For Pastors/Leaders
 

Helpful Secular Sites

Contact Us

Suggest New Links
 
 

Our Purpose

Advertise on L/C

Frequently Asked
 
 
 
 

In reading “A “Written Statement of the Matter in Dispute”: Adjucation of Allegations Against the Rev. Dr. David Benke, President of the Atlantic District of the LCMS” dated June 25, 2002, it seemed to me that Rev. Schulz’s response to the charges is scholastically incomplete, showed many inconsistencies of thought, ignored Scripture, and is inherently flawed.  I have attempted to make a point by point response to his statement to show this to be the case.  (Section headings below reference section headings in Rev. Schulz’s document.)

Syncretism:

Rev. Schulz uses a secular dictionary to define syncretism.  This definition cannot therefore be binding on the discussion.  Admittedly, neither our Confessions nor scripture contain the words “unionism” or “syncretism.”  Couldn’t the author at least have used the standard dogmatic text of our church, Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, where in Volume III he has a discussion of unionism and syncretism (pgs. 425-427)?  Our church, and the parties involved in this case, must come up with an agreed upon definition of syncretism before someone can be charged with practicing it.  

That using this secular definition is insufficient is proved by its inconsistent usage in Rev. Schulz’s document.  The cited definition calls syncretism an “attempted combination of different systems of philosophical or religious belief or practice.”  Yet the rest of the paragraph seems to use syncretism in the context of the ”bringing together” of various religions.  Two things can be brought together without combining them.  What is syncretism – combining religion or bringing them together?  How you answer this question will totally affect the substantiation of any charges of syncretism.  In using the definition Rev. Schulz provided, it would seem that Dr. Benke, while admittedly participating in an event that brought together various religions (thus what Dr. Benke may have been calling syncretistic), did not participate in a
syncretistic event as he, Rev. Schulz, just defined it.  How can we substantiate charges we cannot even define?

In not distinguishing between “combining” and “bringing together,” Rev. Schulz has actually confused the very issue he should have clarified.  In his letter to congregations, pastors, and people of the LCMS dated February 11, 2002, LCMS President Jerry Kieschnick writes:

We in the Synod have a long history of praying with and for other Christians.

At the same time, we refrain from praying with those who do not recognize or accept Jesus Christ as
true God in a way that appears to condone their lack of faith in Christ as the only way to heaven or in a
way that gives the impression that we are praying with them to their false god.  The question before us
at this time is whether or not it is appropriate to pray to the true God in the midst of non-Christians at a
public occasion such as the Yankee Stadium event.  There may be occasions where we come together
to pray without praying together. Answering this key question is a key task facing our church today.  Any question of syncretism is unanswerable until this issue is addressed.  When Paul preached in the Jewish synagogues and at the Areopagus (Acts 17), was he doing so in unity with them or in the midst of them to proclaim the true God?  When Elijah prayed on Mount Carmel and the prophets of Baal also prayed (1 Kings 18), was Elijah’s prayer a demonstration of fellowship with them or a demonstration of the power of God over and against their gods?  A discussion of syncretism must contend with 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1, in which Paul gives warning against fellowship with unbelievers.  Was the Yankee Stadium an expression of fellowship or and expression of diversity?  

Rev. Schulz needed to address these issues and, using scripture, provide a Biblical foundation for a discussion of syncretism and his ruling.  In not doing so, he undermined his own responsibility, as he stated it (pg. 3 of Rev. Schulz’s Statement), of making “absolutely certain that the human guidelines we work with (including all matters of Constitution of Bylaws) are clearly perceived by the greater church to flow naturally from the pure and true Word and will of God.”  His failure in this matter shows that this matter has indeed been adjudicated “on the basis of man’s opinions.” (pg. 3)

Violation of the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws:

Dr. Benke’s violation of the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws is founded upon Article VI and the substantiation of the charges of syncretism, which I have already shown to be tenuous at best.  If it is “so serious,” why hasn’t more effort been made to present a thorough explanation of syncretism and then an evaluation of Dr. Benke’s actions based upon said explanation?

Interesting in a presentation of violations of the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws is Rev. Schulz’s omission of the recent convention proceedings.  LCMS Bylaws, section 1.09a affirm the need and benefit of adopting in convention doctrinal resolutions and statements to clarify Synod’s witness or to settle doctrinal controversy.  In 1.09c7, it says that “such adopted and ratified doctrinal statements shall be regarded as the position of Synod.”  “They shall be honored and upheld (“to abide by, act, and teach in accordance with.)”  

