Lutz Says "Study Benke Issue"
But Ignores 1983 COP Worship Statement
By Rev. Jack Cascione

 

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?


[file:///D:/My Web/bronzebusiness/bio/biojmc.htm]

May 6, 2002