Minister's suspension exposes debate on interfaith relations

The Journal News ^ | July 23, 2002 | Gary Stern

[Charles Henrickson]

Many New Yorkers were stunned when a Lutheran minister was suspended recently for praying alongside non-Christians

[GWfan]

Thank you for the article and the ping, Pastor!

[Charles Henrickson]

"I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-35).

Interesting that you stop there. Why don't you quote the rest of the passage:

"You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached--how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen--by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10:36-43).

How do these verses fit into what you want them to say?

[Charles Henrickson]

BTW, that's the same St. Peter who said of Jesus Christ, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

[RnMomof7]

"I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-5).

You show your biblical ignorance using that quote Codie.

That is about the gospel being freely offered to the gentiles..not about honoring false gods ..

So tell me how come your church is so bigoted that it closes communion? Isnt that favoritism?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And your point is?

Sorry, I thought my point was clear.

As a Catholic, you can come to my church and partake in Communion any time you want.

I couldn't do the same in your church then, or now.

Sinkspur doesn't mind praying at the feet of Christ beside anyone -- pagan, democrat, Osama bin Laden. In fact, he and the Pope welcome them!

But neither Sinkspur, the Pope nor you, apparently, want fellow Christians like RnMom, GWB or me to share in Communion with you.

My other point was that that priest had a pretty good sense of humor.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That's a great distinction you make between worship and charity, and our different responsibility towards each.

[GWfan]

I liked your post. I would add that three fellows in the old testament were thrown into a firey furnace because they refused to bow down and worship false gods.

[George W. Bush]

BTW, that's the same St. Peter who said of Jesus Christ, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Thanks for the broader context. Quite often, quoting verses out of their broader context can make those verses seem to say anything. We forget that the chapter/verse system was introduced in the medieval period and doing proof-texting of single verses is not a proper use of the ancient apostles who wrote the New Testament.

And of course, you are right. Peter was a thoroughly orthodox Christian leader of the ancient church, greatly beloved by Christ, perhaps more than any other except James. I think we can consider it very safe to say that after he denied Christ three times prior to the crucifixion (as Jesus told him he would) and then saw Him resurrected, Peter never again wavered.

Sometimes I do enjoy the challenges from our RC friends because they make me look closer at Peter when I, Calvinist archvillain that I am, so often read Paul. Perhaps there is something about Paul's teaching and personality that I find appealing. It's striking to see how vividly their thought, their personality, and their emotion leaps off the pages of scripture. Sometimes it still astonishes me.

It is a little interesting that Peter, a married apostle, should be claimed as the champion of a church tradition with priests sworn to celibacy while Paul, the devout bachelor, is more heavily favored among the churches with married clergy.

[Campion]

Ah, well ... the version I prefer (RSV-CE) uses "greeting," not "godspeed," but neither your version nor mine says "unsound doctrine" -- those are your words.

"Abideth not in the doctrine of Christ" does not refer to just any "unsound doctrine," or anyone who has such a doctrine; verse 9 is right there in the context of verse 7, which refers to "deceivers" who "will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh". That's not just any "unsound doctrine," but a specific one, which John identifies with antichrist.

I "acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh," and I hope you do, too. I also acknowledge his resurrection, ascension, and eternal heavenly reign in the flesh, as well as his continued presence on earth in the flesh under the appearances of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist. You could say that we Catholics are actually rather obsessed with proclaiming Jesus Christ come in the flesh.

Godspeed to you, GWB. May we meet at the same final destination, and may it be a happy one.

[Campion]

But neither Sinkspur, the Pope nor you, apparently, want fellow Christians like RnMom, GWB or me to share in Communion with you.

We very much want that. But, while to you, a Christian praying at the same event at which a Muslim prays implies agreement that the Muslim offers true worship to the true God, to us, the sharing of communion implies a unity of belief. That would include, for example, a unity with us on what, exactly, communion is. Do you have such a unity of belief with us? If you do, you should become Catholic. If you don't, then communion clearly doesn't mean to you what it means to us.

