|
Matzat Assails LCMS Board
of Directors Over Letter To Synod
By: Rev. Jack Cascione
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before you read Rev. Matzat's criticism of the LCMS Board of
Directors because of their letter to all the congregations in the LCMS,
there are 8 points he overlooks:
1. Rev. Don Matzat wants us to believe that pubic prayer in civic events
is not an act of worship. The "Lutheran Cyclopedia" says
that prayer is an act of worship regardless of the location.
2. During the "prayer service," President Benke said Yankee
Stadium has been changed into "a house of prayer."
3. According to C. F. W. Walther, the Synod's first President, in his
"Church and Ministry," (the official teaching of the LCMS) it is
not necessary to have a pastor present in order to lead or validate
worship or a prayer service. The participation of lay people,
celebrities, or public officials does not nullify worship, prayer, or the
sacraments. It reads like Matzat has been sniffing
Hyper-Euro-Lutheran air.
4. President Kieschnick cannot be charged as can District President Benke,
because the CCM recently ruled that the LCMS President is immune to the
LCMS Dispute Resolution Processes. Matzat wants to extend that
immunity to whomever the LCMS President so chooses.
5. Nowhere in the Bible do Christ or the Apostles offer prayers in public
alongside pagan clergy or idol worshipers. They didn't pray with
them, next to them, after them, or before them, whether they were lay
people, government officials, or pagan priests. When there was
prayer in public, Christ led the prayer, as did the Apostles.
6. No one spoke about the charges being filed against Benke until the LCMS
Board For Communication Services in St. Louis published the charges to the
media in violation of the LCMS Constitution.
7. Whatever is decided by the Dispute Resolution Panel in the Benke case,
both Kieschnick and Benke have broken the Constitution by publicizing the
charges.
8. Even if Matzat is convinced there was no worship or joint prayer taking
place, the 18,000 people in Yankee Stadium thought they were worshiping
some kind of a god. Before he prayed, Benke should have announced a
disclaimer, "This is not an act of worship and therefore the prayer
I'm about to offer is not being heard by any particular god because this
is a civic event."
------------------------------------------
Rev. Don Matzat Writes:
In My Opinion.Don't Give Opinions
A poet once said, "We don't see things as they are. We see things as
we are." In other words, how we interpret the meaning of an
event depends upon our mentality, not the nature of the event itself.
In his explanation of the Eighth Commandment, Martin Luther instructs us
to always put the best construction on what we see as it involves the
actions of other people.
The Board of Directors of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, meeting on
August 15th, has released to the members of the Synod a very controversial
resolution regarding the publicity surrounding the Benke issue. They
admonish those who have, contrary to their so-called "gag
order," stated public opinions about the case, in particular the
President of Synod and the Board for Communication Services.
(http://www.lcms.org/09_nostat/bodstatement.htm)
The President of Synod who abstained from voting on the resolution has
challenged the right of the Board of Directors to make such a statement.
(http://www.lcms.org/09_nostat/pres081802.htm)
The ironic thing about this statement is that the majority members of the
Board of Directors, while being critical of those who have stated opinions
on the case, have in their own document, in every phrase within the first
paragraph, stated their own subjective opinion. In their attempt to
define the event that is at the heart of the issue, they not only ignore
important facts, but also distort other facts.
In that first paragraph the Board of Directors states:
"On September 23, 2001, the Reverend Dr. David Benke, President of
the Atlantic District of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, participated
with clerics from other Christian denominations and from a variety of
non-Christian faiths in what was called by its organizers a "prayer
service" at Yankee Stadium in New York. His participation was
immediately and publicly defended by the President of the Synod."
The Board claims that "the Reverend Dr. David Benke, President of the
Atlantic District of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, participated with
clerics from other Christian denominations and from a variety of
non-Christian faiths in.. a 'prayer service'."
