Posted on 07/19/2002 1:59:31 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You would think that the more militant forms of Islam would be enough to worry about these days, for those inclined to anguish over religious extremism. But no. Apparently the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod deserves our special concern. In late June, the church suspended the Rev. David Benke, the president of its Atlantic District and the pastor of a Brooklyn church, for praying with clerics who don't share the Christian faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The Koran
The Unity
[112.1] Say: He, Allah, is One.
[112.2] Allah is He on Whom all depend.
[112.3] He begets not, nor is He begotten.
[112.4] And none is like Him.
Hmmm....
Oh really??
""For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
Was God lying??
Sad to say, W.D.Fard had a better grasp of Islam than that site.
Was it the same vine? Are we speaking of the same body of work, e.g. Jonah's top sermons as delivered by Buddha?
Here's another transcontinental enlightenment situation - I was reading the B'Gita in a certain section when it became quite apparant to me that what I had before me were a series of admonitions taken from Proverbs. They'd been translated through a chain of several languages over the centuries, but there was no doubt this sacred Hindu literature was lifted from the Hebrew Bible. I then discovered that about the First Century C.E. there were Jewish missionaries who went to India to spread the faith. St. Thomas was among them, of course. In the end, Christianity was planted in India.
The various Hindu "popular" sacred texts that make up the B'Gita were assembled in that same period. The Jewish and Christian influence on those texts would not have happened had Christians adhered to a strict separation between themselves and the world of India.
. . . Mr. Benke, by his own admission, lobbied the event's sponsors for an invitation. When unsuccessful, he sneaked onto the field by joining Cardinal Edward Egan.
Conclusion by egarvue:(post #12) "One thing I didn't know, but do now, is that BENKE WAS NEVER INVITED TO THE SERVICE!!!!!! He had to lobby to be included, and when he showed up a the service, his name wasn't on the cleared list. ...What a glory-seeking, lying, Clintonesque scum!"
Charles Henrickson:
"Even though the main argument of the article was not about whether or how the Rev. Benke got the invitation or how he got on the field, those supporting Benke have latched on to this snippet and tried to make it the big issue, saying that Miss Ziegler was mischaracterizing Benke."
You are a hard man to pin down Charles. I have never complained in this thread about "the main thrust" of her article. If you LCMS'ers have rules that he violated then go ahead and string him up. You obviously want to do so in the worst way.
What I objected to was this false characterization taking place of his method of gaining entry to Yankee Stadium.
I tuned into this thread to read egarvue berating Benke as Clintonesque scum" for sneaking in and lobbying for a spot.
Now I don't know why it is so important to show Rev. Benke was "sneaked" into the Stadium other than character assassination. I don't know why you made such a big deal out of his name not appearing on the FBI clearance list or him having to hold Cardinal Egan's arm to walk onto the field. Clearly he was an invited guest whose name was on the published-in-advance roster. Your "sneaked" and "lobbied" points are just plain slander, bearing false witness. Egarvue over indulged but you and Mollie Ziegler both paved the way for him to come to this false and petty derogatory conclusion.
That's my only point in this thread. Don't jump all over the man for not being on the FBI clearance list when that was an oversight of the security force NOT a sign that Rev. Benke wasn't an intended guest. He clearly was an intended guest and I have provided ample evidence! And don't post his own explanation of what transpired and then twist his words to show him revealing that he wasn't an invited guest. That's just plain silly. He made some phone calls. That's all you really know. You don't have the transcripts so back off. Reading some wicked interpretation into the fact that he made phone calls is juvenile and very much beside the point.
In conclusion, sometimes we have to exercise care not to JUDGE a man by false information, especially when we are prone to be looking for bad things, as was Mollie Ziegler and evidently as were you and egarvue. Our fallen human nature will get the better of us and message our tendency to bear false witness, as happened to all three of you.
Evidently you don't see that one point.
If that is true why should I trust the rest of what you say?
Mea Culpa!!! I apologize. Thank you for pointing that out. I had not read that. Bravo to both of you!!!
You can stop holding your breath now.
Thanks, I will!! : )
The question of Melchizedek is really an interesting one and one I do not, for one moment understand. If I remember, however, the LDS church have a theory on that. I do not remember it completely so won't try.
I apologize in advance - this response will be somewhat lengthy, but please bear with me.
