chose to ignore this clear response of the CTCR to its own question and based its decision largely on the irrelevant Res. 3-07A. Omission of this detail in the DRP’s written decision has never been explained. It could hardly have been a misunderstanding, given that the “witnesses” for President Benke in the dispute resolution process were both the president of synod and the executive director of the CTCR! Yet, in his memo to the Synod following the decision of the DRP, the president referred multiple times to the irrelevant Res. 3-07A as a rationale for the reinstatement of President Benke.
Sadly and ironically, the DRP acknowledged that Dr. Schulz had made a thorough scriptural, i.e., First Commandment, case against Dr. Benke’s participation in the prayer service, but it chose to base its decision on the irrelevant Res. 3-07A. In that regard, we dare not forget the “collateral damage” caused by this erroneous ecclesiastical advice and continuing misuse of a convention resolution: Dr. Schulz, a vice president of the Synod, lost his position as associate Lutheran Hour speaker after having taken on the thankless task to help resolve the serious theological and ecclesiastical problems caused by other church officials.
Regarding the hollow (one is tempted to say fraudulent) decision of the DRP, one can see the whole sorry picture in just one presidential memo, still available under President / Documents / Statements (URL below) on the Synod’s web site. Let it speak for itself:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Office%20of%20the%20President/May%2012%202003.pdf
On page 9 of the president’s memo is the critical question and response:
[CTCR] RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL
QUESTION: Would offering a prayer by an LCMS pastor in a “civic event” in which prayers would also be offered by representatives of non-Christian religions be in and of itself a violation of the paragraph under “Section V point B. Cases of Discretion” in the CTCR document “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship,” a document adopted by the 2001 Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod “for continued use and guidance?”
“ANSWER: No. Section V, B. does not explicitly address the issue of “offering a prayer by an LCMS pastor in a ‘civic event’ in which prayers would also be offered by representatives of non-Christian religions.” The CTCR is presently considering assignments with respect to this issue, including the formulation of guidelines for participation in civic events and the definition of “civic event.”
Note the strange manner in which the question is both posed and answered:
1. There is no reference to Res. 3-07A, i.e., the resolution that “commended” the report in which “Section V point B. Cases of Discretion” is found. Why not?
2. “Violation” is not the question; the question is whether the action was a “case of discretion” that fit the fellowship report. The question was posed, however, in a manner that permits a negative response to the question of whether there was a violation. The key point, however, is that Section V. B. “pastoral discretion” does not apply to inter-faith events; that is, participation at YS was not a valid exercise of pastoral discretion.
3. Note that the terms “pastoral discretion” and “once-in-a-lifetime experiences” are actually found in the ancillary “Report” of discussions of the fellowship document, not in the CTCR “document” itself.
4. The Report (and the document) were “commended” for continued use and guidance, not “adopted” in the normal sense of the term.
Finally, look through the president’s memo and note how often it refers to the irrelevant Res. 3-07A. Note its use also in the quoted sections from the DRP report. In light of the CTCR’s response to its question, how is one to understand the following point made by the DRP? “In his presentation Rev. Schulz questions whether Resolution 3-07A should have any bearing on the issue. His conclusions, however, appear biased, subjective, and without credible and sustainable fact.”
The CTCR had, in essence, agreed with Rev. Schulz! Res. 3-07A does not apply. Need more be said? Who was wronged in this picture? Whose action at Yankee Stadium was a great offense? Whose ecclesiastical advice was in error? What official ecclesiastical panel arrived at an erroneous decision by ignoring the information available to it?
It may all seem very complicated (smoke and mirrors don’t help to clarify), but the principle is very simple: Members of the Synod and some of its highest officials, who knew (should have known) better, misused a synodical resolution on church fellowship repeatedly, even after it was declared not relevant to the case, thereby creating even greater division in the Synod. The best construction that we can put on the situation is that those involved in the deliberations were ignorant or careless. The worst is too distressing to contemplate. After all, if one insists on living by official resolutions and rulings, then one must live consistently and literally by those criteria.
My analyses of and conclusions regarding the sequence of ecclesiastical and procedural errors surrounding the Yankee Stadium prayer service and its aftermath, as published in the Concordia Journal and the Concordia Theological Quarterly in a number of articles during the years of the active controversy (of which this posting is a summary), have, to my knowledge, not been refuted or even received a response.
