Office of the President

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

 

MEMO

To:                  The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

From:              President Gerald B. Kieschnick

Subject:            Pastoral Letter to the Synod

Date:               July 9, 2002

 

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

 

Greetings to each and every one of you in the precious Name of Jesus, the Name that is above all names!

 

In light of events that have occurred within the last several days, it is my responsibility to share with you, the pastors, educators and congregations of the Synod, a brief update via this pastoral letter regarding the suspension of President David Benke by Second Vice President Wallace Schulz.

 

As indicated in my last memo to the Synod dated February 11, 2002, the LCMS is experiencing a period of emotional anxiety and doctrinal disharmony, heightened by the filing of formal charges against the President of the Atlantic District, Dr. David H. Benke.  President Benke, after consultation with the President of the Synod as his ecclesiastical supervisor and with the belief that by so doing he was acting in concert with the position of the LCMS as defined in 2001 Synodical Convention Resolution 3-07A, participated in a post 9/11 event at Yankee Stadium on September 23, 2001. Details concerning the formal charges that were filed against Dr. Benke, the process by which the Second Vice President of the Synod assumed responsibility for investigating the charges and my assessment of both sides of the question are contained in my February 11 memo.

 

The Second Vice President of the Synod, in a letter dated June 25, 2002, announced his decision that President Benke should be placed on suspended status. In Dr. Benke’s case, suspended status would include being relieved, while on such suspended status, of his duties as member of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic District, as member and Chairman of the Board of Regents of Concordia College, Bronxville, and of his duties and responsibilities as President of the Atlantic District of the LCMS.

 

In a memo dated June 27, 2002, I informed the Council of Presidents that I have advised President Benke of these consequences, defined in Bylaw 2.25 b.: “Suspended status shall continue until membership is duly terminated or the formal proceedings are completed favorably to the member.”

 

Out of concern for our brothers and sisters in the Atlantic District, I will be meeting July 12 with the Board of Directors of the Atlantic District and the Board of Regents, faculty and staff of Concordia College, Bronxville.   I will also meet July 11 with the officers and members of St. Peter Lutheran Church of Brooklyn, the congregation of which Dr. Benke is and will remain Pastor, in accord with Bylaw 2.25 c. 4.   The purpose of these meetings will be to encourage these members of the Synod, to demonstrate evangelical, pastoral concern for them during this stressful time, and to assure them of the love and support of the members of the Synod and of the Council of Presidents, including the Synodical President. Please remember that visit in your prayers.

 

In light of all the information shared in my previous memo to the Synod and in this pastoral letter, I am hereby advising the Synod that I have no choice but to “call up for review” Dr. Schulz’s action of placing President David H. Benke on suspended status for the purpose of requesting that this action be “altered or reversed.” I have so informed Dr. Schulz in a letter dated July 5.   I am calling for this review on the basis of Vice President Schulz’s suspension of President Benke, an action that, in my view, is in violation of Resolution 3-07A of the 2001 Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. 

 

The Constitution of the Synod stipulates, “The President has and always shall have the power to advise, admonish, and reprove. He shall conscientiously use all means at his command to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the Districts of the Synod” (LCMS Constitution Article XI. B. 3.). It is with this responsibility in mind that I hereby advise the Synod of the serious problem which Dr. Schulz’s action of suspending President Benke creates.

 

On the one hand , “The President shall see to it that the resolutions of the Synod are carried out” (LCMS Constitution, Article XI.B. 4.). The 2001 Synodical Convention adopted Resolution 3-07A. This resolution commended “for continued use and guidance” both the document on church fellowship prepared by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations and former President Barry and also the unanimous report of the CTCR, with President Barry’s concurrence, on the 4300 responses from delegates to the Conventions of the 35 Districts of the Synod held in the year 2000. Dr. Benke’s decision to participate in the Yankee Stadium event was made following consultation with his ecclesiastical supervisor and other advisors, who provided counsel to him based on the Constitution of the Synod and 2001 Resolution 3-07A.  I am enclosing with this letter a copy of that resolution and of the paragraphs on “Cases of Discretion” commended by the Synod in this resolution “for continued use and guidance.”

 

On the other hand, Vice President Schulz has suspended President Benke without even addressing the question of whether he has acted contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Synod as presented in Resolution 3-07A. As an officer of the Synod Dr. Schulz is bound to honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod. Accordingly, any decision which he might make regarding the suspension of an LCMS pastor must be based on the understanding of what the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions teach as determined by The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in its constitution, by-laws, and synodical resolutions. This he has not done in his action of suspending President Benke.