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, meeting in convention in 2001, adopted resolution 3-07A that states:
 Resolved, That we give thanks to God for the word 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”; 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 commit this study and response for continued use and guidance to build that
unity where it is still lacking. ; and 

The aforementioned response to this study states:
 Not every occasion where worship takes place is necessarily a manifestation of church fellowship.
(“The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship: A Report on Synodical Discussions”, Section V,B,
paragraph 1) and it also states:
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.  (“The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship: A Report on Synodical Discussions”, Section V,B, paragraph 2)

Why is this resolution and approved document not considered in answering charges of violation of the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws?  Isn’t Rev. Schulz required to abide by and act in accordance with the above resolution?  In ignoring this convention proceeding, isn’t Rev. Schulz himself in violation of the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws?

Unionism:

In answering the charge of unionism, here no formal definition is proposed, but use is made of the “bringing together” language employed in the section answering the charges of syncretism.  Similarly, is unionism the combining of divergent Christian denominations or gathering together?  How can “unionism of every description be renounced” when we cannot even define it?  

Rev Schulz says that “we have also always believed it to be most God-pleasing not to worship with those with whom we have basic differences in doctrine.”  Where is this the scriptural, confessional or constitutional position of synod?  Rev. Schulz quotes Herman Sasse, who falls into none of the above categories.  In contrast, in affirming the resolution cited above, and in saying that “Not every occasion where worship takes place is necessarily a manifestation of church fellowship,”  Synod in convention has assumed that we may worship together with other Christians at times and not be expressing fellowship.  This should carry the weight of this discussion not Sasse.

It is also assumed that the Yankee Stadium event was a worship service because Mayor Giuliani called it an “interfaith service.”  Was this a worship service?  What defines what is a worship service?  Is a service organized by civic government and hosted by Oprah Winfrey a worship service?

Also, as in his discussion of Syncretism, Rev. Schulz completely ignores any consideration of Scripture.  1 Corinthians 1:10; 3; 11:18-19; 12:25 should all be addressed.  Again, his failure to provide scriptural evidence shows this matter to have been decided purely on the basis of his opinion.

First Commandment:

You shall have no other gods.
What does this mean? We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things.

Rev. Schulz writes that “a crystal clear signal was given to others at the event . . .all religions pray to the same God.”  Is that what the “others” thought?  Who speaks for them?    I heard many people express joy because Dr. Benke was there speaking for Christ when others were not.  The crystal clear signal is not too clear.

The first commandment commands us to have no other gods.  Dr. Benke on numerous occasions has expressed his firm conviction that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.  Dr. Benke has no other God than Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  Saying that he has any other is extremely offensive to Dr. Benke and the thousands of Christians he represents.  

Second Commandment:

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not curse, swear, use satanic arts, lie, or deceive by His name, but call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks.

In praying to and through Jesus Christ, what was deceptive?   This discussion is still based to the erroneous contention that his participation was an expression of syncretism (see above discussion).  There was no deception, but a witness to the power and love of the one true God.  
Interesting that, in quoting one part of Martin Luther’s explanation, he fails to include the end where we are told to “call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks.”  Isn’t that precisely what Dr. Benke was doing publicly?

Defending False Doctrine

Dr. Benke has continued to defend himself against false charges not defended false doctrine.  For this charge to be substantiated, it must be shown that his doctrine is false, and that it has been clearly shown to him to be false, and that then he has clearly continued to defend his teaching and practice.  Rev. Schulz, in his brief and unsubstantial writing, has miserably failed in the first task of proving Dr. Benke’s doctrine to be false.

Conclusion

In his conclusion, Rev. Schulz writes that he has “found President Benke’s actions to be contrary to the confession laid down in Article II of the Constitution, namely, the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI.”  Yet, where was this proved?  He says that Dr. Benke’s actions were contrary to Holy Scripture, but as Rev. Schulz directly addressed the charges against Dr. Benke, nowhere is scripture cited.  How can Rev. Schulz on pg. 3 of his statement say that his intent was to adjudicate this case “not on the basis of man’s opinions, but on God’s clear Word,” and then completely fail to use it!?  He says that Dr. Benke’s actions were contrary to the Confessions, yet his written statement contains only two brief citations of any of the confessions.  Use of Scripture
and the Confessions is poorly lacking.

How can any conclusion be reached?  There are too many outstanding questions, too many unsubstantiated claims, too many discussions yet to be had.  To find substance in the charges against Dr. Benke is at best premature and at worst slanderously bearing false witness against a neighbor.  Rev. Schulz’s placing of Dr. Benke on suspended status is an irresponsible action based on incomplete investigation, erroneous logic, poorly developed arguments, and is oblivious to Scripture, the Confessions, the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws and LCMS Convention proceedings.  

In Christ,

Rev. Mark Mueller
Assistant Pastor, Bethlehem Lutheran Church, Delmar, NY
 

If you would like to make a reaction statement, please send it to jay@lutherancentral.com and we will be glad to review it and possibly publish it. We would like to hear your opinon.