In 8th Commandment obligation, I had first written to one of the members of the DRP after its decision was made public, asking why the DRP ignored the CTCR’s response to its key question. I received no response. Nearly a decade after the fact a discussion of ecclesiastical supervision had to be dealt with in convention as if the issue were purely theoretical rather than related to a specific act of ecclesiastical malfeasance. That a critical controversy in our synod was never satisfactorily, i.e., scripturally, settled has resulted in, as some have readily observed, continued confusion and distrust.
Ms. Wilson, you need to read Pr. Wilken’s journal on playing the Pharisee card.
http://issuesetc.org/2009/03/07/playing-the-pharisee-card/
I understand the issues involved in this case, but I have to wonder if he had come out with more Christian fervor, would this issue not be as large? The biggest issue is did he violate the first commandment? I need to be enlightened because I am not sure that he did. It is a little hard to accuse someone of worshiping another god(s). It is far easier to point out Syncretism, and Unionism as the reasons for this problem.
Pharisee is strong statement to say. I do not believe it. Logs in our eyes for sure. Myself included on this one.
I’ve actually given your question, above, a lot of thought, even before you asked it. Why is this so important? I will tell you what I think the answers are. But first, I must say that I don’t think it is helpful to accuse people of animosity or a lack of love or forgiveness during what has been a pretty calm discussion back and forth. Let’s go with light rather than heat.
First of all, Pastor Benke is a public figure and a high leader in our church. That means that his actions, particularly his public ones, represent all of us to the world. So these actions are particularly worthy of attention and comment and thoughtful analysis.
Also, Pastor Benke knew that his initial action would be controversial. He knew that participating was questionable at best. Now, I have some significant sympathy for the temptation to do so. The circumstances were truly extraordinary. He should not have approached the situation as he did, but there were indeed a lot of extenuating issues. Still, he had a great opportunity to preach the Gospel to hurting people, and he did not; and the extenuating issues don’t completely justify his actions. Additionally, he had a great opportunity to do something completely separate from Yankee Stadium–to take the initiative and seize the moment with Christ’s help, and work through his own congregation, his district presidency, and his community contacts to share Christ’s love on the ground. How much of that did he do?
Having overstepped, though, if he had just said, “I overstepped, in the heat of the moment. I should not have done this,” there would have been no problem at all.
Instead, though, following the Yankee Stadium event, he went on the road. He held rallies in which he was drumming up support for himself through sarcastic comments about those who disagreed with his position. This is not the behavior of a real churchman. Sarcastic criticism does not create conversation or persuasion. It merely puts down and attempts to silence through contempt those who disagree. If his actions were truly defensible, as measured by his confirmation and ordination vows and as measured against Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, then he should have defended them in those terms; so that those of us who believed that he failed to follow his calling would have been brought to see that we were wrong. And if it was he that was wrong, he should have admitted it and repented. The primary argument made to justify his actions was that they were done with prior permission from his superior. That has never been the criteria for action in our Synod, and it’s a pretty lame argument.
Subsequently he appeared on national TV, and, alone of all of those interviewed, he talked about himself and his problems. He did not talk about the tragedy except as a backdrop for his own difficulties, he did not talk about Christ or His wonderful Gospel, and he did not talk about the specific comfort of God’s word. Again, all of the others interviewed were credits to their various faiths. Not Pastor Benke. This was profoundly disappointing to me. What an incredible opportunity. What a mistake. What a waste.
And, again, he made all of this very public. He ‘took a stand’ and blew public opportunities to preach the great Good News. “Reaching out to millions of unbelievers” is exactly what he failed to do, and he failed as a representative of my church. Because of that, and because of the bad precedent that the Yankee Stadium event constituted, this is still an issue all these years later.
In the article, “Playing the Pharisee Card,” Issues, Etc. notes, “The ‘race card’ is a political term of art made famour during the 1988 presidential race between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.”
Actually the reference of playing the “race card” was made famous well before the 1988 presidential campaign. It goes back to the 1960s in England where non-white immigrants raised racial tensions so that some political candidates would “play the race card” to increase fears and drive votes away from the opposition party that was pictured as favoring immigrants over the indigenous population.
In the U.S. it was used in the 1980 presidential race by Jimmy Carter and the Democrats, calling Ronald Reagan a racist who would strip civil rights from black voters.
The race card has historically be played two ways, by those who stir up racial fear within a group, and by those who accuse any valid opposition of being racist. Today, the race card is played so often, that it has resulted in this response.
