The following two sentences are the beginning of a release on the internet
from The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod Board for Communication Services --
LCMS News -- No. 7 February 11, 2002 in an article titled: "BOD orders
information halt in Benke dispute" By David L. Mahsman.
"The Synod's Board of Directors Feb. 1 ordered an immediate halt to
distribution of any information concerning charges brought against Atlantic
District President David Benke.
"The charges, brought by a number of pastors and a congregation,
relate to Benke's participation in 'A Prayer for America' Sept. 23 at Yankee
Stadium."
The end of the article stated, "Dr. Martin Schramm, chairman of the
Board for Communication Services (BCS), said 'that he fears the Board of
Directors action halting all information through official channels will
contribute to misinformation and rumor.'"
"Schramm said the BCS may consider an official response to the Board
of Directors resolution.
"The New York Times," February 8, 2002, published an article
titled, "Seeing Heresy in a Service for Sept. 11" by Daniel J. Wakin
stated:
"The Lutheran charges created headlines. The Associated Press and
newspapers like The Washington Post, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Los
Angeles Times wrote about them. Embarrassed by the attention, the leadership
of the Missouri Synod issued a letter on Feb. 1 that barred the parties and
the church's communications department from discussing the Benke case. It
ordered the church newspaper to stop reporting on the matter and had
references pulled from the church's Web site. 'The publicity given to this
matter in dispute has been divisive and unfair' and has 'brought shame upon
the synod,' the letter said.'"
Reclaim News pointed out that both the
LCMS and the Media were unaware of the charges involving President Kieschnick
and President Benke until the information was released by the Synod's Board
for Communication Services on November 9 over the internet in an article
titled, "Events prompt two to bring charges against Kieschnick."
In response, a member of the Synodical media staff stated over the phone
and by email to this writer that the release of the information was not in
violation of rules governing Dispute Resolution. He also could not recall how
he heard about the charges that were filed against Benke and Kieschnick.
Now The Board of Directors states that releasing the information does
indeed violate the rules of Dispute Resolution in the LCMS Handbook and has
brought "shame on the Synod."
Things to Consider
First: While conservative and liberal factions of the Synod may blame each
other for the "shame," the New York media has little interest in
LCMS politics. But just as Wakin said above, "The Lutheran charges
created headlines." There would not have been any headlines if the
information had not been released from the Board for Communication Services.
Second: The action by the Board of Directors to cease all communication on
the subject after the information is already public, created more headlines,
as evidenced by the "New York Times," etc.
Thirdly: What is the "shame?" Is it that our dirty laundry is
being aired in public or that we have a lot of dirty laundry we haven't washed
and now we are ashamed that the public knows it? So, now it is easier to blame
the messengers for causing shame.
Fourth: What would Luther have done? He used the press to promote his cause
that the Pope was the Antichrist without ever having gone through Dispute
Resolution. By the Synod's own Constitution on Dispute Resolution, promoted by
the COP, Ralph Bohlmann, and John Heins at the 1992 LCMS Convention, Martin
Luther would have had to have been thrown off the clergy roster.
Fifth: The events at Yankee Stadium took place on September 23rd. The Synod
may resolve the issue by April or later. In other words, the system is so
ponderous; the Synod can't react in a crisis. Thus managing the information
leaks becomes a disproportionate priority in the Dispute Resolution process.
Thank God, the US Government was able to respond to Afghanistan far more
quickly than the Synod to Yankee Stadium.
Sixth: The very nature of the Gospel, the necessity to make God's Word
public, is counter to the church's desire for secrecy about its doctrine and
practice.
Seventh: The horses are already out of the barn.
Eighth: What we call "shame" may be a necessary part of public
confession. Which is more shameful, that the church can't speak about its
doctrine and practice in public or that the church is not in agreement on its
own doctrine and practice in public?
Ninth: Under the rules of Dispute Resolution, the 12 Apostles would have
had to recuse themselves from the Praesidium.
Tenth: The Synod's President, according to Dispute Resolution, can't be
charged with anything without a meeting of the Convention. Thank God, the U.
S. Government can put the President of the United States on trial in Congress
at any time during his office instead of having to wait for the next
Presidential election. Thank God the United States Government doesn't operate
with Dispute Resolution. Thank God for the United States Court System.
Eleventh: Nothing exposes the weakness in a system like a crisis. In
comparison to the former Board of Adjudication system, the current Dispute
Resolution process is a dismal failure. By freeing itself from a "worldly
system" of checks and balances and the rules of evidence, the Dispute
Resolution process is open to subjectivity and demagoguery. The law is not of
faith. There is no such thing as a Gospel oriented trial or system of
judgment. The confusion of Law and Gospel in the Dispute Resolution process is
self-evident. The Handbook labels a "win-lose" approach in the
judgment process sin. Pietism has captured our church courts. Thank God the U.
S. Court System is based on a win-lose system.
Twelfth: Under the current circumstances, did the Synod's Board of
Directors act properly? Perhaps it was the best they could do now that they
are stuck with a very flawed system that calls, "win-lose" sin.