|
Don Matzat Condemns Schulz Suspending Benke
The decision rendered by Wallace Schulz in the case involving Atlantic District President David Benke is not surprising. Schulz had his mind made up about Benke from day one and told him so. Benke complained to the Praesidium about Schulz's obvious bias and sought to have him recused, but the Praesidium refused to recuse. I have had the privilege of working with David Benke and his legal team over the past months in preparing a theological defense. I support David's participation at Yankee Stadium based on our Lutheran understanding of the "two kingdoms." I do not believe it is possible to have unionism or syncretism within a civic event since there is no public doctrine covering the gathering. These are witness opportunities. I contend that what Benke did at Yankee Stadium is essentially no different than building our churches in communities where other Christian denominations and world religions are represented or listing our churches in the Yellow Pages alongside a wide variety of religious expressions. David Benke represented the Lutheran segment of the population and did a mighty fine job of doing so. In my estimation, to suggest that this was syncretism or unionism is ludicrous. In the May reconciliation meeting in St. Louis with the complainants, we did not present the specific "two kingdom" theological defense. David simply claimed that his participation at Yankee Stadium was approved by his ecclesiastical supervisor who referenced an official resolution of Synod pertaining to participation in such events. We did not present this specific defense for two reasons. First, we did not think it was possible to change Schulz's mind and secondly, we would not have had enough time to get him to understand what we are talking about. It was our hope (a futile hope) that he would at least recognize and submit to the Constitution, Bylaws, and official resolutions of Synod. So the Schulz decision is not surprising, but the manner in which the decision is presented is not only surprising but also downright offensive. If anyone should be required to apologize to the Synod it is Wallace Schulz for his unbridled arrogance and profound "theology of glory." There are many divergent opinions within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod regarding the participation of David Benke at Yankee Stadium. The President of Synod and one of the Vice-presidents supported his participation. Many District Presidents and congregations believe that what Benke did was both right and proper. In fact, the CTCR document that is at the center of this issue anticipated that divergent opinions would exist. I understand that Wallace Schulz was put into a difficult position. He was called upon as adjudicator to render an opinion in a highly controversial case. If he would have humbly done so, acknowledging that his understanding of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions may be lacking and that other, more learned individuals, may have a better grasp of the issue, I would have no problem. He could have easily said, "In my opinion, David Benke should be removed from Synod." He was given this case in order to render such an opinion based on his understanding of Scripture and the Confessions. Benke will appeal and the case will be heard again. But Wallace Schulz did not render an opinion in this case. He gave us "the clear Word of God," and "God's revealed will." In his eyes, his decision came down from heaven. Schulz writes, "This is to say that ultimately, this case has been adjudicated, not on the basis of man's opinions, but on God's clear Word." In his conclusion he says, "Therefore, after thoroughly investigating this case on the basis of the allegations of the complainants, and especially on the basis of God's revealed will, I, Rev. Wallace Schulz, find the above allegations of the complainants to be substantiated, and that the facts form the basis for expulsion of The Rev. David H. Benke under Article XIII of the Constitution of Synod." We must conclude that when the President of Synod approved Benke's participation he rejected "God's clear Word," and violated "God's revealed will." Fourth Vice-president Dr. Paul Maier supports David Benke, and in so doing; violated "God's clear Word" and will. Those District Presidents and congregational Voters' Assemblies who support David Benke don't have a clue as to "God's revealed will" and His "clear Word." When Dr. Dale Meyer participated in a similar event in St. Louis last September, according to Wallace Schulz, his former Lutheran Hour compatriot, he too violated "God's clear Word," and went contrary to "God's revealed will." Schulz writes, "God's Word and Spirit must be considered as the final authority in resolving this issue. The Word and Spirit must be called on by all parties." Schulz obviously contends that when the President of Synod gave Benke permission to participate in the Yankee Stadium event that he was not following God's Word and Spirit. What, in Schulz's mind, determines whether or not a person is following God's Word and Spirit? Whether or not Schulz agrees with him? This is a blatant "theology of glory." In 1977 I was a part of the Charismatic Movement so I recall vividly the "Dallas Resolution." In that resolution the Synod said, "it is contrary to Scripture and harmful to the salvation of men" to claim that your pious opinion (whether or not a person speaks in tongues or gives direct prophecy) is the Word of God. Is Wallace Schulz saying that his pious opinion is the Word and will of God? In the final page of his "ruling," Schulz appeals to David Benke
and writes: This raises some questions for the future. Why do we have CTCR's and Synodical Conventions? Why do we grapple with issues of exegesis and hermeneutics? Why do we seek to define the intricacies of Systematic Theology? Why do we study the Church Fathers to determine the essence of Bible-based historic Christianity? Why don't we just ask Wallace Schulz? Pastor Donald G. Matzat Posted July 7, 2002 |