What a shame, too, because what was the number one question following 9-11? “How could a loving God allow this to happen?” What better time to condemn everyone with the Law and rescue them with the Gospel? The LCMS would have had little trouble getting contributions from us for her own air time. I recall the 9-11 service at our parish, as our Pastor preached that it’s by the Grace of God that every single one of us is not a Bin Laden. However, most of the answers to the above question from Christendom elsewhere were almost exclusively the good old (Ana)Baptist/Arminian-based “freewill.”
I don’t know if anyone has made this observation before, but it occurred to me as I reviewed this thread, and my own recollections of that whole sorry business that President Benke spoke and acted like a politician, almost from beginning to end. It seems that he forgot that he was a pastor and theologian of the cross.
j
Dear BJS Bloggers,
Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. This has produced more “light” than “heat,” so far, for which I am grateful. I don’t want to stir up a fuss for the sake of the fuss, but to resolve smoldering issues and promote true unity under the Gospel of Christ.
Some folks above wanted to give me credit (or possible blame) for raising the syncretism issue again. I am not responsible for raising the issue again. The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synodical Structure and Governance did that, with its attempt to revise Constitution Article VI. I have told them, and many people, to leave well enough alone. I said, “Just leave Articles II, VI, and VII alone; and we can all get along well enough.”
The result of the 2010 convention is that, thank God, it did leave Article II alone (Resolution 8-29 was not adopted).
But the 2010 convention did pass Resolution 8-30B, which asks the synod to spend the next three years studying “syncretism,” so that it can “clarify and affirm” Article VI at the 2013 convention.
I would say, that if you affirm a Constitutional Article, you leave it as is. But the “Bureaucrats Lexicon” defines “clarify” as “changing wording and meaning.” So that means three more years of arguments about the Benke Case and syncretism. They just couldn’t leave well enough alone, I guess.
The 2010 convention also passed Resolution 8-32B, which asks the synod to spend the next three years studying the power of synod over congregations, so that it can “clarify and affirm” Article VII at the 2013 convention. They couldn’t leave that one well enough alone either.
This is why I made my comment in this post about those in our synod who disagree with Constitution Article VI.2, and why they are ignorant of religious history.
Instead of the synod going back over the same arguments (and over and over again), I have proposed in this post a different way at looking at the problem.
Let’s talk about the problem of American Civil Religion, which someone as liberal as Martin Marty understands (and disapproves of). If American Civil Religion is bad, why is syncretism good? They are different names for the same phenomena.
I realized that we can approach this problem in a different way, through some comments made by Dr. James Kellerman in a previous post (http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=11643; comment #19).
Kellerman’s comments suggest to me that we have two groups of folks in our church-body (and this is probably true for many Protestants in America):
Group One: we have many folks whose primary religion is the American Civil Religion; and who, more or less by accident (i.e, not by careful reflection on what the church-body actually stands for), have ended up in the LCMS. They are joined by pastors whose primary wish is to be a politician (or “community organizer,” whatever that means); and who, more or less by accident, have ended up being an LCMS pastor.
Group Two: we have many other folks whose primary religion is traditional LCMS Lutheranism, and who are members because of careful reflection on what this church-body teaches. They are joined by pastors who want to be pastors under the authority of Christ, and who see their primary (nearly exclusive) role as delivering His Word and Sacraments.
Group One folks applaud and encourage participation in events of the American Civil Religion. Group Two folks stick by what our founders created, and understand the consequences if we depart from this stance.
I am not trying to stereotype, but if we don’t realize that there is a division here, and why there is a division, we will not be able to address this issue in a reasonable and competent way.
I really want to be fair to both sides. I guess what I really need is a careful explanation from the leaders of Group One how and why participation in syncretistic events fulfills the commands of Christ; and not just the CLAIM that they do so. All that I have seen from Group One so far is a recitation of proof-texts, without any understanding of those biblical texts or how they work out in practice.
Hopefully, the Koinonia Project outlined in Harrison’s “It’s Time” will help us deal with issue in a reasonable and cool-headed way.
Thanks, again, to everyone for your discussion. Thanks again, to Pastor Rossow and Norm Fisher for hosting this discussion!
Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland
@Martin R. Noland #42
I will never forget a little encounter I had with another layman. He was a great guy; accomplished in his career; very conservative; a fellow parent in our school; very nice family; steady attenders in church. It was not long after the Benke stink. I remember him saying to me something like “I can’t see what all the trouble is about. We all worship the same God anyway.” I had assumed this gentleman’s beliefs were orthodox Lutheran up to that point. I was so surprised that for one time I had nothing to say.