 

So the basic dilemma is whether or not it is appropriate for formal charges to be filed and sustained against a District President that could result in his being removed from the clergy roster of the LCMS…

 

·         as a result of a decision the District President made after seeking counsel from his ecclesiastical supervisor, the President of the Synod, and other advisors,

·         when this counsel was offered on the basis of a duly adopted resolution of the Synod in Convention (2001 Res. 3-07A),

·         in keeping with the Synodical President’s responsibility to “see to it that the resolutions of the Synod are carried out” (LCMS Constitution Article XI. B. 4.).

 

According to the Constitution of the LCMS, it is the President of the Synod, who “has the supervision regarding the doctrine and the administration of…all District Presidents…” (LCMS Constitution Article XI. 1.d.), and thus bears primary responsibility and is ultimately accountable for the counsel and advice he provides a District President, in the process of seeing to it “that the resolutions of the Synod are carried out.” (Cf. also Bylaw 3.101.A.1.)

 

Moreover, the Constitution of the Synod specifically states that

The President shall

5. call up for review any action by an individual officer, executive, or agency which, in his view, may be in violation of the Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions of the Synodand, if he deems appropriate, request that such action be altered or reversed. If the matter cannot be resolved, the President shall refer it to the synodical Board of Directors, the Commission on Constitutional Matters and/or the Synod in convention as the President deems appropriate to the issues and party/parties involved. (underlining mine) (Bylaw 3.101.B.5.)

 

It is for this reason that I have informed Vice President Schulz that I have called up “for review” his action of placing President Benke on suspended status.   In that letter I have also informed Dr. Schulz that I am requesting a meeting with him in my efforts at resolving this matter.

 

It is incumbent upon us to operate within the framework of our Synodical Constitution, Bylaws and Resolutions, even if or when we as individual members of the Synod may disagree with them. I pray and trust that true, evangelical churchmanship will prevail under the leading and guiding of God’s Spirit and that the conclusion of this case will reflect the evangelical care, concern and due process to which every member of the LCMS is entitled.

 

The foregoing paragraphs, I’m well aware, in their quotations of Bylaws and Convention resolutions may sound hopelessly institutional to some. Let me assure any who may be wondering that my first allegiance is to our Triune God and His Word, the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, which all members of the Synod accept without reservation as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice, then to the Lutheran Confessions as a true and unadulterated exposition of the Word of God and finally to the Constitution, Bylaws, and Resolutions of the Synod, which I have sworn to uphold. The rules and regulations by which we govern ourselves are simply but significantly a necessary part of our life together as a Synod, particularly in times of conflict and confusion.

 

In the days, weeks, months and years ahead, I encourage each of you to provide steady but bold leadership in the church as the ordained, commissioned and congregational members of the Synod in your District. It is critical that we resist the temptation to spend any more time, energy and other resources on internal matters than is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, it is vital that we keep our eyes focused on the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and Lord of the universe.

 

It is my hope and prayer that God’s Spirit will lead our Synod to carry out the final “Resolved” of Resolution 3-07A,

“That all action taken in this resolution shall be used to help carry out “The Great Commission” and shall not in any way detract or distract from the primary mission of God’s Kingdom here on Earth…”

 

It is my further prayer that He will provide opportunities for you and for many in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, even as He does to people in other parts of the Body of Christ, the Christian Church on earth, to bear witness to His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, that His name might be hallowed and His kingdom expanded. For that, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, is the privilege and the priority that Christ has given His Church!

 

My encouragement to you is the same as that of St. Paul to the church at Philippi: “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ . . . stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel . . .” (Philippians 1:27).

 

God's grace and peace be with you all!

 

 

 

To Commend “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship”

and the CTCR Report on the Synodical Discussions

 

RESOLUTION 3-07A

 

Report 3-01A ( CW, pp. 48–51); Overtures 3-07–10, 3-12, 3-15–18, 3-21–23 ( CW, pp. 157–63)

 

Whereas, The action of the 1998 convention called for a study of fellowship principles and practices (Res. 3-03B) on the nature of our church body (why we are who we are) and our fellowship principles and practices (why we do what we do); and

 

                Whereas, The 1998 convention (Res. 3-10C) also called for all 2000 District conventions to utilize the study to help build a “better understanding, general harmony and more consistent practice in our Synod”; and

 

                Whereas, The President of the Synod and the Commission on Theology and Church Relations has jointly produced the document “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” which is in harmony with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions; and

 

                Whereas, Our District conventions utilized and studied the document; and

 

                Whereas, “A majority affirmed The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod position on church fellowship that it set forth. They found it scriptural and confessional and wanted The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to maintain its historic position” (CTCR Report, CW, p. 49); and

 

                Whereas,   The CTCR has listened to the reactions from the Synod and written a response (CW, pp. 48-51) in conjunction with the synodical president; therefore be it

 

