|
Letter from COP President on Benke to District Presidents
Prior to Last Meeting
Dear Brothers in Christ, In about a month we will gather in St. Louis for a Retreat with the faculties of our two seminaries. As you can see from the Agenda, we have weighty matters to consider. This meeting, in my opinion, is crucial also because of the tension and deep division within our Synod. As we approach this meeting, I plead with you to review carefully the manual and materials that you received from Ted Kober when you received training as a reconciler. In a conversation with Ron Bergen [Ohio District President who supported Seminex] yesterday I understand that each of us will be receiving a manual titled "Guiding People Through Conflict." Please read this carefully in preparation for our meeting. I am still receiving a steady flow of mail from all over the Synod about the Yankee Stadium event and the charges and counter charges that have resulted from it. As I have watched this response unfold, I am increasingly dismayed at the way some among us have responded to this event. In November of 1999 Ted Kober met with us in San Diego and described for us what he perceived as a serious problem within our Synod. In brief, he said it is not Doctrine or practice, but the way we deal with each other and the way we treat one another. The responses made to activities by Presidents Kieschnick and Benke in connection with the September 11 event demonstrates that this problem is still with us and now threatens the very existence of our synodical union. As I have watched and listened to the charges being filed and the actions taken, I keep coming back to that other question of Nicodemus. His first question to Jesus was: How can a man be born again? But his other question was addressed to his fellow Pharisees. Jesus had gone to the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem and was teaching in the temple. One of the things that he said to the crowd was, "Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment" (John 7:24). He said many other things to about the Word and will of God. As a result of his teaching many put their faith in him. This angered the Pharisees. They were the guardians, so they thought, of the pure doctrine among the Jews. So, together with the chief priests, they sent the temple guards to arrest Jesus. The temple guards went to do their duty, but when they heard our Lord speak, they made no arrest. The chief priests and the Pharisees asked them why they did not bring him. They answered, "No one ever spoke the way this man does." The response of the Pharisees is very revealing. They accused the temple guards of being deceived. They pointed out that neither the rulers nor the Pharisees believed in Jesus. They added, "But this mob [which did believe in him] that knows nothing of the law - there is a curse on them." With these statements the Pharisees made it clear that they had already made up their minds about Jesus and felt no need to give him any personal hearing. They gave no thought about treating him with respect as a fellow member of God's covenant people. It was then that Nicodemus asked his other question, "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?" It seems to me that this is an important question also for us to consider. The Pharisees and the chief priests certainly had some knowledge about what Jesus was teaching and they were aware of some of his miracles. Therefore, when Nicodemus talks about "hearing him" he is talking about a face to face hearing, not hearsay hearing. I am aware that there are those among us who, quoting Luther from the 8th commandment in the Large Catechism, hold that it is not necessary to speak to a brother or sister first when the matter involved is public. I believe that that quote is being grossly misused among us today. The constitution of the Synod provides for expulsion from the Synod. But listen to what it says. "Members who act contrary to the confession laid down in Article II and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI or persist in offensive conduct shall, after previous futile admonition, be expelled from the Synod." Did those filing the charges make any attempt to admonish President Kieschnick or President Benke? In some instances letters were written telling President Benke that he should consider the letter an admonition. But none of those filing the charges spoke in person to either of these brothers. This is not how the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ treat one another. This is how the Pharisees treated their opponents. Furthermore, on what basis was it determined that the admonition was futile? I submit that that is grounds to reject the charges out of hand. Frankly, I am appalled at this rush to judgment. Obviously, there are serious issues that need discussion. Obviously, many among us feel very strongly about these issues. That is well and good. All of us have questions and concerns about what happened. That is not surprising. But what is needed is not charges, but brotherly conversation and a common commitment to search the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions to seek God-pleasing answers to these questions. What is needed is earnest prayer for God to grant us his Holy Spirit so that we may, on the basis of his Word and the Lutheran Confessions, gain a clear understanding of God's will in this matter. In my view there are two fundamental issues. The first concerns unionism and syncretism. The second concerns how one properly ought to distinguish between what is joint worship and what is bearing witness to the Gospel hope that is within us. Concerning the first issue, much hinges on how one interprets the phrase in the constitution that reads, "b. taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession" (Article VI, 2.b.). In recent times Missouri has taken the word services to mean a service of worship and has argued about what constitutes such a worship service. But is that what the constitution really says? Could it not have been that what our fathers had in mind was the liturgy? The sentence also speaks of sacramental rites. Both the services and the sacramental rites of the church are printed in its Liturgy and Agenda. For many years in the Synod these two were combined in a single book. It was not until the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal in 1941 that the Lutheran Liturgy was separated from the Lutheran Agenda. In the Lutheran Confessions the "service" of the Lutheran Church is the "mass." "We do not abolish the mass but religiously keep and defend it" (Augustana XXIV.1). Later, other lesser services were used in the Lutheran Church, but the reformed "mass" remained and still is the Hauptgottesdienst or Divine Service. The 1900 Agenda of the Synod listed 8 such orders of service including a very short order of burial at the gravesite. The 1914 edition still has 8 but in place of an order of Burial (which was returned to the Sacred Ministerial Acts section) there is an order of Lesegottesdienst, an order of service suitable to be read by the teacher, an elder, or a layman. I submit that when our fathers included this sentence in the constitution they were thinking of these orders of worship. Very properly they insist that to partake in a liturgy or a sacramental rite of a heterodox congregation or of a congregation of mixed confession is unionism. But when Missouri started trying to figure out what actually constitutes a worship service, there is no end to the definitions. For example, sometime prior to 1977 the Commission of Worship defined a wedding as a worship service. This definition appeared in a "whereas" of resolution 3-25 at the Dallas convention in 1977. Since by that time the "whereas" portions of resolutions were also considered binding, this definition of the commission was made binding in the Synod. As best I can determine this definition was never discussed or reviewed, certainly never adopted by any convention or other entity of the Synod beside the commission. This is not the way an Evangelical Lutheran Synod ought to do business. When Luther reformed the mass, I have found no indication that he made provision for a nuptial mass or a requiem mass. Prior to 1941 the wedding service was a simple ministerial act. There was no provision in the rite for congregational participation. That was introduced in the Lutheran Agenda of 1941 where the congregation's participation included a chanted "Amen" to the invocation, a prayer, and the benediction, and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Under a "may" rubric the congregation might also sing a hymn. But in the Lutheran Worship Agenda of 1984 the nuptial mass was restored. On page 124-126 a full set of propers for a nuptial mass is included. This is just one example of how changes were introduced and given the effect of canon law within the Synod without careful study and application of either the Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions. What I am saying, brothers, is that there is a desperate need within the Synod today for calm and rational dialog based solidly on the Holy Scriptures, the ecumenical creeds, and the Lutheran Confessions. After the retreat, Saturday afternoon will be devoted to a discussion of these matters. We will also talk about how we, as the Council of Presidents, may work to bring about that mutual conversation of the brethren that is so necessary if we are to address the issues involved in this matter in a God-pleasing way. We will also need to discuss what we can and should do to improve the fraternal relationships that ought to exist in an Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Please keep this matter in your prayers and be prepared to bring your insights to share at this meeting. +Arleigh May 4, 2002 |