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.
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.
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.