                Resolved, That we give thanks to God for the work of the sainted Reverend Dr. Alvin Barry and the Commission on Theology and Church Relations in producing the document “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” ( CW, pp. 375—87); and be it further

 

                Resolved, We give thanks to God for the thousands of pastors, commissioned ministers and lay people who have participated in the study and discussion of this document; and be it further

 

                Resolved, That we rejoice and give thanks to God for the unity of doctrine and practice that this study has demonstrated; and be it further

 

                Resolved, That we commend this study and response for continued use and guidance to build that unity where it is still lacking; and be it further

 

                Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm once again its position on joint worship and recommit ourselves to live according to the instruction of the Lord’s Apostle, “As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.  Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.   Make very effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1–3) and “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Eph. 5:21); and be it finally

 

                Resolved, That all action taken in this resolution shall be used to help carry out “The Great Commission” and shall not in any way detract or distract from the primary mission of God’s Kingdom here on Earth. We will remember 1-02!

 

            Action:  Adopted (7)

 

                (This resolution was first introduced in session 5 at which time the convention agreed to consider the following substitute motion: Whereas, The 1998 convention called for a study of church fellowship by the CTCR; and Whereas, The CTCR and President of the Synod produced, “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship”; and Whereas, “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” was utilized as a study document at all the District conventions in the year 2000; and Whereas, The study has hardly been acknowledged as a consensus document of the entire Synod in the time it has been under study; and Whereas, Numerous questions and concerns remain unresolved about the study, including the study’s own commitment to a genuinely Lutheran understanding of church fellowship; and Whereas, The theology of the Lutheran Confessions can be understood as appreciating the fullness of the Body of Christ than the current study document allows; and Whereas, The many practical issues of addressing church fellowship in the experience of real church remain largely unaddressed in the CTCR study; therefore be it Resolved, That “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” be recommitted for additional study to the CTCR and input from the larger synod; and be it further Resolved, That the 2001 convention express its thanks to the CTCR for its work to date in examining the fellowship issue. In session 7, after discussion continued on the substitute motion, it failed to carry and consideration returned to the original resolution. It was adopted without amendment [yes: 782; no: 343]. The final resolve is added as required by Res. 1-02, adopted by the convention in an earlier session.

 

B. Cases Of Discretion

 

            Not every occasion where worship takes place is necessarily a manifestation of church fellowship.  There are situations where discretion is appropriate.   Some laity raised concerns about attending Baptisms, confirmations, weddings, funerals, etc. of family and friends in churches not in church fellowship with the LCMS.  Attendance at such services is generally a matter of personal judgment and individual conscience.  On such occasions LCMS members will want to refrain from receiving Holy Communion and participating in rites of other churches that compromise their confession of faith.   Doubtful situations may produce emotional distress and may require pastoral counsel.

 

            Pastors, teachers, and other officially recognized church workers are often asked to participate in activities outside of their own and other LCMS congregations.   Some of these are civic events.   Offering prayers, speaking, and reading Scripture at events sponsored by governments, public schools and volunteer organizations would be a problem if the organization in charge restricted a Christian witness.   For instance, if an invitation requires a pastor to pray to God without mentioning Jesus, he cannot in good conscience accept.   Without such a restriction, a Lutheran pastor may for valid and good reason participate in civic affairs such as an inauguration, graduation or a right-to-life activity.  These occasions may provide opportunity to witness to the Gospel.   Pastors may have honest differences of opinion about whether or to what extent it is appropriate or helpful to participate in these or similar civic events.  In these cases charity must prevail.

 

            There are also “once-in-a-life-time” situations.   It is virtually impossible to anticipate all such situations or to establish rules in advance.  Specific answers cannot be given to cover every type of situation pastors and congregations face.  These situations can be evaluated only on a case-by-case basis and may evoke different responses from different pastors who may be equally committed to LCMS fellowship principles.  The LCMS has always recognized this.

 

            However, the response to one situation should not establish a precedent for future ones.  Where pastors regularly consult each other and are convinced of one another’s integrity, they are freer to use their discretion where such prior consultation is impossible.   We do not want to fall into the trap of case law rigidity by setting down rules for every conceivable situation.   At the same time, the exception should not become the rule, lest the truth of the Gospel be compromised.

 

            A pastor may face situations in the community where no other pastoral care is available and he may be asked to minister to those outside his congregation.   Before doing this, ideally he would consult with other LCMS pastors, especially the Circuit Counselor, District President or Vice Presidents.   But often these cases do not allow for consultation of any kind and on-the-spot decisions have to be made.   In these and other situations nearly every pastor may question even his own decision and wish he had taken another course of action.   We do not have the option of changing the past but must be content with believing that we made the best possible decision under the circumstances.

Jerry

"Transforming the world through Christ's love . . . in time . . . for eternity" (John 3:16-17).

Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod