Lutheran pastor suspended for participating in interfaith service

This is a very painful time for my beloved LCMS. You really do have NO IDEA of what your speak. I hope and pray for reconciliation within my synod. This goes far beyond the Yankee stadium prayer service and it is really about breaking the 1st commandment of the old testament, "thou shalt have no other gods before me" and Jesus first commandment of the new testament, "you should love the Lord your God with all you soul and with all your strength and with all you mind." Loving the Lord means that I know He is holy and I am not. It means knowing that I am a sinner, and except for His death and resurrection, I am a lost and condemned creature.

The problem many within my synod have is not that they are self-righteous or better than others, but that they are very concerned because other religions don't recognize sin and therefore, don't truly know the Gospel. We get called names all the time for teaching law and gospel. But if you don't teach law and use it as a measure, why do you need the gospel?? If you don't think that you sin in the first place, why would you even need Jesus?? We are not bigots, we are not idiots, we are bereans. That means, we keep going back to the Bible for guidance and try very hard to protect the Good News, that even the very worst sinner is redeemed by the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ, our saviour.

Jesus purchased me at a great price. He did the same for you. Nothing I can do will add or subtract from this. Even if our whole synod is sinning, we are forgiven by our Lord and He will still help us to work this out. We often say in my church that we aren't perfect, just forgiven. You can be too.

I see your points more squarely now. Yes, it is unfortunate that groups, Christians included, don't keep their arguments in-house. Unfortunately, even if they do...there are many who stand to benefit by making them public (Ratings being one).

It appeared you meant that if arguments occur between, say Christians and non-Christians, then we should get sent to our room. Now I see.(I used abortion because of it's high profile. I did not intend to rhetorically place you on one side of that, so sorry if it seemed so.)

We may disagree about whether the governing body's action is correct or fair. I believe there is much we would agree about given the space and time. The added references to Crusades, Jews, etc. probably distract from the central point of the thread.

Allow me, however, to comment on "converting" people. My understanding is that such an important inner change cannot be forced upon anyone. Most Christians I know attempt to share their beliefs in the hope that those who don't know or understand our faith may investigate and choose a new life.

I think that often those opposed to Christianity, or to religion in general sometimes seize on good-faith efforts as if those like your friend Michael have no brain or ability to withstand the powerful brainwashing coming from the religious right. Don't get me wrong. I am sure that organized "campaigns" launched within a church or denomination are well-intended and not insideous in nature, but perhaps Christians are naive enough en masse to miss the fact that the "campaign" component detracts from the message within. Either it's missed, overlooked, or poorly thought through...but if it's overlooked...then it's lazy mission work.

In short, it's simply not possible for such large organizations to keep arguments quiet, especially when they are org.-wide and when reporters are looking for red meat.

You are also correct that this thread is not about such volatile issues as abortion and crusades, but often the resulting arguments take us off on those kind of bunny trails. It seems to me that if you trade "lutheran" with any other employer-employee situation, you've got a body who is sanctioning an employee for violation of that institutions policy. I don't see Christians fighting Christians here, at least on the issue itself. Perhaps so because of - or after - the media got a hold of it. ps- adoption is a wonderful thing.

"...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Did you read what this said? Was the pastor at the prayer meeting to convert these "other nations" to Christianity? If yes that would be good but was not the case. He was there to join them in lifting prayer to a multitude of gods and for a Christian to even participate in something like that, to lend any kind of credibility to the notion that the path is wide and not narrow, is repulsive to the Christian God.

What you folks are suggesting is that NO Christians should have taken part in the event. Boy, now that's going to help spread the Word!

This sort of priggish Christian exclusivism does more harm than good. For one thing, it's prideful.

For another, it completely excludes the possibility that the Holy Spirit might work through the words of that man to cause a conversion in seekers among the crowd -- unless perhaps you're going to tell me that conversions are the works of men, and not God, in which case this guy really was wrong.

And finally, when this stuff gets out in the press it's nearly always presented to portray the Church in the worst possible light. The comparison that is being drawn here is between a loving priest extending love and care to the afflicted, on the one hand; and an anal-retentive bunch of fundamentalists on the other. How many seekers would read such a story and conclude that church isn't for them after all?

The epistles several times describe the battle of Paul vs. the Judaizers. The LCMS sounds rather more like the latter than the former.