Thanks to all for the great discussion on my comment. It was helpful. I think that the part of the whole thing that disturbs me is the time-lapse. I was surprised that after nine years this would come up again.
As you can all tell, I am very weak on knowing the Confessions. But, the scenes that kept coming to my mind were a couple from the gospels: When Jesus dealt with the woman caught in the actual act of adultery, He said to her to sin no more–that was it. To Him it was over. And, when Peter cursed as he denied Jesus, it was in front of a lot of unbelievers. Yet, when Jesus saw him again, He did not demand any action on Peter’s part to restore himself to the apostalic group. Jesus’ forgiveness had done that.
Lastly, perhaps I misunderstand the office of the synodical president, but I thought that he was (and is) like the pastor of a church, only over the synod, so I was caught by surprise to see that the Benke issue was not set aside by all in 2001 (I guess I just thought that was the end of it.)
Again, thanks for your input. I’m sure I will continue to agree and disagree with all of you, but I’m sure it will always be a good learning experience.
(PS: mbw, believe it or not, even I have run into the same comment and was also so surprised that “I had nothing to say.” There is a lot of work to do out there.)
@Sue Wilson #44
Your concern is admirable, but there is a world of difference between the woman in John 8. Peter, and Dr. Benke. The woman was silent, Peter “wept bitterly”, while Benke’s words and actions bespeak another attitude entirely. Apparently, in his book, President Kieschnick speaks with the same voice and attitude as Dr. Benke. We cannot look into another’s heart, but there is plenty of evidence as to what is within.
The comment that you and “mbw” referenced is clear proof of the damage inherent in the Yankee Stadium debacle. It was an opportunity tragically squandered.
Johannes
@johannes #45
> The comment that you and “mbw” referenced
I think I did manage to come back to him after all, but what I was not ready for was such a statement in a putatively solid Lutheran. Shifting gears to ‘talking to unitarian’ mode took a few seconds.
@Old Time St. John’s #15
I was at one of these “rallies” as well. So much for allowing the situation to “go away”. The guy was “radiant” as the liberal Lutherans around me gave him a standing ovation (for nothing more than being introduced). Ugh.
This is not a man who appears to have the preaching of Law & Gospel at the forefront of his agenda.
A closing(?) word. When we don’t understand history, we are at risk of repeating it.
1. Participation in the interfaith prayer service at YS was an offense against the 1st Commandment – a mixture of gods. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) later recognized Dr. Schulz’s strong scriptural case in this regard but chose not to base their decision on it.
2. Rather, defense of Pres. Benke’s action was based consistently on resolutions and bylaws.
–Were the fellowship document and report of discussions commended by Res. 3-07 (2001 Convention) intended to guide practice? (Maybe, but they didn’t apply to interfaith events.) –Is a DP responsible for his action if he follows the advice of his “ecclesiastical supervisor”? (Maybe, but in the YS case, the advice was wrong, based on an irrelevant report and resolution.)
3. Once the CTCR answered the key question of the DRP, i.e., that “pastoral discretion” in the fellowship report commended by Res. 3-07A does NOT apply to interfaith events, all use of Res. 3-07A should have ceased. Case closed. Confession and forgiveness could / should have followed. Instead, the DRP based its decision squarely on Res. 3-07A and to this day the outgoing PoS defends his advice to Pres. Benke based on Res. 3-07A (see below).
Principle: Church officials who insist on living by resolutions and bylaws must follow them to the letter or suffer the consequences. The latter, apparently, is difficult.
N. B. Who resurrected the issue? Not Dr. Noland. It was the outgoing PoS in his pre-convention memoir, “Waking the Sleeping Giant.” In it he devotes 12 pages to the YS event and, contrary to the CTCR’s interpretation of its own document, persists in using Res. 3-07A (p.142) to defend his ecclesiastical advice to Pres. Benke. Thus is history written and distorted.
@David Berger #48
How it seems to me is that Pres. Kieschnick said (Scripturally or not) “put this on me” or to put it another way dared the synod to discipline _him_ rather than Benke.
He sort of “won” the dare, at least at the time – at quite a cost to our church body.
“Having overstepped, though, if he had just said, “I overstepped, in the heat of the moment. I should not have done this,” there would have been no problem at all.”
…from post #38 should have been included in my previous comment
@David Berger #48
>> the outgoing PoS
Yikes, say SP
The “Benke case,” for those who don’t know, refers to the participation of Atlantic District President David Benke in the “Prayer for America” at Yankee Stadium on September 23, 2001.
