How is the Council of District Presidents (COP) dealing with those who
object to President Kieschnick's defense of President Benke's participation in
the Yankee Stadium "Worship Service" with Moslems, Jews, Buddhists,
Sikhs, etc?
From COP Chairman, North Wisconsin District President Lutz's letter,
doctrine is not the first issue. He recommends that the COP study a book
titled, "Guiding People Through Conflict."
Lutz claims that Ted Kober, of "Peace Maker Ministries" says the
problems in Synod are not about doctrine and practice but the way we deal with
each other. However, every resolution from districts that question Benke's
participation in the Yankee Stadium worship service appeal to Scripture and
the Confessions.
Is Lutz claiming that only the COP has the right interpretation and others
who disagree are not correctly using Scripture and the Confessions? It is
unfortunate that layman Ted Kober was not around to settle the differences
between Luther and the Pope, or the Union Church and Stephan, or between
Walther and Loehe, or between Jacob Preus and John Teitjen.
Lutz claims: "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." Is it the Synodical Union that is threatened or the
Synod 's definition of God?
The First Commandment says, "Thou Shalt have no other God's before
Me." Yet, Kieschnick defends Benke's participation in a prayer service
with Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, and Moslems. Yes, Elijah prayed with the Priests
of Baal, but then all the Priests of Baal were put to death. Samson prayed
with the Dagonites, but then Samson put all the Dagonites to death. The
Apostles prayed in the Temple after the resurrection of Christ, but then God
had the Romans destroy the Temple and Jerusalem.
Lutz raises the question of the Eighth Commandment, when the issue is about
the First Commandment, namely, who was being worshipped in Yankee Stadium?
What we say about God is more important than what we say about each other. In
other words, Matthew 16:13 comes before Matthew 18:15, otherwise there is no
point to Matthew 18:15.
Lutz applies Nicodemus's question in John 7:50: "Does our law condemn
anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?" Benke's
participation at Yankee Stadium was broadcast worldwide and is on videotape.
It was played for anyone who wanted to see it at the Fort Wayne Symposium. It
was Benke himself who described Yankee Stadium as a "House of
Prayer." Many have heard and seen what Benke did.
Lutz compares those filing charges against Benke and Kieschnick with the
Pharisees. Lutz says, ". . . Pharisees made it clear that they had
already made up their minds about Jesus and felt no need to give him any
personal hearing." Yes, the Pharisees felt no need to give Jesus any
personal hearing. But this is not the Synod's or the COP's problem. Their
problem is, that what they say about God one year or the next, will soon be
forgotten or changed. Then comes the heartfelt plea to sit down together and
study these difficult issues from Scripture as if the Synod was invented
yesterday instead of 1847. They are "Ever learning, and never able to
come to the knowledge of the truth." (2Tim.3:7)
Lutz asks, "Did those filing the charges make any attempt to admonish
President Kieschnick or President Benke?" Lutz ignores the fact that it
was the Synodical headquarters that released the information about the charges
filed against Benke and Kieschnick to the national press. All the charges
would have been handled confidentially if they had not been released at
Kieschnick's request.
Lutz may be appalled at the rush to judgment, but those filing the charges
followed correct procedures. Why isn't Lutz appalled that Kieschnick released
the charges to the media?
Perhaps Lutz is appalled because the COP is not interested in making any
judgment based on its own previous guidelines for joint
worship issued on May 2 of 1983. It appears that by Lutz's standard, any
judgment would be a "rush to judgment" for the COP.
Lutz recalls past examples to prove what he claims are the Synod's
inconsistencies in defining a worship service in 1900, 1914, 1941, 1977, and
1984. However, somehow, he forgot to mention that the COP had adopted a policy
statement on joint worship in February of 1983. Under part III, the agreement
explains that participation by clergy in public gatherings is to be understood
as being with other Christians. Under part III a., the COP agreed that if the
clergy were vested it was a joint worship service. Benke was not vested in the
Yankee Stadium worship service, but other clergy were vested.
May we recommend the May 2, 1983 LCMS "Reporter" where the
definition of worship and joint worship is published for the entire Synod. It
states that President Ralph Bohlmann presented a brief paper to the Council of
Presidents outlining the Synod's position on worship. It also defines joint
worship. How quickly the COP forgets what it endorsed for the entire Synod.
Lutz makes an excellent appeal to study the Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions, but not to abide by the COP's own 1983 guidelines based on
Scripture and the Confessions. May we strongly recommend that the COP follow
what it already endorsed in 1983?