I'll leave my little rant with a quote from Peter:

Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1 Peter 2:11-12)

Peter's description of Christians as "aliens and strangers" is appropriate here. In a multi-faith memorial service, Christians are certainly different. What does it tell the people of other faiths if Christians profess to find them unacceptable company? Not exactly what most people would call "good deeds," and certainly not likely to make them want to glorify God. But to offer Christian love to pagans -- that's something different, no?

GWfan, yes, I can appreciate that this is a tough time for your group. I see where this controversy is going to be featured on O'Reilly tonight, and given his comments of the other day about Jesus, he will come down pretty hard on the people who wish to censure this pastor. It's always painful to have one's dirty laundry aired out in front of others. I encourage you to read Rev. Benke's words, see his side of the story as you come to grips with your thoughts on this. I found them very moving, and this is from the perspective of a non-believer.

I'd like to point out, however, that things could be worse. Last month, I read in the paper that a Catholic priest who was the assistant pastor at a church I attended thirty years ago has been under observation by the diocese since it came out that he was giving "massages" at CYO camp. While I have not been in a Catholic church since 1984, it still hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks. Here was the name of a priest that I had liked, admired, and trusted, and he's on the verge of losing his priesthood over something far more serious than praying! If this is the worst problem that your LCMS faces, then your denomination seems lucky, indeed. I can only try to imagine what it must feel like for people who are still Catholic. So, while I don't have the exact idea of what you're going through, I have a similar enough experience to get a tiny glimmer of it.

You speak of forgiveness in your last paragraph. In Rev. Benke's answer to the charges, he seems sorry for having offended people of your church. I hope that for the sake of the good people of New York City that he spoke to on September 23, that his church will forgive him, as his offenses pale in comparison to the offenses visited upon the citizens he was trying to comfort through his ministry. To drop him from the church is to slap all those people in the face.

Sayfer, thanks for your comments, I'm glad I was able to clarify. Your spirit of saying "there is much we would agree about given the space and time" is what I think Rev. Benke was trying to appeal to by attending the interfaith service. It was a time to focus on what we as Americans have in common, and not over differences that appear extremely petty when viewed against a backdrop of the still-smoking WTC site.

I can appreciate that people feel the tenets of their various religions are diluted when interfaith services are held. But people sitting in a stadium crying their souls out, with pictures of the missing in their laps, aren't really in a position to appreciate the minor differences between sect A and sect B, which split off from them a couple (decades, generations, centuries, fill in the blank) ago. These differences loom large only in the comforted mind, the one that is not wanting for food, clothing, shelter, or answers as to why their father, mother, siblings, or friends were taken away so cruelly. If Christians, indeed, all people of religious faith, cannot come together just for the sake of giving these people a spiritual lifeline to cling to in their hour of need, then their religion is no better than a young boy's treehouse with the "no gerls aloud" misspelled sign on the entrance. This service was not about homogenizing the differences between the various faiths, or giving honor to their individual differing doctrines, but about finding the commonality between people of faith, to come together to do a merciful thing for those who were suffering. As for me, I feel that these people were turning to a false hope, but I honor their choice to do so. If the LCMS removes this pastor, they will confirm my belief in that falsehood, as least as far as their particular brand of religion.

I think what's made news here is the nature of the offense. If a clergyperson made disparaging comments about church doctrine, then it is an employer-employee matter, and would not be too newsworthy. When you read what actually happened, it appears to be the sort of religious intolerance story that the media loves to rip into. If the LCMS had just quietly taken Rev. Benke aside, and let him explain and apologize, no one ever would have heard about it. It's those who are doing the complaining that have thrust this in the public eye.

Ethical, no, I know many people, including Christians, that are not religious intolerants. They honor and respect the rights of others to believe as they choose, or not believe, if that is their choice. They don't "take all their marbles and go home" when their religion is not featured as the "only really true one". They would not turn away from a neighbor suffering a devastating loss.

I consider left-wing animal rights types that would force me to be a vegan to be a sort of religious intolerant, too.

To follow up...

On the fundamental question in the thread: Was the disciplinary action right or wrong?....

Consider me a convert. I consulted a friend of mine at work who has a doctorate in theology. We both attend Baptist Churches, if that adds anything to the discussion. He agreed with your position because the pastor had permission to attend. Had he not, because the Lutheran Church is heirarchical (sp?), it would have been necessary if not "ok" to do what they did. An interesting aside... without being prompted he cited the Apostle Paul. He said that Paul may have considered those who declined to attend (Baptists being one group)as being "the weaker brothers", but he wasn't sure. I thought that was interesting, given your earlier comments and concerns about Paul. Paul wrote much on the subject of being confident in one's faith. Not knowing Paul personally we couldn't be sure, but based upon his writings, one should not have been afraid to attend out of a legalistic concern. Just a tidbit.

Benke said that they were "stronger now" because of the ministrations of pagan clerics. He called idol-worshippers his "sisters and brothers." He invited them to join him in prayer to God, even though they do not believe in the one true God.

He used vague and allusive/elusive language in the body of his prayer: e.g., "a s/Son," without defining who that s/Son is. He prayed for the dead, that they would be saved apart from faith in Christ and on the basis of their heroic bravery. I could go on. And then at the end, he tacked on a perfunctory formula that finally got around to mention the name, "Jesus"--but again he did not make clear who this Jesus is or what he has done. He did not connect the dots.

Benke avoided any "Christ-alone" language. He left people with the impression that they are OK in their false religions.

All in all, it was a disaster as far as giving a distinctively Christian witness.

And this was not the first time Benke has done this sort of thing. More on that later, perhaps.

If the LCMS had just quietly taken Rev. Benke aside, and let him explain and apologize, no one ever would have heard about it. It's those who are doing the complaining that have thrust this in the public eye.

No, actually, that's exactly the opposite of the case. It is is the Benke side that has mounted a PR offensive in the secular press. Those who brought charges against Benke--and I know most of the men personally--have tried to keep it in-house. In fact, those who are parties in the case, on both sides, are forbidden in our by-laws to give publicity to the case, and our synod's Board of Directors has reinforced that policy with a direct order to the principals involved. However, the Benke side has blatantly defied this policy. The spin that you're hearing in the media these days is coming from their camp.

After following this discussion, as well as some on lutherquest.org and elsewhere, many people seem to be distressed about the public attention that this is getting (did anyone catch O'Reilly on Fox tonight?) The LCMS has always "flown under the radar". Well, I say that all this is pretty good. Yes, we are going to be ridiculed and berated by the public at large. So what. Millions of Christians throughout history have been put to death for their beliefs, and we're afraid of a little negative publicity? God blesses his church the most when they are under attack - just look at the explosive growth of the church in Thirld World areas such as Asia and Africa. Believers are being persecuted by the demonic forces of Islam everyday in Africa, and yet (if the statistics I've heard are true), there are more LCMS Lutherans in Africa today than there are in America. If the poor downtrodden faithful in Africa can - at the risk of death - stay faithful to Christ, how can we not?

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Matthew 5:11

That aside, it IS interesting to note that Benke has now hired a team of lawyers, and a PR firm. How very Clintonian of him. The liberal's true stripes are showing.

Who said it?

My participation in this service was a direct violation of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and consequently, violation of the Constitution, Bylaws and doctrinal resolutions of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. I also recognize that my participation in this interfaith prayer service was a violation of my duties and responsibilities as an elected officer of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

While well-intended, what I did was wrong. I therefore sincerely and publicly apologize to the Synod for my actions in this connection. I assure the Synod that I will not repeat this error in the future by participating as an officiant in ecumenical services.

It was Atlantic District President David Benke, in his signed apology of October 22, 1998, after he had participated in an interfaith prayer service in New York City on September 9, 1998--a service similar to that of September 23, 2001.

Some of you may see nothing wrong with interfaith prayer services. But I trust that you do see something wrong with a man giving his word and then breaking it. Knowing now that Benke has made this previous public apology and assurance to the Synod, what does this tell you when, as soon as the Synod gets a new president that he knows will not discipline him, Benke goes ahead and once again participates in an interfaith prayer service? As I read it, based on his own 1998 apology, Benke stands self-condemned.

Syncretism is wrong based on the Holy Scriptures. That is why it is wrong also according to the Lutheran Confessions and the Constitution of the LCMS.

In 1998, Benke admitted that his participation in an interfaith prayer service was a "direct violation" of the Holy Scriptures, as well as of the Confessions and the Constitution.

Whether or not those Lutheran documents mean anything to you is not the point. As an ordained minister of the LCMS, Benke voluntarily swore to uphold the Lutheran Confessions and the LCMS Constitution (precisedly because they are in agreement with the Holy Scriptures, btw), as well as the Holy Scriptures, of course.

I'd say that I'm one of those who don't really have a problem with inter-faith services. That being said, if you admit you're wrong a promise not to do it again and then do it...some less open mined than I might call that wrong.
"Let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

Question, did he attend this servise as a private citzen or as an official of the The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.