Here’s some background excerpts from Benke’s own 2002 Response to Charges, describing events leading up to the Yankee Stadium Interfaith Prayer Service:
Thu, Sep 13 – “The gathering at Abyssinian Baptist Church, a historic parish in Harlem served by Dr. Calvin Butts, ended with a time of prayer and reflection… After the service, I was informed that the mayor had called for religious leaders to gather at Cardinal Egan’s office to prepare for the visit of President Bush and for a special event to be held in the near future.”
Fri, Sep 14 – “I got to the meeting at Cardinal Egan’s… The discussion centered around a million person event to be held in a park on Sunday, September 23, for the purpose of civic healing. The Mayor was inviting religious leaders to attend and participate… The rest of the group then left to go to “Ground Zero” to stand behind President Bush, who was coming that afternoon. I was not allowed to go because on the prior day I had not gone through an FBI clearance.”
Thu, Sep 20 – “I determined to make a phone call to a Roman Catholic contact about the September 23 event. When I asked about the event in Central Park, he said, ‘Oh, that’s ancient history. With all the security issues, it’s been moved to Yankee Stadium. You’ll need a ticket to get in through security. That’s designed to keep attendance to those who really need to be there.’ I made a series of phone calls. By mid-afternoon these conversations resulted in the opportunity to participate in the program at Yankee Stadium and to offer a prayer.”
“During this night of reflection, I concluded that certainly the leaders of my own Atlantic District and most certainly the Synodical President would have to be in favor of my participation.”
Fri, Sep 21 – “I contacted Dr. Kieschnick early in the morning concerning my involvement in what had become the Yankee Stadium program. He asked what type of event it would be and I told him who was hosting it and how the plans had progressed under the direction of the Mayor’s office. He then asked, from the wording of the Synodical convention resolution, whether there would be any restriction placed on my Christian witness. I told him that I knew of none, but that if there were, I simply wouldn’t go. I also told him I intended to offer a prayer in Jesus’ Name. He then affirmed my decision to participate.”
“I then contacted Dr. Hiemstra with that information, since he had to know on that day whether I would be participating due to FBI clearance procedures. He indicated that the timing of the event was orchestrated in such a way that prayers were limited to one minute in duration…”
Sun, Sep 23 – “The religious participants were held in the Yankee locker room, while the politicians and celebrities were in the visitors’ quarters. Then the FBI representative read off the list of approved participants, and my name was not on it – whoops! I went to the Protestant portion leader, who thought that maybe I should just wait in the dugout when the rest went out and they would call me later. I started to laugh, because I had this vision of being kind of the pinch-hitter’s pinch-hitter, strolling out to pray with a bat in my hands. But I resolved that I would need to accompany the rest up to the bleacher area out on the field. I spent some time with Roman Catholic friends Bishop Daley and Cardinal Egan, discussing Pro-Life issues (Cardinal O’Connor and I had co-founded a crisis pregnancy center in Manhattan under the great direction of a team of Roman Catholic and Lutheran laywomen). Then I took the Cardinal’s arm and walked out from the dugout onto the playing field. What were they going to do, throw me off the field? As the celebrities and politicians emerged, the usually congealed situation took place, and we all inched out toward second base. Eventually they found me a chair, sitting next to [Admiral Robert Natter] the Commander of the Atlantic Fleet.”
“I decided on the spot to say a few sentences before praying, swept up just then in the high emotion of the afternoon.”
@Carl Vehse #53
I never realized that Pres. Benke worked so hard to do something which he knew would cause division. I didn’t have to beg that much for an invite to Nixon’s Inauguration.
“I decided on the spot to say a few sentences before praying, swept up just then in the high emotion of the afternoon.”
This says it all. One would think that DP Benke would have his remarks carefully prepared, so that he would indeed “Give a bold witness in word and deed….” to quote the LCMS’ mission statement. One would think that he would be sure to share the love of Christ, and leave the gathered multitudes with something to think about. After all his pleading, cajoling, and behind-the-scenes politicking, one would think that he’d be ready. But, after all his politicking, he simply behaved like just another politician (“It’s all about ME”), and lost forever a golden opportunity. No wonder even President Kieschnick chided him for his lukewarm performance!
Johannes
I think it’s telling that while President Benke’s prayer did not boldly confess Christ & the exclusive Gospel in his prayer, he was quite bold in confessing how he circumvented FBI security.