Dr. David Benke did not participate with clerics from other Christian
denominations and from a variety of non-Christian faiths in a prayer
service. To say that is to claim that he prayed "with
them" and they prayed "with him."
Prayer is a conscious act. I watched the event in question on
television. When David Benke offered his prayer, I did participate with
him. When the others offered their prayers, I did not participate
with them. I simply watched. Why does the Board of Directors
assume that Dr. David Benke "participated with" them in a
"prayer service?" Dr. Benke himself has clearly stated
that he prayed in the presence of clerics from other Christian
denominations and from a variety of non-Christian faiths but did not pray
"with them." Is the Board suggesting that David Benke is
not telling the truth?
In defining the nature of the Yankee Stadium event, the Board of Director
states that the "organizers" called the gathering a "prayer
service." Who cares what the organizers called the gathering?
We, who are sticklers for definitions, who quibble over how the word
"minister" is to be applied, who define worship as a response to
the Gospel, who speak of our Sunday morning experience as being a Divine
Service or Gottesdienst, now, when it comes to the definition of an event
that has political implications involving the suspension of a District
President, rely upon definitions provided by the Mayor of New York, by
Oprah Winfrey or by the New York Times? The event at Yankee Stadium
was a patriotic civic event called "A Prayer for America." The
event involved civic leaders, celebrities and religious leaders.
It was held within the Kingdom of the Left Hand and under the auspices of
the city of New York that has no public doctrine contradicting the Gospel.
Since when do we look to civic leaders and celebrities to define the
theological nature of an event? Perhaps for the Board of Directors,
politics rules over theology.
Regarding the role of the President of Synod, Dr. Kieschnick, the Board
writes: "His (Benke's) participation was immediately and publicly
defended by the President of the Synod."
This statement is blatantly distorted and basically untrue.
For one thing, the President of Synod, the ecclesiastical supervisor of
the District Presidents, authorized Dr. Benke's involvement in the
"Prayer for America." This is the most important point in
this entire issue. David Benke did not make an independent decision
to accept the invitation to offer a prayer at Yankee Stadium. He
followed the lines of authority established in the Constitution and Bylaws
of Synod and sought the advice and counsel of his ecclesiastical
supervisor. If he had not received permission from the President of
Synod, Benke would not have accepted the invitation. While the Board
of Directors desires everyone to follow the Constitution and Bylaws of
Synod, they ignore the most important fact that the President of Synod is
the sole supervisor of District Presidents and that suspended Atlantic
District President David Benke sought his supervision.
Secondly, in the aftermath of the September 23rd event, the President of
the Synod did not immediately and publicly defend Dr. Benke. The
immediate and public response was one of support, not defense, from 35
District Presidents, 5 Synodical Vice-presidents and from the President of
Synod himself.
When Unity Did Exist
The President only defended Dr. Benke when the First Vice-President of
Synod subsequently stated a public opinion that contradicted the opinion
of his ecclesiastical supervisor the President of Synod and when the
faculty at Fort Wayne, having absolutely no authority to correct the
President of Synod since nobody asked them to, publicly did so. At
that point the President Kieschnick publicly defended Benke and his
decision to grant permission. He did not defend Benke because of
what Benke did; he defended Benke because of the opposition of others.
The Board is clearly stating their opinion that what Dr. Benke did was
wrong because, as they put it, the President of Synod immediately and
publicly defended his actions. Such an immediate defense, without
accusations being raised, would be highly suspicious. If, for
example, I would write: "Pastor John Smith participated in a weekend
seminar with his personal secretary. His actions were immediately and
publicly defended by his District President," would you not be
suspicious? On the basis of that statement, would you not conclude
that Pastor Smith's participation was wrong and that his District
President was incorrectly defending him?
I don't know about you, but I find the Synodical Board of Directors
obvious bias in a case that is presently being appealed through legitimate
channels to be very offensive.
Pastor Don Matzat
Zion Lutheran Church
Bridgeville, PA
|
|
September 14, 2002 |