First of all, my biases: I believe that the Bible is the divine, verbally inspired Word of God, without error. It is the rule and norm for my life (at least I pray that God would guide me as best as my sinful flesh will let Him). God's Word has the only and final say. You'd find my Lutheran beliefs even further to the right than the LCMS. (I know, I know, some are saying now "Even FURTHER to the right???" - drop me a freepmail to learn more)
FAITHFULNESS AND JUDGING
Faithfulness to God's Word is very important. How do we go about being faithful to His Word? We first of all need to read it and know it and then apply it.
Scripture indicates that it is God-pleasing that a Christian should not only be concerned with matters of doctrine and practice, but should also judge doctrine and practice against what God's Word teaches. The Word of God holds the Berean Christians as excellent examples for all Christians to emulate in Acts 17:11: "They received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." These Bereans tested the apostles' doctrine to see if they taught the truth, and, of course, the doctrine was all judged on the basis of Scripture. The Apostle John was also writing to Christians under his care when he wrote, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..." 1 John 4:1. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ Himself instructs us to judge doctrine - "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them." Matt. 7:15-16a.
Is faithfulness to God's Word really all that important? Yes! Every error cheats the Christian out of heavenly and spiritual treasure. It is in the interest of everyone that we insist on purity of doctrine (i.e. keeping teachings inline with what Scripture teaches). Indifference toward the quality of food makes it easier on the cook but makes it dangerous for the eater. Indifference toward the purity of doctrine makes the work of preaching easier but is dangerous for those who listen. It is in the interest of everyone that purity of doctrine be insisted on.
Does this sound exclusionary and discriminatory? By all means, yes! Why? Because God demands it. Let's take a peak...
Arguments are used that one should not say or cause controversy over small issues. Indeed, Jesus warns against making mountains out of molehills with the words, "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." Matt. 23:24. However, there are many things which God wants us to keep in mind when His Word, and doctrine that must be based on His Word, is involved.
God tells us in His Word that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2 Tim. 3:16. All simply means all. Since all of it is inspired, all of it is worthy of our defense.
We must keep in mind that every error becomes important because of the way doctrines are interrelated. The Bible says, "A little yeast [false doctrine] works through the whole batch of dough[all doctrine]." Gal. 5:9. Just as a little yeast works its way through an entire batch of dough, so false doctrine has that same nature. Doctrines cannot be separated.
Our sinful nature reasons that a little bit of false doctrine will not harm us. "We are all brothers in Christ and small issues should not divide us," is the argument used. Contrast this with what God's Word tells us in 1 Cor. 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." If there is a "major" disagreement, no one doubts that oneness of mind and judgment is not present. So called "minor" errors affect oneness God intended to be present. God has not said that the degree or seriousness of an error determines with whom we may worship. Error, not the degree of the error, should settle the question for us.
The Holy Spirit also demonstrates to us that faithfulness in small matters is necessary. We read these words of Jesus recorded in Luke 16:10: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." In other words, if someone is not trustworthy in a small matter, he will not be trustworthy with a great matter either.
Finally, when we judge whether an issue or doctrine is important or not, we are in danger of judging God Himself. We must remember that if it is in the Bible, it is important and worthy of our defense. God's Word will endure to all eternity. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Luke 21:33. Every "jot and tittle" (Matt 5:18 KJV) is worth an all out effort of defense because God felt it was important enough to be included in the Bible in the first place. Not to defend it would be implying it was not important and that is a judgment of God Himself.
With this foundation laid, let us now turn to Scripture to see what God has to say about fellowship - and how this teaching relates to the Benke case.
Church fellowship can simply be defined as every joint or mutual expression of a common faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. In the Lutheran church this is commonly called pulpit, altar, and prayer fellowship.
The basis for this fellowship must be unity in doctrine or confessional oneness. Indeed, Jesus' final words before His ascension commanded: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations...Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded..." Matt 28:19-20a, KJV. All simply means all. This command does not give the disciples then, or the church today, leeway to add to or subtract from the doctrines as given in Holy Scripture.
To have God-pleasing fellowship, there must be unity of confession. Otherwise it is not God-pleasing. The Apostle Paul admonished the Corinthian congregation for the division in their fellowship. In 1 Corinthians 1:10, Paul wrote: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." This unity of confession is to be present in both word and in practice. There is no permission granted here for driving a wedge between Christ and His Word or for converting unity into a babel of conflicting and contradictory opinions.