@Martin R. Noland #42
Dr. Noland,
I’ll be the first to admit that I am all too often perceptually handicapped and intellectually slow, so please indulge me. It seems that there the Yankee Stadium fiasco (please, let’s get away from using personal names whenever possible) and the recent LCMS presidium change point to a recurring problem. Corporately as a synod, we don’t know what we are.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that undergirding what you originally wrote, above, is the fear that the majority of LCMS laypeople as well as a majority of our pastors quasi-erroneously believe that there is a generic, non-denominational, original true Christianity that most churches possess to which they add their denominational dogma and practices. This is quasi-erroneous because there is an original, true Christianity. It is most truly represented by Holy Scripture as explained by the Book of Concord of 1580. This I state with a fair degree of certainty based on having ventured quite broadly, having some familiarity with the Soto Zen and Shingon Buddhism of my maternal grandparents (syncretism is common among Japanese Buddhists), Methodism (parents), Congregationalism (paternal grandfather & high school) and dispensational fundamentalism. While in law school I dabbled with orthodox Judaism. Confessional Lutheranism is Christ’s soul saving truth in all its depth and clarity, simultaneously simple enough for a child and complex enough to require of veteran pastors weeks of meditation. Those of you who were born into LCMS families and know nothing of Christ-less paganism are only vaguely aware of the unimaginable riches into which you were blessed to be born. Take it from one whom Christ dragged out of the spiritual cesspool.
In seminary we were taught about the Christological heresies that resulted in the ecumenical councils and creeds. In the sixteenth century Martin Luther restored the cardinal doctrine to the Western Church and almost immediately the Protestant schism sprang from among us and that gave rise to the apologetics of Chemnitz, Calov and others. In the nineteeth century the Saxon fathers crossed the Atlantic rather than have the Union Agenda imposed upon them. If I correctly “feel” what you are saying, we are currently facing the same crisis of faith as Christians of the past. Syncretism is but the latest major manifestation of the recurring doctrinal confusion plague.
Perhaps we should all agree that the first half of the Harrison term should be devoted to studying exactly what we believe. Time to go back to Concordia, specifically to the Small and Large Catechism. Can’t hurt for us to do so in meekness and love as Christ commanded and St. John urged. Sorry for sounding harsh, but it seems that Christ demands strictness here. The end game is uncompromising. In the true Church there is no “agree to disagree” concerning doctrine. The bottom line is as it always should be: no unity without agreement to the same confession.
Dear Pastor Kan (comment #57),
Thank you for your very perceptive comment and response to my post.
You are correct that we should avoid personal names when talking about issues, or as little as possible. I needed to mention President Benke’s name, because his name was attached to the church court case, and thereby everything related to it. It was not my intent to focus on him or the case. These are merely context for the problem of “syncretism” that is current today. It is current today, because the 2010 convention has asked the church to discuss the issues in its Resolution 8-30B.
I am not going to suggest to Pastor Harrison what he, his assistants, or staff should be doing. The convention already did that with its massive restructuring of the national office. He has to be involved with that, because the convention said to do that.
Your last paragraph is an excellent suggestion, and is perfectly in keeping with the first objective of synod, Constitution Article “Conserve and promote the unity of the true faith, etc.” This is the English translation of the original German, which said “Preservation and furthering of the unity of pure confession” (see CHIQ 16:1 [April 1943]: 2). This was drawn from Walther’s letter to Adam Ernst, August 21, 1845 “The maintenance and furtherance and guarding of the unity and purity of Lutheran doctrine” (see Moving Frontiers, p. 143).
Our English translation “unity of the true faith” can give the impression that it is talking about the “subjective aspect of faith,” or as the theologians say “fides qua.” But the original German indicates the intent and meaning is the “doctrinal content of faith” or the “fides quae.” So that does mean that doctrine is the Number One priority of the synod, and thereby, all its leaders.
So your suggestion is perfectly in keeping with our “covenant of love,” which is our LCMS Constitution.
Regarding your comments about a generic Christianity, this is the chief Protestant heresy of our age. It was first promoted by the ecumenical movement, which sought world peace through religious unity. It was later promoted by the evangelical movement, which seeks unity through common religious experience, tolerating a wide diversity of methods, approaches, and doctrines.
You are correct that most people born and raised in our church don’t realize the treasures they have received. I don’t think this is, necessarily, ungratefulness. I think it is mainly the lack of cultural experience outside of their social horizons. They just don’t know what they have.
Thanks for your very thoughtful contribution!
Yours in Christ, martin R. Noland