|
|
Lutheran Central |
|
|
|
|
|
Response to "Open Letter On Party Spirit" |
|
|
I would like to thank Mr. Mills for a well reasoned letter. However, I think his letter itself indicates a "Party spirit" that is not helpful. First, he divides the Synod into "Confessionals" and "Moderates." Why not divide them into "the Ultra-Right" and "Confessionals"? That's how the "Moderates" would look at it. Don Matzat is a theological Moderate? Jerry Kieshnick, who is a strict creationist is a Moderate? Men and women who confess the inerrancy of Scripture are Moderates? I think he needs to find some new terminology. Theologically speaking, those are not Moderate positions. In most denominations, they would be considered extremely conservative. Perhaps a better--and more neutral term--would simply be "Those who support Dr. Benke" and "those who do not." Second, he states that, "the Confessionals [did not] pick this fight." Did the Moderates? Does he seriously think that Dr. Benke or Kieshnick thought, "Well, I'm just going to make people angry. I'm going to pick a fight with them." Please. Has it occurred to him that, instead of trying to "fire a shot" Dr. Kieshnick was trying to respond in a positive manner to an overwhelming event that engulfed the nation just the day after he started his new position? From the beginning, Dr. Kieshnick has pointed to Resolution 3-07A of the 2001 LCMS convention. Looking at this event on September 21, I can easily understand how he could view the YS event as more of a civic event. Does a gathering that is hosted Oprah and James Earl Jones with the mayor and govenor of New York speaking and closed with a song by Bette Midler meet your definition of a Divine Service? I know what the video shows. I've seen it. But he didn't have a video to look at when he made his decision. He had to go based on a program that he did not see and could not see. Even Dr. Benke wasn't sure what was going on then. The participants were all going through FBI clearance at the time. All they knew was that the mayor had called for this event and that there would be no restrictions on what he could or could not say. I can also easily understand how he could take the Synod seriously when it stated through its resolution that there would be instances where we disagree on an issue and in those issues charity must prevail. Try, for a moment, to put yourself into the shoes of these two men. We have just had the worst attack on American soil in over 50 years. It is thought that up to 10,000 people might be dead. Both men had just gone down to the former WTC site. They saw the destruction. They saw the body bags. They saw the hurt and the grief. Does it seem outrageous that, in view of this horrifying event, that the President of the Synod would ask that charity would prevail in this situation? I don't think he tried to pick any fights. I don't think he wanted to prove "there's a new sheriff in town." I don't see him as being arrogant or confrontational. I think he tried to respond in a genuinely pastoral manner. And, to his credit, he has worked very hard to help people understand his views. He went to several pastor's conferences this last Spring, even in Districts that do not see things as he did. He had open questions and answers with pastors and faced a lot of anger. Yet, he faced the questions head on, even in the face of rude remarks, e.g. one pastor who demanded publicly that he repent of his sin. One closing comment. I think these two men made the wrong decision. I don't think anyone would have noticed if Dr. Benke was not present. His being there has thrown the Synod into chaos. They should have thought of that. But I think a case can be made that this falls under "Cases of Discretion" and I am content to let charity prevail. Pr. Jim Butler Springield, MA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