St. Paul also described the confessional unity that is necessary for fellowship in Romans 15:5-6 KJV: "Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Since Scripture requires confessional agreement as the basis for fellowship, it should be evident that where there is no agreement in doctrine, or confession, there should be no fellowship. God forbids those who confess His Truth in word and practice to fellowship with those who confess teachings contrary to His Word. Joint fellowship, worship and church work with those who do not agree in doctrine are called the sin of unionism. God simply says, "Therefore come out from them and be separate," 2 Cor. 6:17.
Since Scripture requires confessional agreement as the basis for fellowship, it should be evident that where there is no agreement in doctrine, or confession, there should be no fellowship. God forbids those who confess His Truth in word and practice to fellowship with those who confess teachings contrary to His Word. Joint worship and church work with those who do not agree in doctrine is called the sin of unionism. Unionism involves the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely (see 2 Tim. 2:17-21). God gives us a simple command to solve this problem, "Therefore come out from them and be separate." 2 Cor. 6:17.
Confessional unity must be present before God-pleasing fellowship can occur. A Christian who believes these simple words will rightly refrain from joint worship, prayer and church-related work with those who are not in confessional agreement with them. That is why, for instance, the LC-MS did not want Benke to participate in this special worship service -- where joint worship and prayer was practiced without confessional unity.
THE PLACE OF LOVE - IS THE LCMS BEING UNLOVING?
Pure doctrine is a gift of the grace of God, and the greatest blessing man can receive, for, whoever has the full truth of the Gospel is rich in all spiritual gifts including Christ, forgiveness, the gift of heaven, etc. God has given all doctrine as a sacred trust to the church. The church, then, has the responsibility not to lose the truth. But, it does indeed happen when the church becomes indifferent to her treasure and permits error to stand as truth.
When the church does not exercise doctrinal discipline, and thus permits error equal right with the truth, a most grievous sin is committed. Doctrinal sin transgresses the First Table of the Law and constitutes a sin against the majesty of God. Sins of doctrine are also grievous, for these sins are capable of destroying a man's soul in hell.
The Bible clearly teaches that false doctrine is a sin against the First Commandment for the errorist (one who teaches false doctrine, or adheres to false doctrine) sins by trusting in his own reason in matters of doctrine, or by following someone who is erring and whom he then holds in greater esteem than God. In either case he is committing idolatry. "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching ["doctrine" in the KJV] of Christ does not have God." II John 9. The Second Commandment is broken because every errorist lies and deceives by God's name, for teaching false doctrine as though it were God's Word is a lie, or blasphemy. False doctrine transgresses the Third Commandment which demands that we hold God's Word sacred. Changing God's Word by either adding to His Word or taking away from it is despising the Word of God.
Luther recognized sins of doctrine as most grievous for he understood the interrelation, or interdependence of all doctrines of Scripture. Luther pictured the articles of faith (doctrines) as a golden chain from which the precious gem, the saving Gospel of Christ, is suspended. In the following quotation Luther not only emphasizes the importance of all doctrines of the faith, but he also identifies the enemy and the major instrument of destruction:
The Ruinous Virus of Rationalism - When the devil has persuaded us to surrender one article of faith to him, he has won; in effect he has all of them, and Christ has already lost. He can at will unsettle and take all others, for they are all intertwined and linked together like a golden chain so that if one link is broken, the entire chain is broken and can be pulled apart. There is no article which the devil cannot overthrow once he has succeeded in having reason dabble in doctrine and speculate about it. Reason knows how to turn and twist Scripture in masterly fashion into conformity with its views. This is very agreeable, like sweet poison.
When false doctrine is taught or held by a brother in the faith, loving admonition is in place. (However, the situation may clearly indicate that admonition has no place.) The purpose of loving admonition is to bring the brother back from his error; it is not given to determine whether or not a person is a false teacher.
Such admonition may take little time or much time. However, if the loving admonition is rejected and the suspected teacher continues to teach error to the sheep and lambs entrusted to him, he has then revealed himself as a false teacher, a causer of divisions and offenses, a subverter of doctrine. Here the debt of love ceases, for no love is owed to a false teacher. The reason for this becomes evident when one understands the nature of love.
Luther understood the nature of love when he wrote, "Love can sometimes be neglected without danger, but the Word of God and faith cannot. It belongs to love to bear everything and to yield to everyone. On the other hand, it belongs to faith to bear nothing whatever and to yield to no one. Therefore it [love] is often deceived." To apply love freely, which involves yielding one's position in doctrinal matters would be disastrous, for then error would be allowed to stand as truth. God's Word nowhere makes allowance for this.
Indeed, Luther warns against this very thing of allowing error to be accepted as truth. In such an instance Luther rightly insists that love is NOT to be exercised: "When fanatics teach lies and errors under the guise of truth and make an impression on many, there love is certainly not to be exercised and error is not to be approved. For what is lost here is not merely a good deed done for someone who is unthankful, but the Word, faith, and eternal life."
Even in minor issues or doctrines one should not close his eyes and remain silent so that love may be preserved. Doctrinal selectiveness is not permissible as Christ taught. Luther said: "But from doctrine (says Christ, Matthew 5:18) not a tittle or a letter may be omitted...This is because doctrine is God's Word and God's truth alone."
Those Christians who warn against error and insist upon pure doctrine are unpopular. They are reproached, derided, and sometimes ridiculed. They are said to be unloving, or legalistic. Luther himself was called many things (quarrelsome, harsh, intractable) for refusing to yield in doctrine. Christ was called a Samaritan, or scum of the earth in John 8:46-59, yet, He did not let this deter Him from speaking the truth and defending the doctrine that He is God.
It must be recognized that such name calling is a trick of the devil and used by those who are indifferent to pure doctrine. Pure doctrine and love go hand in hand. Love for Christ leads to a steadfast clinging to His Word. Love for one's neighbor means warning against false doctrine. Love is not silent nor does it in any way enable someone to continue false teaching. For example, true love does not in any way enable the alcoholic to continue drinking.
When false doctrine is present, confession of the truth is necessary. To remain silent or to let false doctrine stand as truth is to be ashamed of Jesus. Christ says: "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." Mark 8:38. There were men in the days of Jesus who heard His Word and believed in Him. Yet, they were ashamed to come out openly, step to the side of Christ, and openly confess their love for Him. Christ severely censured them with the words "they loved the praise of men more than praise from God." John 12:42-43. There is something wrong with a love that will not openly declare for Jesus and His Word. May God preserve us from such a weak love!
CONCLUSION
None of the teachings of the Word of God are expendable. In the closing words of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that a person who heard and did his sayings was like a wise builder who built his house on a rock. Jesus does not say 'Some of my teachings.' Jesus wants all of them to be believed. None of his teachings are expendable. Striving for purity of doctrine is NOT legalistic nor Pharisaical, as some will say. Legalism and Pharisaism are noted for strict observation of rites and ceremonies of the LAW, and emphasis on demanding obedience to things which are matters of adiaphora. Striving for doctrinal purity is GOSPEL oriented, designed to preserve the Gospel message of salvation by grace alone through faith. Some are tempted to think 'A little departure from the teachings of Jesus doesn't hurt, especially if it doesn't have something to do with the Gospel message.' A house does not collapse all of a sudden. Usually it is a little crack in the foundation that leads to its eventual fall. The Bible uses another picture, "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough" Gal. 5:9. Tolerated error, even a small one, spreads, grows, takes more territory and finally gains control. We cannot be quiet about even the smallest aberration from the truth. That is one way the devil begins - to tolerate a small difference. God says that the one he esteems is the one who "trembles at my word" Is. 66:2. On God's Word may we make our stand!
Thank you for wading through this all. I do think it is important to understand the SCRIPTURAL reasons for the LC-MS actions toward Benke.
Comments will be responded to later...
You quote the part about this being "'a serious offense' strictly forbidden by tradition and church law," and you say that it's unfortunate the writer does not go deeper and cite Scripture. But she does! In the very next sentence!
But the source of the prohibition is Christ's own words. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6).
Then she quotes me about this issue going to the very heart of the gospel! That's going much deeper than violating some man-made law.
Look, the reason the LCMS has these "church laws" is precisely because they deal with the heart of the Bible's teaching, namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mollie Ziegler understands that. I understand that. Wallace Schulz, the vice-president who suspended Benke, understands that--in fact, in his report, Schulz emphasizes that this is not ultimately about some parochial, internecine little bylaw affair, but really it has to do with the Biblical, Christ-centered faith.
Remember, Miss Ziegler is writing this article for the Wall Street Journal. They never are going to print something with 500 Scripture quotations. But she got one of the main passages included (John 14:6), one that hits the nail on the head and pretty well sums up the case.
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.