 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
In My Opinion…Don't Give Opinions A poet once said, "We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are." In other words, how we interpret the meaning of an event depends upon our mentality, not the nature of the event itself. In his explanation of the Eighth Commandment, Martin Luther instructs us to always put the best construction on what we see as it involves the actions of other people. The Board of Directors of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, meeting on August 15th, has released to the members of the Synod a very controversial resolution regarding the publicity surrounding the Benke issue. They admonish those who have, contrary to their so-called "gag order," stated public opinions about the case, in particular the President of Synod and the Board for Communication Services. The President of Synod who abstained from voting on the resolution has challenged the right of the Board of Directors to make such a statement. The ironic thing about this statement is that the majority members of the Board of Directors, while being critical of those who have stated opinions on the case, have in their own document, in every phrase within the first paragraph, stated their own subjective opinion. In their attempt to define the event that is at the heart of the issue, they not only ignore important facts, but also distort other facts. In that first paragraph the Board of Directors states: On September 23, 2001, the Reverend Dr. David Benke, President of the Atlantic District of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, participated with clerics from other Christian denominations and from a variety of non-Christian faiths in what was called by its organizers a "prayer service" at Yankee Stadium in New York. His participation was immediately and publicly defended by the President of the Synod. The Board claims that "the Reverend Dr. David Benke, President of the Atlantic District of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, participated with clerics from other Christian denominations and from a variety of non-Christian faiths in…. a 'prayer service'." Dr. David Benke did not participate with clerics from other Christian denominations and from a variety of non-Christian faiths in a prayer service. To say that is to claim that he prayed "with them" and they prayed "with him." Prayer is a conscious act. I watched the event in question on television. When David Benke offered his prayer, I did participate with him. When the others offered their prayers, I did not participate with them. I simply watched. Why does the Board of Directors assume that Dr. David Benke "participated with" them in a "prayer service?" Dr. Benke himself has clearly stated that he prayed in the presence of clerics from other Christian denominations and from a variety of non-Christian faiths but did not pray "with them." Is the Board suggesting that David Benke is not telling the truth? In defining the nature of the Yankee Stadium event, the Board of Director states that the "organizers" called the gathering a "prayer service." Who cares what the organizers called the gathering? We, who are sticklers for definitions, who quibble over how the word "minister" is to be applied, who define worship as a response to the Gospel, who speak of our Sunday morning experience as being a Divine Service or Gottesdienst, now, when it comes to the definition of an event that has political implications involving the suspension of a District President, rely upon definitions provided by the Mayor of New York, by Oprah Winfrey or by the New York Times? The event at Yankee Stadium was a patriotic civic event called "A Prayer for America." The event involved civic leaders, celebrities and religious leaders. It was held within the Kingdom of the Left Hand and under the auspices of the city of New York that has no public doctrine contradicting the Gospel. Since when do we look to civic leaders and celebrities to define the theological nature of an event? Perhaps for the Board of Directors, politics rules over theology. Regarding the role of the President of Synod, Dr. Kieschnick, the Board writes: "His (Benke's) participation was immediately and publicly defended by the President of the Synod." This statement is blatantly distorted and basically untrue. For one thing, the President of Synod, the ecclesiastical supervisor of the District Presidents, authorized Dr. Benke's involvement in the "Prayer for America." This is the most important point in this entire issue. David Benke did not make an independent decision to accept the invitation to offer a prayer at Yankee Stadium. He followed the lines of authority established in the Constitution and Bylaws of Synod and sought the advice and counsel of his ecclesiastical supervisor. If he had not received permission from the President of Synod, Benke would not have accepted the invitation. While the Board of Directors desires everyone to follow the Constitution and Bylaws of Synod, they ignore the most important fact that the President of Synod is the sole supervisor of District Presidents and that suspended Atlantic District President David Benke sought his supervision. Secondly, in the aftermath of the September 23rd event, the President of the Synod did not immediately and publicly defend Dr. Benke. The immediate and public response was one of support, not defense, from 35 District Presidents, 5 Synodical Vice-presidents and from the President of Synod himself. The President only defended Dr. Benke when the First Vice-President of Synod subsequently stated a public opinion that contradicted the opinion of his ecclesiastical supervisor the President of Synod and when the faculty at Fort Wayne, having absolutely no authority to correct the President of Synod since nobody asked them to, publicly did so. At that point the President Kieschnick publicly defended Benke and his decision to grant permission. He did not defend Benke because of what Benke did; he defended Benke because of the opposition of others. The Board is clearly stating their opinion that what Dr. Benke did was wrong because, as they put it, the President of Synod immediately and publicly defended his actions. Such an immediate defense, without accusations being raised, would be highly suspicious. If, for example, I would write: "Pastor John Smith participated in a weekend seminar with his personal secretary. His actions were immediately and publicly defended by his District President," would you not be suspicious? On the basis of that statement, would you not conclude that Pastor Smith's participation was wrong and that his District President was incorrectly defending him? I don't know about you, but I find the Synodical Board of Directors obvious bias in a case that is presently being appealed through legitimate channels to be very offensive. Pastor Don Matzat |
|
|
Home | Who We Are | Calendar | Our School | Prayer for America | Directions | Contact Us | Links |
|