Please note that I think how, or whether, the LCMS disciplines Rev. Benke is their own business, so I'm not taking any side in that discussion. Nor, in general, do I approve of Catholic participation in "interfaith services" as a matter of prudence, except with the Eastern Orthodox. For example, were I in Cardinal Egan's shoes, I would not wish to participate in an "interfaith service" with a clergyman representing a denomination which officially teaches that the Pope is the antichrist, as the LCMS does.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So you're saying it's okay for a Muslim to pray with you because you don't share a common belief; but it's not okay for me to take Communion with you because we don't share a common belief.

Like I said before, I respect the consistency of those who believe in the exclusive truth of their religion over others.

But you seem to want it both ways.

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

Thank you for your detailed responses. Obviously I have a lot to learn about this issue. I have not had a chance to review all the information yet, but I agree that Benke's prayer was insipid twattle and stood in stark contrast to nothing.

You've got me thinking. A lot of people in my congregation had the same "knee-jerk" response that I did. I think where a lot of us are coming from is a desire to see the LCMS be able to grow and attract new members and engage the world at large rather than just sitting around patting each other on the back for our doctrinal and/or theological purity. And we view Benke's participation in the service as an attempt to do just that. But I think what you are saying is, if you want to do that, join some other denomination like the ELCA or something, because the LCMS has always stood for something different. I respect that. But I point out that the LCMS is dying and will continue to do so unless able to attract from other traditions.

As a transplant member myself(16 years now) from another tradition (I shudder to tell you which...(gag, Episcopalian...)); and having had fairly liberal LCMS pastors who have tended to support interfaith activities, I have not been in tune with the precise views of the LCMS on this issue. But I will consider your information in the light of my understanding of God's Word. Rest assured that I know for certain that our God is not the same as that of Islam, or any other tradition excepting Judaism, and would consider it blasphemous to pray to "their" gods.

Just be aware that there are a lot of laypeople like myself out here in the boondocks who will be grappling with these issues. I would rather be fighting against the darkness than squabbling with my own brothers, but maybe it is all part of the Lord's process of strengthening us for the real fight.

[GWfan]

I am a life-long LCMS member. I must disagree with you that our church is dying. If a church teaches the Word of God, it is alive in Christ, even if it has only 2 members.

For decades now our beloved synod has listened to the 'growth gurus' and we are now reaping what we sowed....we are many times guilty of watering down the Word, of ignoring sin. We have relied not on the Holy Spirit to help the church grow, but on our own methods, which we thought better than God's way. Doing the right thing is always hard, I think we got tired and wanted to be like all the mega churches....the Israelites of the old testament did a similar thing when they wanted to be like their neighbors and have a king, and we know how that turned out.

I posted earlier on this thread that I really like Motherbear's comparison of charity v.worship. I think she truly hit the mail on the head.

There are many like you (tranplants) who were first drawn to the LCMS by our adherence to the Word. When we received these new members, many times the ball was dropped. In my own congregation, we went from a Pastor's confirmation class which took 8-10 weeks of a 2 hour study to a Fri-night-to- Sat-evening-one-weekend-only-confirmation-class....and we wonder why our members have funky ideas??? We haven't taught them the difference between charity and worship.

I am hopeful that many, like you will read more and understand what is truly going on here and what is truly at stake. God bless you for caring. Pray for our differences to be resolved and for our doctrine to remain sound.

[egarvue]

Rightwing - I have to agree with GWfan. For too long many in our synod have focused on ways to grow the church, for the sake of....growing. Because we are a smaller denomination, many people - and I myself at times - have equated large membership numbers with "success". Unfortunately, when we start doing this, we get away from what the Bible defines as church success (winning more souls for Christ), and start adopting earthly definitions of church success (more money, prettier buildings, etc.)

I've been in many, many churches around the synod, and from my layman's point of view, they all fall into three categories: the small, struggling mission church, what I consider the "average" church, and then there are the growth-oriented churches. No matter what their size, the latter always are the same to me: they feel empty, hollow and void. Oh yeah, there might be lots of people there on a Sunday, especially at the super-mega-mart churches. But as the emphasis is placed on material growth, the Gospel is de-emphasized, to the point that in the end, the church becomes nothing more than a country club with religious icing.

