It was a service. "A Prayer for America" was announced beforehand as an "interfaith service." It was referred to during the service itself as a "service." Benke himself called it "God's House of Prayer." It was reported afterward as an "interfaith service."
The service consisted of approximately 34 elements or acts, of which 28 were religious. At least 22 of the religious acts were done by clergy. The service had invocations, religious ceremonies, scripture readings, "reflections," prayers, and benedictions, almost all done by clergy. According to the order of service, approximately 22 clerics from various religions--including 12 non-Christian (Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh) clerics--performed religious acts. Also, there were remarks from two political leaders. During the service, two religious hymns were sung. Also, there was one patriotic song and one secular song. (Before and after the service, there were two more patriotic songs.)
Were they all praying to the same deity? or representing their faiths in support of the victims?
They all were joining together in prayer to the same deity.
Did he violate an order NOT to attend? or did he have permission? . . . If he violated a superior's demand that he not attend, then the action is justified.
He had the permission of the current synodical president, whom he knew would not object. He would not have had the approval of the previous president, who reprimanded Benke for a similar offense in 1998. But the point is, Benke was in direct violation of the Holy Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Constitution of the LCMS, and of his own 1998 public assurance to the Synod.
Did he "say it" like any suboordinate "says it" to save his job when the paper is placed in front of him with pen at ready?
If you mean his 1998 "sincere" public apology and assurance, he "said it" under the scenario you describe. But once he put his name to the apology, those became his words. If he did not believe them, he should not have signed.
How do you know this for sure?
He had the permission of the current synodical president, whom he knew would not object. He would not have had the approval of the previous president, who reprimanded Benke for a similar offense in 1998.
Two things about this statement - The top guy knew about this and approved the request anyway, so to me, this cancels out what he had previously put in writing the first time he got busted. Secondly, do I detect a trace of "non-support" from you about this new president?
But the point is, Benke was in direct violation of the Holy Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Constitution of the LCMS, and of his own 1998 public assurance to the Synod.
Would you be so kind as to point me in the right direction in Scriptures where God say Christians are to have creeds and constitutions? Isn't God's laws enough for us?
Having said all of the above, it sounds like this guy Benke might be a little "slimey" in how he handles his commitments. My question to the LCMS crowd out there is: With all of your laws and hierarchy in place, how is someone like this (if all that you say about him is true) allowed to continue within your denomination? Where is the church discipline that Paul teaches us?
Dr. Barry wrote something about this a few years ago. If I remember correctly, his opinion was that it was proper for a LCMS Minister or laymember to participate in a prayer service (or similar) for the community in times of community tragedy, etc. to show our support for the community & pray for our fellow citizens. I think that he said there were certain ways that this should be approached, however, and I dont think Benke followed these guidelines.
Do you have access to this document? I thought I had a copy but I can't find it.
As for the Rev. Benke's promise not to repeat the earlier offense, all I can cite is his "once-in-a-lifetime" defense. The rules of the LCMS seem to allow for the fact that not every thing that will happen can be forseen, and surely, 9/11 fits into that category (we should all hope!) If Benke had decided to proceed on his own, then, yes, I can see the violation. I think the permission overrides his earlier "will not do it again" as the circumstances of the previous ecumenical service could not possibly have been remotely similar to the post-WTC ceremony, and the superior recognized this.
I know from another post on this thread that the ridicule heaped on the LCMS (yes, I saw O'Reilly pile it on last night, like I expected) as a result of this matter will be borne by the church members and hierarchy as just a part of the cross they have to bear, but please, the next time something like this comes up, consider that we live in a world of publicity. When religious leaders all act like so many lawyers (to whom truth is a mere obstacle to the eventual result) over something that appears extremely trivial to the unchurched, they remove themselves as solutions, and simply become part of the problem.
Sincerely, I do wish your denomination the best from this, even though I disagree with people of religious faith on many things, I still appreciate all of the good that they bring to humankind. This controversy cannot help your church in that regard, unless a peaceful and mutually acceptable solution can be reached. No matter what their faith, or lack of it, people of good will are hoping for a good solution. I apologize for any unfair cynicism in my prior comments to you, or others in this thread. I'm not so mean-spirited as to wish ill on any decent, sincere people of faith.