I know this because I'm currently stuck attending such a church (long story). We have lots of members. We have a beautiful suburban church and school building. We have activities, and clubs, and sewing circles, and golf outings and picnics. But what we don't really have is the Gospel. Its a rare week when the message of our sinful condition and Jesus' saving work is preached from the pulpit; instead, "compassion" and "loving family relationships" are the main message. Our worship is mostly watered down pop Christianity. Our bible classes consist mostly of money managing seminars and parenting tip classes. I could go on and on; but by all earthly accounts our church is rich, and a "success." Yet we are poor in faith and humility.

I would love to see in our synod a de-emphasis on material church growth, and have us toss aside the notion that "bigger is better". I would love to see more small churches scattered around a city's neighborhoods, rather than one huge church that is more entertainment complex than true church. Heck, I would love to see a trend of when a church gets to a certain size, it splits and both parts move to different locales, closer to their membership - a sort of "cellular division" model, where the churches are growing and dividing, growing and dividing. I know that the last is not really feasible or even possible in a lot of cases, but it's a thought.

[GWfan]

Egarvue-

Please cheer up! ;)

Christ has overcome our biggest obstacle-sin! I think that we needed this wake-up call. It has made us all re-think what is going on. For example, I started asking questions over a year ago about some of the shenanigans going on in my church. Things are just now (and I mean in the last week)changing for the better! It is a great reminder that God's time is not our time.

There are many faithful members even in those larger churches, you are evidence of that. Take heart and don't be discouraged. I never thought that things would begin to change in my neck of the woods, but God is more powerful and much smarter than I.

[tracer]

"I know worship when I see it, and I cannot ask Christians to pray with those who do not recognize the Christian God — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — without giving grave offense to God himself and his people."

Rev. Bolland's view is completely unscriptural and not at all Christ-like, IMO.....

[tracer]

But remember, if you want to see something done properly, you should do it yourself....

[egarvue]

Oh, I know. Just like the tragedy of 9/11 has had positive effects on our nation, so too will this affair has positive effects for our church. You're right - it is a wake up call, and God will use it to good purpose. I attended Concordia University in Meqon in the late 80's, early 90's. It was a university in crisis - along with a corrupt administration, the university's theology was being more and more watered down by the trendy "church growth" ideas that were popular at the time. I graduated not having a lot of optimism for my alma mater. But the news today is that Mequon (after an administration change) is producing some of the most solid pre-seminarians around. Some of the best published Lutheran scholarship (esp. the work of Gene Edward Veith, Jr.) is being produced there. I would have never guessed in a million years that that school could make a comeback. I do believe that God will use the current synodical crisis to do much the same.

[Charles Henrickson]

RWRF, I am greatly encouraged by your thoughtful response. It is refreshing to see someone who had initially been on the Benke side be given pause by the facts.

A lot of people in my congregation had the same "knee-jerk" response that I did. I think where a lot of us are coming from is a desire to see the LCMS be able to grow and attract new members and engage the world at large rather than just sitting around patting each other on the back for our doctrinal and/or theological purity.

Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head. And I understand that initial reaction. "Hey, one of our guys was on national TV!"

Of course, we all want more people to hear the wonderful gospel message--which we know the LCMS can deliver so well. We all want to see more people added to the church. I don't know of anyone in our synod who is against that.

But in that desire to grow, we can be subtly tempted to water down our message in order to increase our numbers. I agree with the thrust of the comments by GWfan and egarvue in posts 94 and 95. "Success" (i.e., numbers) does not necessarily equal "faithfulness."

Also, it sounds like you've been fed some of the DayStar/Jesus First talking points about "purity." Be aware that the liberals and Church Growthers always characterize the conservative/confessional side as being "obsessed with incessant concerns about internal purity issues" (or some phraseology like that). They try to set being "mission-minded" over against "doctrinal purity." But the Bible does not know such a divide. It is a false dichotomy. Both are important. What God has joined together, let man not put asunder.