LCMS Doctrinal charges against Rev. David Benke
Richard A Schwarz
Fromal doctrinal charges have been filed against the Rev. David Benke,
president of the Atlantic District of the LCMS, through the office of the
synodical president, Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick. The charges were filed
under the category of synodical bylaw 2.27g for syncretism based on a
Yankee Stadium prayer event and an inter-Lutheran prayer service held at
Holy Trinity Church in New York City in September and October that brought
together religious and civic leaders in the aftermath of the terrorist
attacks of September 11.
Six LCMS pastors brought the charges: Benjamin Ball, Dedham, Mass.; Todd
Peperkorn, Kenosha, Wis.; Walter Otten, Brookfield, Ill.; Joel Brondos,
Fort Wayne, Ind.; Brent Kuhlman, Murdock, Neb.; and Charles Froh, San
Mateo, Calif. Jurisdictional issues and steps for hearing the case are
still being resolved.
"What is hurtful in this situation is that these charges come at a time in
our District and city when the focus needs to be completely on healing and
mission. These charges and the whole process have the potential to
detract mightily from the oportunities at hand, and that is unconscionable
in my opinion," said Benke when informed that the charges had been filed.
---
The LCMS, in my opinion, really needs to review some of its policy. This
is an extreme circumstance and if a pastor is not allowed to be a pastor
in such a situation, things are mighty sad. Shame on those pastors who
brought the charges against Dr. Benke. RS
Kami
"Richard A Schwarz" <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.101112...@tere.cc.columbia.edu...
> from Day Star News:
> Fromal doctrinal charges have been filed against the Rev. David Benke,
> president of the Atlantic District of the LCMS, through the office of the
> synodical president, Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick. The charges were filed
> under the category of synodical bylaw 2.27g for syncretism based on a
> Yankee Stadium prayer event and an inter-Lutheran prayer service held at
> Holy Trinity Church in New York City in September and October that brought
> together religious and civic leaders in the aftermath of the terrorist
> attacks of September 11.
---
> The LCMS, in my opinion, really needs to review some of its policy. This
> is an extreme circumstance and if a pastor is not allowed to be a pastor
> in such a situation, things are mighty sad. Shame on those pastors who
> brought the charges against Dr. Benke. RS
Aside from the fact that it relayed the impression that Christianity is
really no differnt, no better, or no more true than all the others that
were at the prayer service?
Or what about the presence of LCMS at the service stated that
Doctrinal differnces within Christianity really don't matter much at
all?
And what's done with Scripture which states:
1 Corinthians 10: 21
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot
partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons.
Or...
2 orinthains 6
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship
has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with
darkness?
15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with
an
unbeliever?
16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the
temple
of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among
them. I
will be their God, And they shall be My people."
Even if the intent is good, the means are not always so.
Kami
PastorKliner
"The LCMS, in my opinion, really needs to review some of its policy. This
>is an extreme circumstance and if a pastor is not allowed to be a pastor
>in such a situation, things are mighty sad. Shame on those pastors who
>brought the charges against Dr. Benke. RS"
Speaking as a pastor of the ELCA, I too express sorrow over the LC-MS' stance
of refusing to allow an LC-MS presence at an ecumenical or interfaith service.
That being said, let's lay out the cards here. First the LC-MS no longer
recognizes the ELCA as an authentic (the official language was "orthodox")
Lutheran body. So we are no longer talking about an "inter-Lutheran" matter.
Secondly, to invite an LC-MS pastor and District President to be involved, when
the organizers knew the conflict existed, was irresponsible. And for Rev.
Benke, who knew that this would violate his church's standing, should not have
participated-- no matter what his oppinion of the policy.
Are you in the LC-MS? Then you can feel free to debate LC-MS policy. I for
one am not in the LC-MS so I will stay out of the policy debate. But speaking
as a pastor, I will respect the LC-MS' stand even if I disagree with it, even
as I respect the limits placed upon our relationships with Roman Catholics and
other groups we are not in communion with.
Jerry
Richard A Schwarz
I was baptized and grew up in the LCMS, I guess that's why I get so
frustrated with them. I don't respect their stand, I'm sorry, and I also
disagree with it. Not to be able to even pray with other Lutherans is a
bit extreme in my humble opinion. And Kami's post about consorting with
demons is a perfect example of that extremism. I find it non-Christian.
RS
Kami
"Richard A Schwarz" <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.101112...@tere.cc.columbia.edu...
> I was baptized and grew up in the LCMS, I guess that's why I get so
> frustrated with them. I don't respect their stand, I'm sorry, and I also
> disagree with it. Not to be able to even pray with other Lutherans is a
> bit extreme in my humble opinion. And Kami's post about consorting with
> demons is a perfect example of that extremism. I find it non-Christian.
Keeping my post in it's context...remember that going by
the Christian viewpoint (not just that of the LCMS mind
you...but the traditional evangelical Christian viewpoint)
any religion or belief system outside of Christianity is
false and it's sole purpose is to keep people swayed from
the One True God.
There were those of leaders of Judasim, Hinduism, Muslim faiths at the
prayer service as well as Christian. What type of message does
that send? That Christians feel that we're just one religion
among many and it doesn't really matter what one believes?
I also found it interesting that the Christian leaders at the service
neglected to mention Jesus or pray in His name at all. The only
mention I can recall was an Armenian priest. Or, was that another
part of the "tolerance" that was to be shown to other faiths. If so,
why was Allah addressed or the Gods and Goddesses of the Hindus
addressed in their prayers given allance and not Christ?
That is what the verse from 2 Corinthians is referring to...the joining
of the Christian faiths with others faiths as if they're all on the same
level. If that's looked on as non-Christian...may wish to go through
Scripture and bring about where Christianity should be seen as
Christians on the same level as other belief systems.
With the matter concerning the LCMS and fellowship with other Lutherns,
I've posted on occasion in the regarding my views. The issues lies
more in the offical church teachings held by the LCMS and other
Lutheran denominations...some of which have deviated sharply
from Scripture. But that's another issue altogether...especially
since the matter of the thread is in referrence to the charges against
Benke.
Kami
--
"Hope has been woven through all of creation..." - Michael Card
-----------------------
morning at jcn dot net
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/5358/index.html
-----------------------
Twokatz
An LCMS pastor
PastorKliner
>There were those of leaders of Judasim, Hinduism, Muslim faiths at the
>prayer service as well as Christian. What type of message does
>that send? That Christians feel that we're just one religion
>among many and it doesn't really matter what one believes?
Actually I agree with you on this matter. I have despaired at how quickly ELCA
and other Christian clergy rushed onto stages to hold "inter-faith" worship
services with Islamic Imams. What God did they pray to? Allah or the Triune
God-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We do not worship the same God, no matter
how much the media and American society wants to make it sound like.
Jerry
Adatia
wrote:
> I have despaired at how quickly ELCA
>and other Christian clergy rushed onto stages to hold "inter-faith" worship
>services with Islamic Imams. What God did they pray to? Allah or the Triune
>God-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We do not worship the same God, no matter
>how much the media and American society wants to make it sound like.
>
>Jerry
Why would you rule out that they prayed to any other God than you do?
Or is it your belief that God forbids Christian prayer in the presence
of non-Christians?
Hmmm. Could it be that the Holy Spirit refused to attend as well?
Yes, that would explain a lot. If God refused to be present when His
children were praying in response to one of the most tragic events in
recent history.
Is that the God you are referring to?
Adatia
Kami
"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkpl0uo424k6q2t6n...@4ax.com...
> On 03 Dec 2001 00:53:09 GMT, pastor...@aol.com (PastorKliner)
> wrote:
>
> > I have despaired at how quickly ELCA
> >and other Christian clergy rushed onto stages to hold "inter-faith"
worship
> >services with Islamic Imams. What God did they pray to? Allah or the
Triune
> >God-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We do not worship the same God, no
matter
> >how much the media and American society wants to make it sound like.
> >
> >Jerry
>
> Why would you rule out that they prayed to any other God than you do?
> Or is it your belief that God forbids Christian prayer in the presence
> of non-Christians?
God says in His word "where one or two are gathered in my name
there am I in the midst of them". The point is...there were many gods
portrayed within the interfaith service...not just the True God
that Christians worship. We're warned in the Bible of worshipping
with non-Christians and not to pray to their gods. Non-Christians,
whether it be Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, Jews, or any other
person from any other belief system DO NOT worship the Triune
God. They reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Therefore...
how can they be praying to the same God as Christians? Without
Christ...they have no hope for they have rejected the only One
who can save them from the end result of where sin leads.
To me...this was another slam against Christianity in that the
umbrella of Universalism (all faiths lead to one, none is more
or less true than the other) was again opened...and more readily
accepted by the masses. All in the name of "tolerance" and
"understanding". I'm noticing a bit more that witnessing and
proclaiming the gospel to others is being dubbed as "intolerant"
and hateful to people of other faiths. There have also been
those who try to liken it to what happened at WTC September
11th. How tolerante of the Christian faith is that?
> Hmmm. Could it be that the Holy Spirit refused to attend as well?
> Yes, that would explain a lot. If God refused to be present when His
> children were praying in response to one of the most tragic events in
> recent history.
Recall...none of the speakers but one (an Arminian priest) even prayed
in the name of Jesus Christ. So I ask again...what God where they
praying to?
Kami
--
"Hope has been woven through all of creation..." - Michael Card
-----------------------
morning at jcn dot net
http://www.geocities.com/astalis.geo/
-----------------------
Naked One
On 3 Dec 2001, Kami wrote:
> .... So I ask again...what God where they praying to?
Apparently not the same one as the Missouri Lutheran Taliban.
Adatia
>
>"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> The point is...there were many gods
>portrayed within the interfaith service...not just the True God
>that Christians worship. We're warned in the Bible of worshipping
>with non-Christians and not to pray to their gods. Non-Christians,
>whether it be Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, Jews, or any other
>person from any other belief system DO NOT worship the Triune
>God. They reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Therefore...
>how can they be praying to the same God as Christians? Without
>Christ...they have no hope for they have rejected the only One
>who can save them from the end result of where sin leads.
Kami,
Would you refuse to help in a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen if
there were other faiths helping too? With the constraints you have
wrapped around yourself, you could not, for how could you bow your
head when thanks was given?
Explain to us;
1) How this furthers the Kingdom of God?
2) What is the message you are sending to others about the God you
believe in?
3) How you are going to reach the world if in your actions you push
those in the world aside with the implied message that they are not
worthy of your prayer?
>To me...this was another slam against Christianity
The world of Christianity is slammed every day.
You have to work through it, not exclude yourself from it.
Did Christ exclude himself from unbelievers or did he welcome, eat and
fellowship with them?
>Recall...none of the speakers but one (an Arminian priest) even prayed
>in the name of Jesus Christ.
I share this concern.
> So I ask again...what God where they
>praying to?
Sigh;
I believe I sense the tears of angels.
Adatia
Kami
> On 3 Dec 2001 15:10:47 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > The point is...there were many gods
> >portrayed within the interfaith service...not just the True God
> >that Christians worship. We're warned in the Bible of worshipping
> >with non-Christians and not to pray to their gods. Non-Christians,
> >whether it be Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, Jews, or any other
> >person from any other belief system DO NOT worship the Triune
> >God. They reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Therefore...
> >how can they be praying to the same God as Christians? Without
> >Christ...they have no hope for they have rejected the only One
> >who can save them from the end result of where sin leads.
>
> Kami,
> Would you refuse to help in a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen if
> there were other faiths helping too?
Community service is VASTLY differnt than a worship service.
And I assume you already know that. Please stay on topic.
cwg
"Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote in message
news:3c0d...@news.newszilla.com...
>
> "Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:78eo0usbmfb19srkd...@4ax.com...
> > On 3 Dec 2001 15:10:47 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > The point is...there were many gods
> > >portrayed within the interfaith service...not just the True God
> > >that Christians worship. We're warned in the Bible of worshipping
> > >with non-Christians and not to pray to their gods. Non-Christians,
> > >whether it be Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, Jews, or any other
> > >person from any other belief system DO NOT worship the Triune
> > >God. They reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Therefore...
> > >how can they be praying to the same God as Christians? Without
> > >Christ...they have no hope for they have rejected the only One
> > >who can save them from the end result of where sin leads.
> >
> > Kami,
> > Would you refuse to help in a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen if
> > there were other faiths helping too?
>
> Community service is VASTLY differnt than a worship service.
> And I assume you already know that. Please stay on topic.
>
> Kami
>
When you attend an interfaith service, no one is forcing you to worship
someone else's god, any more than when you visit someone else's church. And
no more than when you attend a sports event in Canada and they play the
Canadian anthem. There is nothing wrong with you being politely silent
during the worship events if you don't want to participate. I think God
knows where your heart is and is not going to be jealous because you are at
someone else's church.
There is nothing wrong with being polite and respectful toward other faiths.
Goodness knows that since 9/11 we need more of that. No one can force you
to worship something, and being present can be respectful without
constituting worship. I think God can tell the difference.
Rick
conflicted with some of the prior posts. I found the text of his
message here:
http://www.ad-lcms.org/wtc_message.html
Who else did the same is less important to me as what Rev. Benke said.
He was representing my church and made it clear that salvation is
through Jesus.
In addition, here is Dr. Kieschnick's response.
http://www.lcms.org/president/statements/fellowship.htm
It all depends on whether or not you consider the event a worship
service. To me, it was not.
As an LCMS member, I commend them both. This was a time when Rev.
Benke HAD to be there with the truth. If not, for what exactly are we
saving the Good News of Jesus?
We were discussing this at our council meeting last night. I was glad
to hear my pastor say he would have done it. I usually toe the LCMS
line but he said something that made me think:
"It is possible to be so pure that you are sterile."
How can we carry out God's mission if our leaders are quarantined
within our own walls at a time crying out for an epidemic of Jesus
Christ?
Normally I follow the "actions speak louder than words" philosophy.
To some that may imply that Rev. Benke's action of participating in an
event with non-Christians takes precedence over what he actually said.
I say God's Word trumps everything and you can not go wrong speaking
it.
Kami
"cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote in message
news:9uj24j$i9d$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> When you attend an interfaith service, no one is forcing you to worship
> someone else's god, any more than when you visit someone else's church.
And
> no more than when you attend a sports event in Canada and they play the
> Canadian anthem. There is nothing wrong with you being politely silent
> during the worship events if you don't want to participate. I think God
> knows where your heart is and is not going to be jealous because you are
at
> someone else's church.
Then it begs to question...why Christian ministers aren't invited to be
a part of Islamic gatherings or Jewish worship. But that's really beside
the point isn't it?
The issue lies in that partaking of the service along with other
religions faiths and what the action itself states. Jesus is "The Way,
The Truth, and The Life". But in an interfaith service, what is being
told to non-Christians who are present is...He isn't. That it doesn't
matter.
> There is nothing wrong with being polite and respectful toward other
faiths.
> Goodness knows that since 9/11 we need more of that. No one can force you
> to worship something, and being present can be respectful without
> constituting worship. I think God can tell the difference.
No... certainly nothing wrong when at all with being polite and respectful
towards others who belong to another faith. In fact, it's commanded.
"Love your neighbor" is the second part of the law. But do we love
them to relay the truth? Or offer a tolerance which will bear out
eternal concequences?
Michael
Thanks for posting the message and the reply. I've had trouble finding it.
Buit I must take issue with one comment
> We were discussing this at our council meeting last night. I was glad
> to hear my pastor say he would have done it. I usually toe the LCMS
> line but he said something that made me think:
Why aren't you toeing the LCMS line by supporting Rev. Behnke and Dr.
Kieschnick. They are duly elected officials of the LCMS. In fact, from
statements by our district's delegate to this summer's convention on this
issue it sounds like it is only a small faction within the LCMS who did
this.
I haven't had a chance to read the message yet, but my Mother was able to
watch it live. Her comment was that she was glad somebody finally mentioned
the name of Jesus and was proud it was the LCMS pastor that did it.
Rick
> Rick,
>
> Thanks for posting the message and the reply. I've had trouble finding it.
>
> Buit I must take issue with one comment
> > We were discussing this at our council meeting last night. I was glad
> > to hear my pastor say he would have done it. I usually toe the LCMS
> > line but he said something that made me think:
>
> Why aren't you toeing the LCMS line by supporting Rev. Behnke and Dr.
> Kieschnick. They are duly elected officials of the LCMS. In fact, from
> statements by our district's delegate to this summer's convention on this
> issue it sounds like it is only a small faction within the LCMS who did
> this.
Sorry for the ambiguity. After reading it again I take issue with it
as well (is that legal?) ;) I kinda changed thoughts midstream. I
agree that both followed the official LCMS position.
I should have just said that I usually find myself at the conservative
end of the spectrum when it comes to doctrinal issues so I was
suprised I didn't find myself in the minority or on the fence to start
with.
At any rate, I think it is good that the line has moved from where it
was in the past on this issue. Unfortunately, the story I read was
very negative towards the LCMS in spite of the fact that is it indeed
only a small faction involved.
Adatia
>
>"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:78eo0usbmfb19srkd...@4ax.com...
>> On 3 Dec 2001 15:10:47 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Kami,
>> Would you refuse to help in a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen if
>> there were other faiths helping too?
>
>Community service is VASTLY differnt than a worship service.
>And I assume you already know that. Please stay on topic.
>
>Kami
Kami,
Help me with the semantics here.
What is "vastly different" about a soup kitchen? Would you bow your
head in prayer, knowing that other beliefs and unbelievers were
present and praying with you? Yet, all the time knowing that you could
be brought up on charges for doing such a dreadful thing?
Community service is an expression of our love, is it not?
Do not our actions in public reflect our belief in God?
Isn't worship a ceremony where we pray and praise our God which is an
expression of our love for Him?
At what point are we going to stop being a closed church and pushing
the world away in the name of "pure" doctrine?
Kami, we commissioned to spread the Gospel, not quiet it.
Adatia
Kami
> On 4 Dec 2001 11:22:26 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
> Community service is an expression of our love, is it not?
> Do not our actions in public reflect our belief in God?
The can be the outward display of faith. For any good
work done by a Christain is can preform such.
But community service is definately not worship in and
of itself. Worship is defined as: "To pay devine honors to;
to preform religious excercizes to honor."
For a Christian...worship is usually done in a service. One
in which the Word (Law & Gospel) and the Sacraments
(Baptism and the Lord's Supper) are administered as
stated according to Scripture.
> Isn't worship a ceremony where we pray and praise our God which is an
> expression of our love for Him?
Yes. However, can you name one example...one incident where
worshiping with those of other religions is encouraged or
practiced within Scripture itself? The Bible actually
condemns such practices.
> At what point are we going to stop being a closed church and pushing
> the world away in the name of "pure" doctrine?
Why so down on pure doctrine/teaching? That's what the Bible
is within it's entirety. What it seems you are suggesting is to
compromise what the Bible states in order to be more
accommodating to those who refuse Christ.
> Kami, we commissioned to spread the Gospel, not quiet it.
Spreading the Gospel yes. However, what you appear to be
proposing is allowing it to be placed among othre religious
beliefs with one being no more, no less with another. That's
not spreading...that's compromising.
Kami
----------------------
Adatia
>
>"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:apdt0u4qhr26diq6m...@4ax.com...
>> On 4 Dec 2001 11:22:26 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
>Yes. However, can you name one example...one incident where
>worshiping with those of other religions is encouraged or
>practiced within Scripture itself?
What's another religion? One who dosen't believe Christ suffered and
died for their sins or one that uses grape juice as an alternative
instead of wine? At what point does Christianity cease to exist?
Is it in the Methodist? the Eastern Orthodox, or the Mormon.
The LCMS maybe? Draw the line for us.
>Why so down on pure doctrine/teaching? That's what the Bible
>is within it's entirety. What it seems you are suggesting is to
>compromise what the Bible states in order to be more
>accommodating to those who refuse Christ.
No not a all. Those who in the end refuse Christ are condemned
already. The problem I have is when it is used in a controlling
legalistic way to separate or elevate one above another under the
guise of "doctrine" which only creates more division; which Paul
sternly warns about.
Do you honestly think God demands that Kieschnick and Benke walk away
from a prayer vigil where other christians who are not Lutheran are
involved? If so, how does this give the appearance of a Christ
centered Church?
>> Kami, we are commissioned to spread the Gospel, not quiet it.
>
>Spreading the Gospel yes. However, what you appear to be
>proposing is allowing it to be placed among othre religious
>beliefs with one being no more, no less with another. That's
>not spreading...that's compromising.
That's where I think you miss the point.
If you want to reach youth, where do you go? You go where they are.
If you want to reach a different nation,, where do you go?
If you want to reach those with different beliefs, where do you go?
What I see happening is that we are separating ourselves from the
world and in effect, hide behind legalism and leave the tough stuff,
the real battleground of life outside. With that attitude of
exclusion, we are no longer a Christ centered church.
I would not ask anyone to compromise doctrine, yet under the guise of
"pure doctrine" we condemn our own leaders for going into the world,
proclaiming their faith and showing concern and caring for others.
What part of this is not being a messenger of Christ?
Kieschnick and Benke both actually understand that in the end there is
one body of Christ, and that we should not fear becoming doctrinally
unpure when we view other Christians as brothers in Christ.
They are mission orientated. They did the right thing.
Adatia
PastorKliner
(Jerry) I have despaired at how quickly ELCA
>>and other Christian clergy rushed onto stages to hold "inter-faith" worship
>>services with Islamic Imams. What God did they pray to? Allah or the
>Triune
>>God-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We do not worship the same God, no
>matter
>>how much the media and American society wants to make it sound like.
>>
>>Jerry
>
>Why would you rule out that they prayed to any other God than you do?
>Or is it your belief that God forbids Christian prayer in the presence
>of non-Christians?
God does not forbid prayer in the midst of anyone. But we must be clear on
whom we are praying to and worshipping. I am a Christian Lutheran pastor. I
am not a Rabbi (though I believe we worship the same God), nor am I an Imam.
My point is simply this: in the midst of our pluralistic society, we need to be
careful and deliberate in how we witness God and how and why would worship with
other faiths. That's all.
I would not want to offend my neighbor nor provide a false witness through
hasty action. I would like to support my neighbor's religious community and my
own.
>Hmmm. Could it be that the Holy Spirit refused to attend as well?
>Yes, that would explain a lot. If God refused to be present when His
>children were praying in response to one of the most tragic events in
>recent history.
Please spare me the sarcasm. I'm trying to be serious, will you not grant me
the same honor?
Of course God was there and of course God wants God's people to pray. The
question comes down to who is best able to provide spiritual care, a person who
can address God only is generic terms because of the multitude of beliefs, or
one's own spiritual community of faith.
>Is that the God you are referring to?
The God I'm referring to is not the general "god" of American society. The God
I'm referring to is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit--
Triune yet One.
Is that the God you're referring to?
Jerry
Kami
> On 5 Dec 2001 19:11:04 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:apdt0u4qhr26diq6m...@4ax.com...
> >> On 4 Dec 2001 11:22:26 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes. However, can you name one example...one incident where
> >worshiping with those of other religions is encouraged or
> >practiced within Scripture itself?
>
> What's another religion? One who dosen't believe Christ suffered and
Indeed. And it were those religions who were also at the
worship prayer service. Again, you're straying from the main
topic of this post when trying to stress that there were only
Christians at the prayer service in New York. There were not.
There were others of the Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddists faiths
just to name a few.
Please address the issue and state from Scripture where this
type of practice is condoned...
Kami
Adatia
wrote:
>Adatia responded:
>God does not forbid prayer in the midst of anyone. But we must be clear on
>whom we are praying to and worshipping. I am a Christian Lutheran pastor. I
>am not a Rabbi (though I believe we worship the same God), nor am I an Imam.
>My point is simply this: in the midst of our pluralistic society, we need to be
>careful and deliberate in how we witness God and how and why would worship with
>other faiths. That's all.
And I do agree with that position.
I don't for a moment though, believe that there was anyone in either
of the situations that thought that the LCMS or ELCA clergy were
recognizing any God other that the Christian God that they have been
called to serve. Nor do I understand how being there would have been
less of a witness to the world than recanting.
I believe this was quite different than it would be if we were
agreeing to worship with the JW, the LDS or the Islam for a reason
of unity or common ground.
>>Hmmm. Could it be that the Holy Spirit refused to attend as well?
>>Yes, that would explain a lot. If God refused to be present when His
>>children were praying in response to one of the most tragic events in
>>recent history.
>
>Please spare me the sarcasm. I'm trying to be serious, will you not grant me
>the same honor?
The sarcasm was only intended to highlight the absurdity of the
aforementioned premise.
>Of course God was there and of course God wants God's people to pray. The
>question comes down to who is best able to provide spiritual care, a person who
>can address God only is generic terms because of the multitude of beliefs, or
>one's own spiritual community of faith.
And having only non-Christian religions present representing
themselves as our national spiritual care givers would accomplish --
what?
Then bring that down to the level of the sight of a LCMS and an ELCA
in prayer together being called heresy, and you have even more
absurdity.
>The God I'm referring to is not the general "god" of American society. The God
>I'm referring to is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit--
>Triune yet One.
>
>Is that the God you're referring to?
Yes, there is only one.
And I'm glad he was well represented.
Adatia
Adatia
>
>"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:blnt0ucd7tbh076o5...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Dec 2001 19:11:04 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Adatia" <didl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:apdt0u4qhr26diq6m...@4ax.com...
>> >> On 4 Dec 2001 11:22:26 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
>>
>Indeed. And it were those religions who were also at the
>worship prayer service. Again, you're straying from the main
>topic of this post when trying to stress that there were only
>Christians at the prayer service in New York. There were not.
>There were others of the Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddists faiths
>just to name a few.
So you have narrowed the main topic to just the fact that there were
non-christians present?
My position *in this affair* is of indifference toward the
non-Christians. Convert them or divert them but don't let them
prevent you from witnessing for your God.
Yet, I believe it is you who is failing in answers.
My issue to you is the attitude and condemnation toward other
Christians from those in the LCMS who should know better.
Adatia
Kami
Yet, the attitude and condemnation has not been specified...nor
have you you provided evidence from Scripture where worshipping
with those of other religious faiths is encouraged and condoned, despite
the fact that Scripture holds much evidence to the contrary.
Also there's the issue that you have misinterpreted the matter.
Non-Christians were not just presesnt at the service...they were
also worshiping their own gods. And it was done alongside
the Triune God as if He were just one God available among
money.
If you wish to discuss this civilly and without sarcasm...I am open
to conversation. Otherwise...I have stated all that I can say.
Kami
> Also there's the issue that you have misinterpreted the matter.
> Non-Christians were not just presesnt at the service...they were
> also worshiping their own gods. And it was done alongside
> the Triune God as if He were just one God available among
> money.
Money/many. Bleah...even I typo once in awhile :-)
Kami
----------------------
Adatia
>Yet, the attitude and condemnation has not been specified...nor
>have you you provided evidence from Scripture where worshipping
>with those of other religious faiths is encouraged and condoned, despite
>the fact that Scripture holds much evidence to the contrary.
Kami,
I honestly don't see how you can connect the two.
The scripture you cited 1 Cor, *in context*, was referring to
worshiping another's god or idol, in this case the God of Islam etc.
In what way were any of the Lutheran clergy in either circumstance
worshiping the other god(s)? Did anything they said suggest that they
served a false god along with their own?
Hardly.
>Non-Christians were not just presesnt at the service...they were
>also worshiping their own gods. And it was done alongside
>the Triune God as if He were just one God available among
>many.
Your right. Our God isn't the same god of many others. In fact, I
would say that the God you and I are speaking of isn't the god that
many of whom I worship with weekly put first in their life. It
doesn't have to be a god of a false religion. Never-the-less, it is
another god, or idol. And God is a jealous God.
So what would our God have us do?
Retreat into the darkness where the message of true Christianity is
not presented at all? Hide where we can't be contaminated by the
presence of a god who doesn't exist or those who believe in a god who
doesn't exist?
I don't think so. I believe that scripture commands and commissions
us to proclaim the message of the Triune God. Yes, even in the midst
of pagans. In fact, especially in the midst of pagans!
Can you show me where scripture condemns that?
These were civic affairs where the nation glimpsed into what the
children of God rely on in the midst of tragedy and the numbness of
fear. It was an opportunity for Christ to be presented instead of
hidden from the world, as our nations leaders look toward religious
leaders for direction and the support that God offers us in troubled
times. If you removed Christianity from the program where only false
religions had the opportunity to show the caring(sic) of different
gods, would that be the preferred outcome. For that is what you are
suggesting.
>If you wish to discuss this civilly and without sarcasm...I am open
>to conversation. Otherwise...I have stated all that I can say.
<sarcasm>
I'm a lay person, I have no political agenda here.
From my view point, my constraint is much more controlled than those
bringing charges against Kieschnick and Benke.
</sarcasm>
They have my prayers. They have risked, and they have gone the extra
mile to proclaim the God whom I worship.
Adatia
Kami
> On 7 Dec 2001 18:46:50 -0600, "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote:
>
> >Yet, the attitude and condemnation has not been specified...nor
> >have you you provided evidence from Scripture where worshipping
> >with those of other religious faiths is encouraged and condoned, despite
> >the fact that Scripture holds much evidence to the contrary.
>
> Kami,
>
> I honestly don't see how you can connect the two.
> The scripture you cited 1 Cor, *in context*, was referring to
> worshiping another's god or idol, in this case the God of Islam etc.
In context it also states to not do something that may make
another Christian stumble. In 1 Corinthians 8 it speaks of
do not take food that was offered to idols (something which
some of the Christians in Corinth were doing)...which although
it ment little to the Christians...the non-Christians saw it as
otherwise. Why it was stated for Christians do not take part
of the food given to idols and alters of demons. Because...
what are false gods really? True, they don't exist. But what's
the main purpose but to keep others from knowing the true
God? And isn't Satan behind any religion other than Christianity?
In this case...worshipping with someone of another religious faith,
even with good intentions to show -your- faith, may give the
implications to another that all religions and all gods are they
same and it doesn't matter. But, that's what I've been stating
all along
2 Corinthians 6 in context reads:
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.
For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And
what communion has light with darkness?
15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a
believer with an unbeliever?
16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For
you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will
dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And
they shall be My people."
17 Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate,
says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive
you."
> So what would our God have us do?
> Retreat into the darkness where the message of true Christianity is
> not presented at all? Hide where we can't be contaminated by the
> presence of a god who
doesn't exist or those who believe in a god who
> doesn't exist?
> Can you show me where scripture condemns that?
In Acts when Paul began saw the idol dedicated to the "Unknown God"
and began proclaiming the gospel so the "Unknown God" could be
known...he did not place Himself along side priests and priestesses
and place himself as another individual among others
in a worship service in order to do so. He did so seperate
> I believe that scripture commands and commissions
> us to proclaim the message of the Triune God. Yes, even in the midst
> of pagans. In fact, especially in the midst of pagans!
I have already asked for evidence from Scripture which shows were it was
proclaimed with Christians actively taking part in non-Christian services
alongside foriegn gods. Commom courtesy would ask you
provide evedidence to support your view before I did so.
Especially since some passages were presented to support that the practice
is condemned as it is...
Kami
--
----------------------
Adatia
>In this case...worshipping with someone of another religious faith,
>even with good intentions to show -your- faith, may give the
>implications to another that all religions and all gods are they
>same and it doesn't matter. But, that's what I've been stating
>all along
OK -- lets suppose that your position is that once you have drawn
the line in the sand, you can never cross it. You have determined
this by concluding that a scripture passage prohibits you from
performing any act that the passage possibly speaks to.
Yet.
Someone provides you with the opportunity to speak for the Lord in a
program brought about by the terror of the devil against a crying
community in which thousands will be attending or listening. You
return to your Bible passage and determine that; "ah, I can't speak
to these people, there is a possibility that someone might think that
all religions and all gods are the same and it doesn't matter."
Your words.
Kami,
What have you just done?
You have just provided the Devil with his platform.
Who NOW is speaking to these people of whom many are searching for
answers. Certainly not you. You can't cross that line regardless of
the temptation. Nope, not even for these spiritually hungry neighbors
in your community. There's that possibility which exists where one
may get the wrong impression. You must conform to what you think
scripture is saying to you, even though it provides a foundation where
the Devil's handiwork may flourish more readily because of your
absence.
But the parish down the street has a different vision of the Gospel
which speaks to this situation.
The pastor thinks of Romans 13.
....and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in
this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to
its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Love is the fulfillment of the LAW!
It hits you right in the gut just as does "The righteous shall live by
faith".
It's what we believe in. It's how we shall live.
And:
It's how we make Christ known.
Kami,
God wants us to take these opportunities, turn them around and use
them to His glory. They are precious few.
This is my last. I hope I have at least caused you pause, if only for
a moment.
If you ever get the chance, read "Silence" by Shusaku Endo? It
portrays a powerful message of how the suffering and death of Christ
speaks to the suffering and death which fills so much of human life.
Adaita
mlorfeld
bring forth some points that I have yet to see addressed.
1) The president of the synod (LCMS) has been elected by the entire
LCMS and has the authority to make judgement calls on situations like
this. Rom. 13:1-2
2) Since his election, certain clergy members from a select few
districts have been trying to find a way to have the president
removed, from what I see, simply because of the seminary he attended
and thus the implication that he is not "conservative enough."
3) The prayers held do not constitute a worship service as niether
Sacrement or Word were instituted. Neither was there an invocation
nor a benediction thus to me it was on equal grounds as a pastor
praying at a pro-life rally or a high school graduation of which
certainly not all who attend are Christian, let alone Lutheran.
4) Even if I felt the pastor was in the wrong, this situation has been
handled in entirely the wrong way. It should not have been made a
media event, nor should I (a student at Concordia - Wisconsin) have
found about it from students talking about the article they read in
the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. We are told by scripture to handle
things one on one, then two on one, then before the entire church...
NOT through the media.
Mark E. Miller
>I find this growing division of my synod very troubling. I'd like to
>bring forth some points that I have yet to see addressed.
>
>1) The president of the synod (LCMS) has been elected by the entire
>LCMS and has the authority to make judgement calls on situations like
>this. Rom. 13:1-2
Yes.
>
>2) Since his election, certain clergy members from a select few
>districts have been trying to find a way to have the president
>removed, from what I see, simply because of the seminary he attended
>and thus the implication that he is not "conservative enough."
I have not seen any of those attacking the SP saying this quite so
baldly. Certainly many of the conservatives were aghast at P.
Kieschnick's election, and in the event did not have long to wait
before finding the issue with which to challenge him.
>
>3) The prayers held do not constitute a worship service as niether
>Sacrement or Word were instituted. Neither was there an invocation
>nor a benediction thus to me it was on equal grounds as a pastor
>praying at a pro-life rally or a high school graduation of which
>certainly not all who attend are Christian, let alone Lutheran.
I agree.
>
>4) Even if I felt the pastor was in the wrong, this situation has been
>handled in entirely the wrong way. It should not have been made a
>media event, nor should I (a student at Concordia - Wisconsin) have
>found about it from students talking about the article they read in
>the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. We are told by scripture to handle
>things one on one, then two on one, then before the entire church...
>NOT through the media.
There is some debate, I gather as to who (or which 'side') released
the charges to the secular media. It was probably inevitable that it
got out, however I agree with you that it is very unfortunate for our
church. A number of members of my congregation (of which I am
president) have asked me about this - they are troubled by it; don't
understand it. If that is the reaction of some members, what about
others who are not Christian - what kind of witness is this?
Kami
> Someone provides you with the opportunity to speak for the Lord in a
> program brought about by the terror of the devil against a crying
> community in which thousands will be attending or listening.. You
> return to your Bible passage and determine that; "ah, I can't speak
> to these people, there is a possibility that someone might think that
> all religions and all gods are the same and it doesn't matter."
In a worship and prayer service. The fact that various other gods
and goddesses were worshiped along with the Trinue God
seems to have been overlooked.
> Kami,
> What have you just done?
> You have just provided the Devil with his platform.
How so? By choosing not to deminish the One True God
by worshipping with those who worship and pray to
false gods?
The Devil has a platform by Christianity being seen as
"just another way to God" when in fact Scripture is
plain that Jesus Christ and -only- He is The Way.
Jesus is The Way...not A Way.
> Who NOW is speaking to these people of whom many are searching for
> answers...
By Christian clergy and Christians worshipping alongside
non-Christians who indeed? How can one proclaim that
it is in Jesus Christ alone that we have complete forgiveness
of sins while a few feet away a Hindu professes that one must
be reincarnated and be reborn into this life to right one's wrongs
from the previous life? There can be no comprimise between the
two for the two faiths cancel each other out.
A debate over religious faiths and tenants is not what takes place in
an open worship and prayer service...especially when it's
various gods and goddesses being honored and worshiped as if
all were the same.
>You must conform to what you think
> scripture is saying to you...
Scripture states what it states. It supports it's own teachings
without outside help. In fact, that's what one of the tenents
Lutherans hold: Scriptire Alone. Scripture interprets Scripture.
> The pastor thinks of Romans 13.
> ....and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in
> this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to
> its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
>
> Love is the fulfillment of the LAW!
Compromise is not love. Love means one cares enough for
a person to tell them the truth for the benefit of the person
in regards to the short term and the long term welfare of that
person.
> If you ever get the chance, read "Silence" by Shusaku Endo? It
> portrays a powerful message of how the suffering and death of Christ
> speaks to the suffering and death which fills so much of human life.
I had when I was in college actually. The pastor within the story
denied Christ to my understanding. True, there were reasons he had
to justify his actions. And anyone in the situation would be
hard-pressed NOT to give in. I only pray the Lord would sustain
my faith should I ever face that type of persecution like our Christian
brothers and sisters do elsewhere in the world today.
Recall, 10 our of the 11 orginal apostles (discounting Judas) died as
martyers for the faith in Jesus Christ.
Still, after reading the book it does raise the question, since the main
character denied Christ, does that mean Christ isn't worth out lives
if that is what is required of us? Jesus once said those who deny
Him before men, He will deny him before the Father.
PastorKliner
>>I find this growing division of my synod very troubling. I'd like to
>>bring forth some points that I have yet to see addressed.
>>
>>1) The president of the synod (LCMS) has been elected by the entire
>>LCMS and has the authority to make judgement calls on situations like
>>this. Rom. 13:1-2
>
>Yes.
Except for one, important point. President Kieshnick, District President
Benke, or any other leader should abide by the standards set by the body to
which they have been elected to lead. Rev. Benke knew that, by his
particpation, he would violate LC-MS policy and Rev. Kieshnick also knew what
the disciplinary procedure was to be. Yet neither man lived up to the
standards of their own polity.
Which is fine, but then you can not cry about it when charges are brought. If
you take a stand, you must take it knowing that there are reprocussions.
Martin Luther is a fine example of this.
Secondly, this is an issue that is pervasive across the ELCA as well. For
example, Rev. Mark Miller (now the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA) refused to
excommunicate or remove an ELCA congregation that ex-ecclesially (that is to
say outside the church's authority) "ordained" a non-celibate lesbian. Another
Bishop, Rev. Eggertson, violated the ELCA's stance and Synodical boundaries to
"officiate" at this "ordination," was not disciplined, but allowed to resign.
The point here is that ecclesial structure is a gift of God to exist for the
"good order" of the Church. Which, is not happening when our leaders do not
abide by church polity.
Who, are the leaders supposed to serve anyway? Themselves or the flock
entrusted to their care?
>>2) Since his election, certain clergy members from a select few
>>districts have been trying to find a way to have the president
>>removed, from what I see, simply because of the seminary he attended
>>and thus the implication that he is not "conservative enough."
>
>I have not seen any of those attacking the SP saying this quite so
>baldly. Certainly many of the conservatives were aghast at P.
>Kieschnick's election, and in the event did not have long to wait
>before finding the issue with which to challenge him.
All of which is to say Kieshnick needs to be wiser if he wishes to serve as the
President of the LC-MS. He will have to pick his battles if he wants to have
any chance to survive in his current position.
>>3) The prayers held do not constitute a worship service as niether
>>Sacrement or Word were instituted. Neither was there an invocation
>>nor a benediction thus to me it was on equal grounds as a pastor
>>praying at a pro-life rally or a high school graduation of which
>>certainly not all who attend are Christian, let alone Lutheran.
>
>I agree.
Yet if a pastor prays at a high school graduation, there is likely only one
prayer offered. That is the issue here. The issue is not that there were
non-Lutheran and non-Christians present, but that Rev. Benke's prayer was one
of many prayers, including Islamic and other non-Christian prayers offered.
>>4) Even if I felt the pastor was in the wrong, this situation has been
>>handled in entirely the wrong way. It should not have been made a
>>media event, nor should I (a student at Concordia - Wisconsin) have
>>found about it from students talking about the article they read in
>>the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. We are told by scripture to handle
>>things one on one, then two on one, then before the entire church...
>>NOT through the media.
>
>There is some debate, I gather as to who (or which 'side') released
>the charges to the secular media. It was probably inevitable that it
>got out, however I agree with you that it is very unfortunate for our
>church. A number of members of my congregation (of which I am
>president) have asked me about this - they are troubled by it; don't
>understand it. If that is the reaction of some members, what about
>others who are not Christian - what kind of witness is this?
True enough. The ELCA has been hurt as well by the inappropriate release of
information and inaccurate reporting. The Church as a whole needs to be very
wary of the media. The media is not friendly to Christians-- is downright
hostile as a matter of fact-- and sits drooling as the wait for the next
debacle to surface so that the Church may be attacked. I'm not being paranoid,
just look at how they report this story. The persons who released this to the
press violated the 8th Commandment and should be ashamed.
Jerry
Mark Buchschacher
>
> Except for one, important point. President Kieshnick, District President
> Benke, or any other leader should abide by the standards set by the body to
> which they have been elected to lead. Rev. Benke knew that, by his
> particpation, he would violate LC-MS policy and Rev. Kieshnick also knew what
> the disciplinary procedure was to be. Yet neither man lived up to the
> standards of their own polity.
>
Following is President Kieshnick's response to this dispute.
My questions for you:
1. In your opinion, exactly which standards didn't he abide by?
2. Which statements in his response do you disagree with? Sounds like
the Synod Convention addressed this type of situation last summer,
and it seems to me that Dr. Kieshnick's actions were in line
with the Convention's position.
Mark
A Statement from Dr. Gerald Kieschnick,
President of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
News articles reporting on charges brought against me by two pastors in
the
Synod have resulted in confusion about the official position of The
Lutheran
Church--Missouri Synod regarding relationships with Christian churches
not
in altar and pulpit fellowship with the LCMS and regarding the
participation
of Missouri Synod pastors and congregations in events and occasions
involving worship which also include the participation of
non-Christians.
The official position of the LCMS on these issues is presented in the
Constitution of the Synod. The Synod's Constitution lists as one of the
conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod the
"renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description" such as
"serving congregations of mixed confessions by ministers of the church
and
taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox
congregations
or congregations of mixed confessions." This means that the pastors and
congregations of the Synod are pledged by virtue of their membership in
the
Synod not to lead formal worship services with Christian churches and
pastors not in church fellowship with the Missouri Synod.
This is a position which the Synod has repeatedly reaffirmed, most
recently
at the 2001 Convention of the Synod. This is the position to which I as
the
President of the Synod am fully committed. I am also required by virtue
of
the duties of my office "to see to it" that all the pastors and
congregations of the Synod follow this position.
In reaffirming this constitutional provision on church fellowship this
past
summer, the Synod in convention also adopted "for continued use and
guidance" a report prepared by my predecessor Dr. Barry and by the
Synod's
Commission on Theology (2001 Res. 3-07A). The statement includes a
section
on "cases of discretion," which reads as follows:
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."
It was on the basis of this synodically approved understanding of the
Synod's position on "cases of discretion" that I responded to Atlantic
District President Benke's request for counsel regarding his
participation
in an event held in Yankee Stadium on September 23.
Because some members of the Synod have raised questions regarding what
constitutes a "civic event," I have formally asked the Synod's
Commission on
Theology and Church Relations to address this topic in greater depth. I
have specifically asked the CTCR to take up the issue of the
participation
of Synodical pastors and congregations in civic events which include the
offering "of prayers, speaking and reading Scripture" including civic
events
involving the participation of non-Christians. And I have asked the
Commission to give this assignment the highest priority and have its
response ready for distribution throughout the Synod prior to the 2004
Synodical Convention.
In conclusion, I would urge the members of the Synod to recommit
themselves
to the position of the Synod as set forth in the Synodical Constitution
and
in the official resolutions of the Synod. Occasions such as we have
experienced in recent weeks call for difficult decisions to be made.
Pastors
and congregations of the Synod may have honest differences of opinion
about
whether or to what extent it is appropriate or helpful to participate in
these or similar events and activities. But as former President Barry
and
the CTCR have stated, "In these cases charity must prevail." This is
also
my prayer for the Synod. May our continuing discussions in the Synod of
these issues bring glory and praise to the precious name of our Lord
Jesus
Christ and His Gospel which offer life and salvation to all.
mlorfeld
acusations and arguments. When times like these come we forget that
we are above all other commandments to Love God, and Love your
neighbor. Just as in the parable, our neighbor is not exlusive to
those who worship with us but also to everyone in the world.
As far as what has been mandated by the LCMS, I would first say that
the President has the support of the majority of the synod, but even
more important he was acting on a command greater than the rules and
regulations set down by the Book of Concord, that is to Love God
through our Love for our neighbor. The Bible is the only inerrant
religious document. Our synodical charter and the Book of Concord
should not be treated as such, as they are words of man not, the Word
of God.
I look at children, and they have the greatest faith of anyone. They
do not let politics cloud their faith. Yet it is disturbing that our
synod more and more recently seems to be drawing towards that
distraction. This I find is horrible, that Satan can use prayer and
love towards our neighbors to tear apart a church.
johann...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On 03 Dec 2001 00:53:09 GMT, pastor...@aol.com (PastorKliner)
>wrote:
>
>> I have despaired at how quickly ELCA
>>and other Christian clergy rushed onto stages to hold "inter-faith" worship
>>services with Islamic Imams. What God did they pray to? Allah or the Triune
>>God-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We do not worship the same God, no matter
>>how much the media and American society wants to make it sound like.
>>
>>Jerry
>
>Why would you rule out that they prayed to any other God than you do?
I am confused here, as noone specified whether the separate faiths
prayed individual prayers or a collective prayer..a Christian cannot
pray to "God" outside of the Triune context, but in the posts I have
not seen this specified. Thanks..be great if someone can elucidate!
Thanks!
JFP
Adatia
>I am confused here, as none specified whether the separate faiths
>prayed individual prayers or a collective prayer..a Christian cannot
>pray to "God" outside of the Triune context, but in the posts I have
>not seen this specified. Thanks..be great if someone can elucidate!
>Thanks!
>JFP
Johannes
It is my understanding is that these were not collective prayers.
Although the focus of the contention seems to have shifted from
"praying to other Gods" to the influence on others, I would have
rather thought that *who* the Christians were praying to would have
been very clear.
Rev. Benke's prayer is here.
http://www.ad-lcms.org/wtc_message.html
As you have been a very Orthodox voice around here, I would enjoy your
thoughts on this subject.
Adatia
Daniel & Amy North
ma...@lorfeld.com (mlorfeld) wrote:
> The thing I see is that our synod is now getting caught up in
> acusations and arguments. When times like these come we forget that
> we are above all other commandments to Love God, and Love your
> neighbor. Just as in the parable, our neighbor is not exlusive to
> those who worship with us but also to everyone in the world.
The unfortunate thing is that the liberal idea that love is all we need
diregards the topic of truth. I don't know what it is what people don't
get. In John 14:6, Jesus pointed to being not only the Way and the
Life, but also the Truth. Being yoked with unbelievers, is not only for
marriage and long term relationships. It also has to do with doctrine.
In the matter of the YS debacle, instead of sending a direct signal, the
leadership of the LCMS was sending a very ambiguous signal. This is not
the way of the Confessions and definitely not the way of Scripture.
> As far as what has been mandated by the LCMS, I would first say that
> the President has the support of the majority of the synod, but even
> more important he was acting on a command greater than the rules and
> regulations set down by the Book of Concord, that is to Love God
> through our Love for our neighbor. The Bible is the only inerrant
> religious document. Our synodical charter and the Book of Concord
> should not be treated as such, as they are words of man not, the Word
> of God.
And, if the majority of the Synod believed something contrary to
Scripture and the Confessions? Having a majority does not make the
majority argument true. Have you never read what the Formula of Concord
says about the Lutheran faith? The president of Synod is not above the
Confessions of the LCMS. In his vows, President Kieshnick promised to
uphold the Confessions BECAUSE they rightly represented (quia) what
Scripture says. Now, you're saying that the president of Synod is above
the Confessions. Our high regard for the Book of Concord is not because
it stands par with Scripture, but that it rightly testifies of what
Scripture says. And Scripture says we do not muddy the water with those
who theologically do not agree with us in matters of faith and doctrinal
practice. You should really do some research and study before you
assert such nonsense.
> I look at children, and they have the greatest faith of anyone. They
> do not let politics cloud their faith. Yet it is disturbing that our
> synod more and more recently seems to be drawing towards that
> distraction. This I find is horrible, that Satan can use prayer and
> love towards our neighbors to tear apart a church.
I find it more alarming that the devil would allow such relativism to
sink in and affect the Church in our Synod like it affected the ELCA and
their schizephrenic view of absolute Scriptural truths.
If you're so fed up with the Confessional Lutherans sticking to
doctrinal purity, why don't you leave? The ELCA would enjoy having
another relativist in their midst.
--
--
Daniel North <luthe...@earthlink.net>
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
cwg
"Daniel & Amy North" <luthe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat1-01F46...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> And, if the majority of the Synod believed something contrary to
> Scripture and the Confessions? Having a majority does not make the
> majority argument true. Have you never read what the Formula of Concord
> says about the Lutheran faith? The president of Synod is not above the
> Confessions of the LCMS.
Who in the Synod claims to hold beliefs contrary to Scripture or the
Confessions? Sure, you can take issue with particular actions of an
individual. That is fine, debate is always healthy. But where have
individuals clearly disavowed Scripture or the Confessions?
> If you're so fed up with the Confessional Lutherans sticking to
> doctrinal purity, why don't you leave? The ELCA would enjoy having
> another relativist in their midst.
If you are so interested in purity in a church made up of humans, and so fed
up with the humanity of other people, you are going to end up with a church
of one person -- yourself. Hardly what God call us to do when he instructs
us to gather in his name.
Daniel & Amy North
"cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote:
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luthe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat1-01F46...@news.mindspring.com...
> >
> > And, if the majority of the Synod believed something contrary to
> > Scripture and the Confessions? Having a majority does not make the
> > majority argument true. Have you never read what the Formula of Concord
> > says about the Lutheran faith? The president of Synod is not above the
> > Confessions of the LCMS.
>
> Who in the Synod claims to hold beliefs contrary to Scripture or the
> Confessions? Sure, you can take issue with particular actions of an
> individual. That is fine, debate is always healthy. But where have
> individuals clearly disavowed Scripture or the Confessions?
In the words that I responded to, the person stated his opinion that the
president of Synod went above what the Confessions said. My response
was that the president of Synod is not above the Confessions or their
testimony of Scripture. In practice, Benke and Kieshnik both
contradicted what was written in the Book of Concord, the doctrinal
standard that they are avowed to protect, teach, preach, and confess.
They did not do so by being in service with those who present the Lord
God as just on among many possibilities and/or recipients of worship.
> > If you're so fed up with the Confessional Lutherans sticking to
> > doctrinal purity, why don't you leave? The ELCA would enjoy having
> > another relativist in their midst.
>
> If you are so interested in purity in a church made up of humans, and so fed
> up with the humanity of other people, you are going to end up with a church
> of one person -- yourself. Hardly what God call us to do when he instructs
> us to gather in his name.
John 8:24. We not only come together in spirit, he have to come
together in truth. By the way, what you just said contradicted the
history of the Reformation. I'm in good company Mr. Zwingli and Mr.
Carlstadt. And the people who came over to my adopted view made it
impossible for Charles V to employ the kind of unionism and syncretism
that you are now espousing.
Cwg, I'm not alone in this. If we have to wrest control of the LCMS
from the liberals once again as we did in the 1970s, then so be it.
cwg
> John 8:24. We not only come together in spirit, he have to come
> together in truth.
Yes, and they came together. You are suggesting we all split apart. Your
choice of Scripture is interesting; this chapter includes great wisdoms such
as verse 7: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw
a stone at her." and verse 15: "You judge by human standards; I [Jesus]
pass judgment on no one." Read the whole chapter then try this excercise:
How might we apply this Scripture our disagreement with Rev. Benke?
>By the way, what you just said contradicted the
> history of the Reformation.
The history of the Reformation is debatable. It is suggested that Luther
never wanted to leave the Catholic church, just correct and reform it (hence
the name "reformation"). It was the Catholic church who would not tolerate
him, not the other way around -- he was willing to get along with those he
disagreed with, and engaged in active diologue and debate with church
leaders. Their response was to kick him out, he did not kick them out. Are
you seeking dialogue with those you disagree with, or are you seeking to
expel them?
> Cwg, I'm not alone in this. If we have to wrest control of the LCMS
> from the liberals once again as we did in the 1970s, then so be it.
So where is your Bible passage condemning "liberals"? Or do you have some
other political agenda that you are hijacking God's church to carry out?
Hope you all have fun rescuing LCMS from damnation. Every headline I read
about LCMS lately makes me glad I'm not in LCMS any more, but sad for this
great institution.
Kami
"cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote in message
news:9vt5tv$kvm$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> Your choice of Scripture is interesting; this chapter includes great
wisdoms such
> as verse 7: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to
throw
> a stone at her." and verse 15: "You judge by human standards; I [Jesus]
> pass judgment on no one." Read the whole chapter then try this excercise:
> How might we apply this Scripture our disagreement with Rev. Benke?
How does it? Judgment, is encouraged in Scripture as is discernment.
It's the -type- of judgment that is hypocritical that the passage speaks of.
The same is said of Matthew 7 and Luke 6. Read the verses within
the context of not only the entire passage...as well as the rest of
Scripture.
A judgment based on what Scripture states itself is what's
called for. And God indeed calls us to judge:
1 Corithians 6 states:
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the
world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you
unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much
more, things that pertain to this life?
4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to
this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by
the church to judge?
5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise
man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge
between his brethren?
Kami
> The history of the Reformation is debatable. It is suggested that Luther
> never wanted to leave the Catholic church, just correct and reform it
(hence
> the name "reformation"). It was the Catholic church who would not
tolerate
> him, not the other way around -- he was willing to get along with those he
> disagreed with, and engaged in active diologue and debate with church
> leaders. Their response was to kick him out, he did not kick them out.
Are
> you seeking dialogue with those you disagree with, or are you seeking to
> expel them?
If Luther was willing to "get along" with those who went contrary to
Scripture
and state errant doctrine was alright to believe and teach...chances are he
never
would have nailed up his 95 thesis....
cwg
> A judgment based on what Scripture states itself is what's
> called for.
Judgment based on Scripture is _exactly_ what the Pharisees were doing:
"In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women."
They were right according to Scripture. Even Jesus did not dispute that
point.
> And God indeed calls us to judge:
>
> 1 Corithians 6 states:
>
> 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the
> world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you
> unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
> 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much
> more, things that pertain to this life?
> 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to
> this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by
> the church to judge?
> 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise
> man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge
> between his brethren?
I agree, 1 Cor 6 gives great instruction on how to handle disputes.
You left off the introductory sentence:
"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the
ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?"
Then it follows with your quote, including
"Do you appoint as judges men of little account in the church? I say this to
shame you."
This all calls into question how this dispute is being handled. Why is it
being argued in newspapers and on the internet, instead of in a church
council are recommended by Paul? Why do we even know about it? Shouldn't
the church and its leaders have settled it by now?
I question the motives of those attacking the church leaders. Are they
really concerned about healing the church, or do they have other motives?
Reading on, Paul writes:
"One brother goes to law against another--and this in front of unbelievers!
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been
completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be
cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your
brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
God?"
Bringing accusations against a brother is serious business, as both 1
Corinthians 6 and Matthew 18 instruct us. Jesus instructs us to bring our
grievances to each other personally, in private. If it is not resolved, sit
down with together with a third believer and try to work things out, in
private. If it is still not resolved, bring it to the church, away from
non-believers. Finally, if a wrongdoer is still not repentant, the church
may expel him. If he is repentant, how many times is he forgiven? A lot.
Has this dispute been handled in this way? Or do we, ourselves "cheat and
do wrong", and this to our own brother. Are we really concerned about
correcting the church, or is there some other agenda afloat?
God instructs us to judge, but he also instructs us to judge the way we
judge. It is much more subtle than strict judgment based on Scripture.
That is what the Pharisees did, and is what Jesus condemned.
cwg
> If Luther was willing to "get along" with those who went contrary to
> Scripture
> and state errant doctrine was alright to believe and teach...chances are
he
> never
> would have nailed up his 95 thesis....
Of course he disagreed, and pointed out when he thought they were wrong and
why he thought so. But he was willing to stay in the church.
mlorfeld
> president of Synod went above what the Confessions said. My >response was that the president of Synod is not above the Confessions >or their testimony of Scripture. In practice, Benke and Kieshnik both
> contradicted what was written in the Book of Concord, the doctrinal
> standard that they are avowed to protect, teach, preach, and confess.
> They did not do so by being in service with those who present the Lord
> God as just on among many possibilities and/or recipients of worship.
Let me clarify. I NEVER said or meant to insinuate that the president
was above the Confessions, but rather that the Confessions are not
above Scripture. Please take care when putting words in others'
mouths as you may be breaking the 8th commandment.
I do however agree that the Lutheran Confessions are the correct
interpretation of scripture (but that correctness is not infallible
since it is a work of man not of the Spirit). Rev. Benke, was not in
violation of the Confessions, the president, the vice president and
the council all have agreed on this.
jennn h.
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?! I am appalled at this "discussion" that I've
been reading. You may be Lutherans, but are you Christians?? Try
stepping out of your role as a close-minded, political LCMS'er and
look at this whole situation from a Christian perspective...I don't
know where any of you live, but my house is 15 minutes from Ground
Zero...my dad, an LCMS pastor, attended the ELCA/LCMS pastor's
service...he's experienced Ground Zero and has been directly affected
by the absolute horror and pain of this tragedy...I've experienced,
through him, the grief and despair felt by so many out here...in the
wake of this nonsensical destruction, when people are crying out for
hope, for something bigger to take care of them, what an incredible
witness for someone to preach the name of Christ and His saving grace,
which is precisely what Benke did. Forget the formalities of it all,
whether it was "technically" a service, whether he was "leading" it,
"participating" in it, whatever...the bottom line is that in the midst
of complete, utter despair, the name of Christ was preached and heard
by thousands, millions of people. How DARE some pastors, some 2,000
miles removed from this situation, have the AUDACITY to bring formal
CHARGES against our Synod president...as if our president is a
criminal for allowing the word of Christ to be spoken in an extremely
public place when people are begging for someone to whom they can
turn. I am absolutely ASHAMED to be a part of a synod like this one
that has become so political and power-based and conservative, and has
lost focus of what the meaning of CHURCH is all about.
I know I'll get ripped apart for what I've just stated...I've probably
stated something that's against the LCMS Rules or something...but go
ahead. I'm just thankful for men of God like Benke and our Synod
president, who realize that there are people who are in need of a
Savior, and remember that their ministry is to those people and NOT a
ministry of rules and regulations.
Daniel & Amy North
ma...@lorfeld.com (mlorfeld) wrote:
> > In the words that I responded to, the person stated his opinion that the
> > president of Synod went above what the Confessions said. My >response was
> > that the president of Synod is not above the Confessions >or their
> > testimony of Scripture. In practice, Benke and Kieshnik both
> > contradicted what was written in the Book of Concord, the doctrinal
> > standard that they are avowed to protect, teach, preach, and confess.
> > They did not do so by being in service with those who present the Lord
> > God as just on among many possibilities and/or recipients of worship.
>
> Let me clarify. I NEVER said or meant to insinuate that the president
> was above the Confessions, but rather that the Confessions are not
> above Scripture. Please take care when putting words in others'
> mouths as you may be breaking the 8th commandment.
I never said that the Confessions were above Scripture. I stated that,
since they testify to Scripture being the rule and norm of faith and
because (quia) they rightly represent Scripture, they are reliable as
being a true and correct witness to what Scripture says. It was you who
did not state things clearly. You must really take care that you don't
make yourself appear as a liberal. I have little tolerance for liberals.
> I do however agree that the Lutheran Confessions are the correct
> interpretation of scripture (but that correctness is not infallible
> since it is a work of man not of the Spirit). Rev. Benke, was not in
> violation of the Confessions, the president, the vice president and
> the council all have agreed on this.
This is the difference between quantanus and quia. You might research
the difference. Also, you are making a false appeal to authority if by
the approval of those in authority is the only means of vindication,
that would become a false foundation of which to base your standard.
The authority of Synodical leaders are only as good as whether or not
they agree ultimately with the Confessions and Scripture. If they do
not, we do not need to adhere to them. Remember Luther and the example
of the Disciples in the Book of Acts. It was not the agreement of
Luther's elders that Luther objected to. It was their blatant rejection
of what Scripture taught.
Again, if you really want to discuss the doctrinal theology of the LCMS,
it would be best for you to really learn what the Confessions actually
teach, preach, and confess. You don't know what they teach. It is high
time that you learn.
Daniel & Amy North
"cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote:
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luthe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat1-20776...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> > John 8:24. We not only come together in spirit, he have to come
> > together in truth.
>
> Yes, and they came together. You are suggesting we all split apart. Your
> choice of Scripture is interesting; this chapter includes great wisdoms such
> as verse 7: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw
> a stone at her." and verse 15: "You judge by human standards; I [Jesus]
> pass judgment on no one." Read the whole chapter then try this excercise:
> How might we apply this Scripture our disagreement with Rev. Benke?
While you are pointing at chapter 7, take a strong look at verse 24. I
don't judge by appearance, but judgej according to righteous judgment.
It may appear that they are doing doing right by being a "voice." But,
St. Paul in Acts 17 made the distinction that Benke and Kieshnik are not.
> >By the way, what you just said contradicted the
> > history of the Reformation.
>
> The history of the Reformation is debatable. It is suggested that Luther
> never wanted to leave the Catholic church, just correct and reform it (hence
> the name "reformation"). It was the Catholic church who would not tolerate
> him, not the other way around -- he was willing to get along with those he
> disagreed with, and engaged in active diologue and debate with church
> leaders. Their response was to kick him out, he did not kick them out. Are
> you seeking dialogue with those you disagree with, or are you seeking to
> expel them?
I'm seeking to correct their faulty theology by Scripture and the
Confeessions which they supposedly are sworn to defend.
> > Cwg, I'm not alone in this. If we have to wrest control of the LCMS
> > from the liberals once again as we did in the 1970s, then so be it.
>
> So where is your Bible passage condemning "liberals"? Or do you have some
> other political agenda that you are hijacking God's church to carry out?
Complex question. Typical. Jesus said that we should let our yes be
yes and our no be no. That means: no ambiguity in teaching and
practice. I'm nor hijacking anything. I'm only responding to the
Carlstadt's on this list...like yourself.
> Hope you all have fun rescuing LCMS from damnation.
Keeping orthodoxy safe from you and the rest of the liberals is a full
time job.
Daniel & Amy North
jennn...@juno.com (jennn h.) wrote:
> "cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote in message
> news:<9vtcmd$mi8$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>...
> > "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c22...@news.newszilla.com...
> >
> > > If Luther was willing to "get along" with those who went contrary to
> > > Scripture
> > > and state errant doctrine was alright to believe and teach...chances are
> > he
> > > never
> > > would have nailed up his 95 thesis....
> >
> > Of course he disagreed, and pointed out when he thought they were wrong and
> > why he thought so. But he was willing to stay in the church.
>
> WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?! I am appalled at this "discussion" that I've
> been reading. You may be Lutherans, but are you Christians?? Try
> stepping out of your role as a close-minded, political LCMS'er and
> look at this whole situation from a Christian perspective...
If being faithful to Scripture and the Confessions is closedminded, so
be it. Politics are not what the Confessional Lutherans are taking the
LCMS president and Mr. Benke to task. We instead are responding to the
politicalisms of these two and others who defend with deceit and
misrepresentation...such as what you appear to be doing.
> I know I'll get ripped apart for what I've just stated...I've probably
> stated something that's against the LCMS Rules or something...but go
> ahead. I'm just thankful for men of God like Benke and our Synod
> president, who realize that there are people who are in need of a
> Savior, and remember that their ministry is to those people and NOT a
> ministry of rules and regulations.
Liberalism is never good for a faithful Synod. Please study a bit more
before you attempt to attack the ones more faithful to the Scriptures
and Confessions than you are.
Daniel & Amy North
"cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote:
> "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote in message
> news:3c22...@news.newszilla.com...
>
> > A judgment based on what Scripture states itself is what's
> > called for.
>
> Judgment based on Scripture is _exactly_ what the Pharisees were doing:
> "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women."
> They were right according to Scripture. Even Jesus did not dispute that
> point.
Wrong. Jesus did not contradict the Scripture. That is just what you
inadvertantly accused Him of doing. Jesus demonstrated that the
Pharisees did not know Scripture. In John 8, Jesus understood the Law
better than the Pharisees. The Law actually called for the stoning of
both the man and the woman. The man was mysteriously absent.
Therefore, the accusation against the woman disintegrated. Jesus knew
it, but the accusers didn't have a clue. In other words, Jesus did
dispute their interpretation of Scripture. Sadly, you missed that as
well.
jennn h.
> > been reading. You may be Lutherans, but are you Christians?? Try
> > stepping out of your role as a close-minded, political LCMS'er and
> > look at this whole situation from a Christian perspective...
>
> If being faithful to Scripture and the Confessions is closedminded, so
> be it. Politics are not what the Confessional Lutherans are taking the
> LCMS president and Mr. Benke to task. We instead are responding to the
> politicalisms of these two and others who defend with deceit and
> misrepresentation...such as what you appear to be doing.
"who defend with deceit and misrepresentation"?? that's quite the
bold statement, don't you think? do you honestly think that these two
men intended to be deceitful throughout all of this? i can't believe
people are using the events of sept. 11 and afterwards as a tool for
pushing their own political, conservative agendas in the LCMS...it
seems some people are a little unnerved by having kieschnick as the
president and were just waiting for a time to try and oust him...and
oh look! a national tragedy...forget the millions of people in
despair, now's the chance to get rid of this "radical"!! of course, no
one will ever admit that this is the reason these charges were
brought, but underneath it all, they know what's really going
on...hmmm, sounds like a certain event of the 70's, doesn't it??
funny...
>
> > I know I'll get ripped apart for what I've just stated...I've probably
> > stated something that's against the LCMS Rules or something...but go
> > ahead. I'm just thankful for men of God like Benke and our Synod
> > president, who realize that there are people who are in need of a
> > Savior, and remember that their ministry is to those people and NOT a
> > ministry of rules and regulations.
>
> Liberalism is never good for a faithful Synod. Please study a bit more
> before you attempt to attack the ones more faithful to the Scriptures
> and Confessions than you are.
it's funny, i'm actually a theology major at one of our concordia
university schools...and i would consider myself extremely faithful to
the scriptures and the confessions. I respect your strong convictions
and faithfulness but, whereas you seem to have all the head knowledge,
throwing around all these names and intelligent-sounding jabs, which i
do fully understand as well, at least in these discussion threads, it
seems to me that there is a certain "heart" that is not present in
your arguments...and as much as my "liberalism" worries and threatens
you, so your cold-hearted theology talk, without a trace of
compassion, worries me.
cwg
> In article <9vtbkj$mav$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>,
> "cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote:
>
> > "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c22...@news.newszilla.com...
> >
> > > A judgment based on what Scripture states itself is what's
> > > called for.
> >
> > Judgment based on Scripture is _exactly_ what the Pharisees were doing:
> > "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women."
> > They were right according to Scripture. Even Jesus did not dispute that
> > point.
>
> Wrong. Jesus did not contradict the Scripture. That is just what you
> inadvertantly accused Him of doing. Jesus demonstrated that the
> Pharisees did not know Scripture. In John 8, Jesus understood the Law
> better than the Pharisees. The Law actually called for the stoning of
> both the man and the woman.
It depends. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states that if a woman has sex before she
is married, she should be killed but not the man. Deuteronomy 22:22 states
that if a woman has sex with someone other than her husband while she is
married, both the guilty man and the woman should be killed.
Which is the case in John 8? Nobody says what scripture they are refering
to, just that it calls for the woman to be killed and not the man. This
would be a valid accusation if they are refering to Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
But Jesus never challenges them on this point anyway. His response is very
clear and does not accuse anyone one of incorrect interpretation of
scripture.
Here is verses 3-7:
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in
adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for
accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with
his finger.
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them,
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at
her."
Here's a quiz. What was Jesus' response to the Pharisees? (hint: look at
verse 7)
A) "The Law actually calls for the stoning of both the man and the woman.
The man is mysteriously absent. Therefore, the accusation against the woman
is invalid. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. I dispute
your interpretation of Scripture."
B) "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone
at her."
C) None of the above.
(I threw C in just to confuse those who aren't paying attention)
If we are to hold that the Bible is literally and absolutely true, there's
really nothing to discuss about this. Unless you want to add to what Jesus
said or assume that what he said has some hidden or symbolic message -- but
that is a no-no. The Bible is clear about what Jesus' response was.
Kami
"jennn h." <jennn...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:7934697a.01122...@posting.google.com...
> Forget the formalities of it all,
> whether it was "technically" a service, whether he was "leading" it,
> "participating" in it, whatever...the bottom line is that in the midst
> of complete, utter despair, the name of Christ was preached and heard
> by thousands, millions of people...
Offering the hope Christ gives is not what is in dispute. Offering it
in a place where it is not clarrified that Jesus is the -only- hope
we have...only offers a false hope. No matter what the circumstances
may be or how tragic they are. Truth compromised is nothing more
than a lie.
It also offers the impression that the Triune God is not the only One
was can turn to in times of trouble. And that can be rather dangerous...
for Christians and non-Christians alike.
Daniel & Amy North
"cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote:
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luthe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat1-D63B7...@news.mindspring.com...
> > In article <9vtbkj$mav$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>,
> > "cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Kami" <abc...@jcn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3c22...@news.newszilla.com...
> > >
> > > > A judgment based on what Scripture states itself is what's
> > > > called for.
> > >
> > > Judgment based on Scripture is _exactly_ what the Pharisees were doing:
> > > "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women."
> > > They were right according to Scripture. Even Jesus did not dispute that
> > > point.
> >
> > Wrong. Jesus did not contradict the Scripture. That is just what you
> > inadvertantly accused Him of doing. Jesus demonstrated that the
> > Pharisees did not know Scripture. In John 8, Jesus understood the Law
> > better than the Pharisees. The Law actually called for the stoning of
> > both the man and the woman.
>
> It depends. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states that if a woman has sex before she
> is married, she should be killed but not the man. Deuteronomy 22:22 states
> that if a woman has sex with someone other than her husband while she is
> married, both the guilty man and the woman should be killed.
You are bifurcating what the text actually says. We are dealing with
two different circumstances here. A woman in her father's house becomes
a harlot and is killed because she is a harlot and defiles the father's
house. This done before marriage. This was also what Joseph was
pondering about Mary when visited by Gabriel. But, verse 22 deals with
infidelity. These are two different situations and you missed what was
said about the Law. Verse 22 applied with the adultress and Jesus.
But, it also demonstrated that the Pharisees who wanted to test Jesus
did not understand the Scriptures. You blew it again by equivocating
the two passes and eisegeting them.
> Which is the case in John 8? Nobody says what scripture they are refering
> to, just that it calls for the woman to be killed and not the man. This
> would be a valid accusation if they are refering to Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
>
> But Jesus never challenges them on this point anyway. His response is very
> clear and does not accuse anyone one of incorrect interpretation of
> scripture.
See above.
> Here is verses 3-7:
> 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in
> adultery. They made her stand before the group
> 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
> 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
> 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for
> accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with
> his finger.
> 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them,
> "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at
> her."
These men were guided by their father the devil (John 8:44). The
misrepresented what Scripture actually said. Instead of appealing to
Deut. 22:22, they appealed to the wrong verse. Jesus caught them in the
lie, knowing infinitely more about the Law than they did.
>
> Here's a quiz. What was Jesus' response to the Pharisees? (hint: look at
> verse 7)
>
> A) "The Law actually calls for the stoning of both the man and the woman.
> The man is mysteriously absent. Therefore, the accusation against the woman
> is invalid. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. I dispute
> your interpretation of Scripture."
>
> B) "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone
> at her."
>
> C) None of the above.
>
> (I threw C in just to confuse those who aren't paying attention)
You're begging the question. Jesus' attitude about the Law was found in
verse 22 of Deut. But, responding to the Pharisees, He responded in a
way that the woman herself would be able to grasp. In His defense of
the woman, he appealed to something the two parties would undoubtedly
know. The concept of what constitutes a sin. The woman was probably
guilty, but the accusation also has to be in accordance to the Law. It
wasn't.
> If we are to hold that the Bible is literally and absolutely true, there's
> really nothing to discuss about this. Unless you want to add to what Jesus
> said or assume that what he said has some hidden or symbolic message -- but
> that is a no-no. The Bible is clear about what Jesus' response was.
I gave Jesus the benefit of knowing what the Law says about the sin and
how it is to be prosecuted. You didn't. You only looked on the
surface, thus eisegeting the full impact of what Jesus' response was.
cwg, you're never going to win by misrepresenting the text. Please
refrain from doing it.
Daniel & Amy North
jennn...@juno.com (jennn h.) wrote:
> > > WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?! I am appalled at this "discussion" that I've
> > > been reading. You may be Lutherans, but are you Christians?? Try
> > > stepping out of your role as a close-minded, political LCMS'er and
> > > look at this whole situation from a Christian perspective...
> >
> > If being faithful to Scripture and the Confessions is closedminded, so
> > be it. Politics are not what the Confessional Lutherans are taking the
> > LCMS president and Mr. Benke to task. We instead are responding to the
> > politicalisms of these two and others who defend with deceit and
> > misrepresentation...such as what you appear to be doing.
>
> "who defend with deceit and misrepresentation"?? that's quite the
> bold statement, don't you think? do you honestly think that these two
> men intended to be deceitful throughout all of this? i can't believe
> people are using the events of sept. 11 and afterwards as a tool for
> pushing their own political, conservative agendas in the LCMS...it
> seems some people are a little unnerved by having kieschnick as the
> president and were just waiting for a time to try and oust him...and
> oh look! a national tragedy...forget the millions of people in
> despair, now's the chance to get rid of this "radical"!! of course, no
> one will ever admit that this is the reason these charges were
> brought, but underneath it all, they know what's really going
> on...hmmm, sounds like a certain event of the 70's, doesn't it??
> funny...
I am not counting on their motives. I am applying a basic standard in
comparison to their actions. (chuckle) Liberalism, the only ones who
would accuse the faithful of being unfaithful to misguided impressions
of what Jesus would do, even if it meant compromising the truth.
> > > I know I'll get ripped apart for what I've just stated...I've probably
> > > stated something that's against the LCMS Rules or something...but go
> > > ahead. I'm just thankful for men of God like Benke and our Synod
> > > president, who realize that there are people who are in need of a
> > > Savior, and remember that their ministry is to those people and NOT a
> > > ministry of rules and regulations.
> >
> > Liberalism is never good for a faithful Synod. Please study a bit more
> > before you attempt to attack the ones more faithful to the Scriptures
> > and Confessions than you are.
>
> it's funny, i'm actually a theology major at one of our concordia
> university schools...and i would consider myself extremely faithful to
> the scriptures and the confessions. I respect your strong convictions
> and faithfulness but, whereas you seem to have all the head knowledge,
> throwing around all these names and intelligent-sounding jabs, which i
> do fully understand as well, at least in these discussion threads, it
> seems to me that there is a certain "heart" that is not present in
> your arguments...and as much as my "liberalism" worries and threatens
> you, so your cold-hearted theology talk, without a trace of
> compassion, worries me.
For crying out loud!!! Head knowledge and heart knowledge? Are we
gnostics now? I also have a history in the inadequacy of the Concordia
University system's theology curriculum and the way it is applied. When
I was at Concordia Irvine, I dealt a lot with people like you. Sad,
that the theology departments in other Concordia Universities are just
as abysmal. Also, in reading St. Paul's letters, you cannot have
compassion without truth. If I was so uncompassionate, I would not have
said a word. Why don't you try again.
mlorfeld
> gnostics now? I also have a history in the inadequacy of the Concordia
> University system's theology curriculum and the way it is applied. When
> I was at Concordia Irvine, I dealt a lot with people like you. Sad,
> that the theology departments in other Concordia Universities are just
> as abysmal. Also, in reading St. Paul's letters, you cannot have
> compassion without truth. If I was so uncompassionate, I would not have
> said a word. Why don't you try again.
OK now you've hit a sore spot. DO NOT make blanket statements against
the CUS schools. You do not know each and every one's situation.
Furthermore I know that even people miles beyond right of
conservativism (whom I call the blind ignorants) would be happy with
the theology that is being taught at my school, CUW. When you attack
the Concordia's, you attack the very reason that the synod exists, to
train pastors and church workers. For without that there would be no
reason for a syond. As a lay person talking to a lay person I
understand your concern for the church. However, you are attacking
the attempts that a pastor made to spread the gospel in Jesus's name
where if it were not for him, no one would have heard the name of
Jesus. He did not pray in a generic god, nor did he pray to another
god. I doubt if anyone at the Yankee Stadium civic event was confused
by him calling the name of Jesus and witnessing his death and
resurection. I have yet to see a message of love from those
condemning Rev. Benke and the president. Rather I see hateful
messages that do not represent the message of the Gospel. Please
prove me wrong on this point, I would be overjoyed if you did.
Daniel & Amy North
> > For crying out loud!!! Head knowledge and heart knowledge? Are we
> > gnostics now? I also have a history in the inadequacy of the Concordia
> > University system's theology curriculum and the way it is applied. When
> > I was at Concordia Irvine, I dealt a lot with people like you. Sad,
> > that the theology departments in other Concordia Universities are just
> > as abysmal. Also, in reading St. Paul's letters, you cannot have
> > compassion without truth. If I was so uncompassionate, I would not have
> > said a word. Why don't you try again.
>
> OK now you've hit a sore spot. DO NOT make blanket statements against
> the CUS schools.
As far as the theology departments of the Concordias, I have seen three
campuses. My degree comes from CUW in the area of business management
which I transferred from Biblical Studies at Concordia Irvine. I admit
that there are some good theologians at CUW. But, for practical
reasons, I decided not to continue to pursue a theological degree from
the system. You have a lot of party spirit, but don't forget that the
Seminary does not need nor only require a Concordia system school
undergraduate degree to be admitted there. I have seen problems in the
Concordia University system when it comes to the curriculum being
watered down in these schools. That is was I am addressing. My own
professor and mentor, Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, knows exactly what I am
talking about. You can be defensive about the Scriptures and the
Confessions. Please don't be defensive about your school system. My
comment was a blanket statement, but it is a picture of how things were
about six years ago. Things may have improved since then.
You do not know each and every one's situation.
> Furthermore I know that even people miles beyond right of
> conservativism (whom I call the blind ignorants) would be happy with
> the theology that is being taught at my school, CUW.
Is that where you would place me. Poor fellow, you have no idea. I'm
not asailing the school for being liberal. I'm assailing the schools
for watering down their theological classes in a vain attempt of trying
to make it possible that DCEs and pre-Sem students can actually attend
the same classes. By the way, your statement above denotes
subjectivism. This is not a subjective issue. If you can discuss it
without appealing to the masses (check your logic class for a
definition), then it would be possible to go further in the topic.
When you attack
> the Concordia's, you attack the very reason that the synod exists, to
> train pastors and church workers. For without that there would be no
> reason for a syond.
The Synod exists to promote and proclaim the beliefs and tenets of the
historic Christian faith as understood by those who formulated the Book
of Concord. The training of Pastors and Church spring forth from such
committment, but it is not the sole function of the Synod.
As a lay person talking to a lay person I
> understand your concern for the church. However, you are attacking
> the attempts that a pastor made to spread the gospel in Jesus's name
> where if it were not for him, no one would have heard the name of
> Jesus.
In this debacle, Jesus was one of many possibilities and NOT the
absolute Way, Truth, and Life. I'm attacking, if you will, the
misrepresentation of ultimate Truth being one of many possible truths.
Therefore, my concern for Benke and Keischnik stands.
He did not pray in a generic god, nor did he pray to another
> god. I doubt if anyone at the Yankee Stadium civic event was confused
> by him calling the name of Jesus and witnessing his death and
> resurection. I have yet to see a message of love from those
> condemning Rev. Benke and the president. Rather I see hateful
> messages that do not represent the message of the Gospel. Please
> prove me wrong on this point, I would be overjoyed if you did.
This is entirely subjective. I don't care if you see things hateful or
loving when it comes to your perception of my words. What matters to me
is truth, not error. You have a long way to go. Especially if you're
thinking of coming to Seminary after your undergraduate degree. I pray
that you do make it. But, if you are planning to become a Pastor and
attend Fort Wayne, please send Dr. Marquart or Dr. Scaer my warmest
regards.
jennn h.
> not asailing the school for being liberal. I'm assailing the schools
> for watering down their theological classes in a vain attempt of trying
> to make it possible that DCEs and pre-Sem students can actually attend
> the same classes. By the way, your statement above denotes
> subjectivism. This is not a subjective issue. If you can discuss it
> without appealing to the masses (check your logic class for a
> definition), then it would be possible to go further in the topic.
It alllll makes sense now...you are one of those Rosenbladt Pre-Sem
cronies who like to take cheap shots at the DCE's on campus. Did you
only go to chapel on thursdays when it was "traditional/matins" days?
These days the pre-sem boys like to frequent Steelhead Brewery over by
the UCI campus, and Goathill Tavern down in Newport Beach...the
DCE/Pre-Sem. battle has subdued quite a bit in the past few
years...I've finally gained some respect by them :).
I greatly respect and admire Rosenbladt and his intense passion for
the Gospel...though some of his class lectures can go off on tangents
a bit, when he gets down to business, he is an incredible source of
knowledge and inspiration. I know I've gotten way off the topic of
the original thread, but it's been fun...I apologize for the personal
attacks on someone I don't even know...I enjoy taking the opposite
side on issues, just for fun...though I do firmly oppose these silly
charges against Benke & Kieschnick, especially after visiting Ground
Zero, hearing the stories of my father's congregation members
escaping, having a member in my home congregation perish on the 102nd
floor, and just being out here, 15 minutes away from Manhattan...it's
a different world out here...and there is no doubt in my mind, and
even in my pastor's mind, that what Kieschnick and Benke did was right
in such the circumstances.
God's blessings on your Christmas!
Gruetzner
comes to check out alt.religion.christian.lutheran. For Lutheran
credentials, I am a member of an LCMS congregation, but have at times
been a member of AELC, ALC, ELCA, and LCA congregations. My in-country
Lutheran roots go back to some of the original LCMS congregations in
Illinois and Texas which were founded in the mid-1800s. My dad's a
retired LCMS pastor; I'm on our congregations board of lay ministry.
I'm a retired naval officer (submariner). I am co-administrator of a
pan-Lutheran discussion list (Lutheran Discussion).
First off, I would like to compliment the participants on this
thread. The discussion here has been kept at about the most civil I
have seen on this topic. Some of you may not realize how rare this is
in the alt.* USENET hierarchy. (You have an idea from reading the
cross-posted stuff coming in.)
-----
Second, the question was asked by one of the opponents of David
Benke's participation if the prayers at the Yankee Stadium event were
collective or individual. They were individual, although people could
join in their hearts with the individual praying out loud.
-----
Third, the question of the LCMS doctrinal position has arisen. The
following is a *short* *summary* which I hope will be helpful.
The foundational position is article II of the LCMS constitution,
which places the scriptures and the Lutheran confessions as the
doctrinal standards for the LCMS.
However, two other items of the LCMS constitution come into play.
One is that every member of the LCMS ("members" are only pastors and
congregations: us lay dudes and dudettes are not members) must renounce
"unionism." This word has an interesting history, originally referring
to the forced organic union between Lutherans and Calvinists in Prussia
in the 1800s. The early LCMS extended this concept to refer to joint
worship services and evangelism efforts with "heterodox" bodies. There
has been a wide latitude of interpretation within the LCMS on this
matter over the years. (E.g., the first LCMS president--who pretty much
wrote the constitution--would commune with other Lutherans (but not
Reformed) with whom there were no official ties (and even
disagreements); on the other hand, some LCMS people will refuse even to
say a table prayer at a meal in their house with non-LCMS people.)
The second item is that the LCMS is to be "advisory": it is
explicitly "not an eccesiastical government" with legislative powers.
This also has had a wide variety of interpretation over the many years
of synod, but the trend has followed that in the secular federal
government, where more and more power has been assumed by the central
organization over the local congregation. Although (civil) legal
opinions have gone both ways, the main change occured a couple of years
ago where the highest judicial body of the LCMS ruled that the LCMS was
"hierarchial" in doctrinal matters, and only advisory in non-doctrinal
matters. (The definition of "doctrinal" was left to the reader. :-)
) Of course, this opinion could be reversed at any time.
Which leads back to the "LCMS doctrinal position." The official
interpretation is a report by an LCMS commission released a couple of
years ago entitled "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship."
It recognizes the appropriateness of LCMS pastors participating in civic
events as long as the Christian witness is not restricted; it also
recognizes "once in a lifetime" situations. The report was adopted by
the LCMS delegate convention last summer.
LCMS president Jerry Kieschnick was contacted by David Benke prior to
the event in Yankee Stadium, to get his opinion on participation. Jerry
Kieschnick stated that the event was allowable per "The Lutheran
Understanding of Church Fellowship." He should know: Jerry K. was
chairman of the LCMS commision which wrote the document!
So...as far as "official LCMS doctrine" goes, as it now stands, Dave
Benke's participation was in accord with official LCMS doctrine. That
said, there *are* those who want the doctrine to be changed, ruling that
Dave Benke should be kicked out of the LCMS. They may eventually
succeed in the change, but, if so, it *will* be a change.
-----
Four, there doesn't appear to be any clear scriptural witness on this
matter. The closest may include I Cor.8:10, where Paul deals with
Christians eating at a temple-meal in an idol's temple. He points out
that such eating is not wrong itself, but can become wrong if it causes
a "weaker brother" to stumble. However, this really doesn't apply since
the Yankee Stadium event was a ministry opportunity, not a
feeding-oneself opportunity. :-)
Another section is II Kings 5:18-19, where Naaman is allowed to bow
down in worship to the god Rimmon with his master in the temple of
Rimmon, while inwardly offering prayers to Yahweh. Again, this does not
really apply, since Dave Benke was not bowing down to worship any god
but God.
A third section which has been cited is I Tim. 4:4-5, where things
become consecrated to God through the word of God and prayer. This may
be the strongest passage, but it also lacks, because the gift becoming
consecrated is the opportunity to publicly minister to others, rather
than marriage and food.
-----
Five, from personal testimony we know that there was good was done
through Dave Benke's participation. The question about a "weaker
brother" stumbling then arises. All ministry involves risk, and no
doubt there was risk. Different people will come to different
conclusions concerning the trade-offs. However, the pastor on scene
made a decision and acted. If there are local problems--if, perhaps,
one comes across a brother Christian who was (or, more likely, was
already) confused--we should each be prepared to unconfuse him about the
exclusive claim of the gospel of Jesus.
-----
Six, Lutherans understand the Law to require that a person defend,
speak well of, and put the best construction on the actions of others.
The report on Fellowship adopted by the LCMS speaks of letting "charity
prevail" when there are differences of opinion. For me, these two
indicate the course of action which should be followed.
------
Again, well done on keeping things relatively civil. God bless you
always.
Yours in Christ, | -----Christ Alone-----
James | In faith and in science,
James K. Gruetzner <jgrue...@home.com> | All truth is God's
truth.
"A bruised reed he will not break; a smoldering wick he will not snuff
out."
Adatia
wrote:
James,
I believe you have nailed it to a tee.
Adatia
<snip>
Daniel & Amy North
jennn...@juno.com (jennn h.) wrote:
> > Is that where you would place me. Poor fellow, you have no idea. I'm
> > not asailing the school for being liberal. I'm assailing the schools
> > for watering down their theological classes in a vain attempt of trying
> > to make it possible that DCEs and pre-Sem students can actually attend
> > the same classes. By the way, your statement above denotes
> > subjectivism. This is not a subjective issue. If you can discuss it
> > without appealing to the masses (check your logic class for a
> > definition), then it would be possible to go further in the topic.
>
> It alllll makes sense now...you are one of those Rosenbladt Pre-Sem
> cronies who like to take cheap shots at the DCE's on campus. Did you
> only go to chapel on thursdays when it was "traditional/matins" days?
> These days the pre-sem boys like to frequent Steelhead Brewery over by
> the UCI campus, and Goathill Tavern down in Newport Beach...the
> DCE/Pre-Sem. battle has subdued quite a bit in the past few
> years...I've finally gained some respect by them :).
Is this written to insult those who disagree with you? Check with
Rosenbladt the definition of argumentum ad hominem and the genetic
fallacy. We used to object to the DCEs (I say "used to" because I left
in 1995) because their doctrines were deeply inmeshed in
Semi-Pelagianism, a historical form what I now consider "decision
theology." This, the Formula of Concord condemns. Now, if the DCE
types are more theologically minded, my concerns will mellow.
> I greatly respect and admire Rosenbladt and his intense passion for
> the Gospel...though some of his class lectures can go off on tangents
> a bit, when he gets down to business, he is an incredible source of
> knowledge and inspiration. I know I've gotten way off the topic of
> the original thread, but it's been fun...I apologize for the personal
> attacks on someone I don't even know...I enjoy taking the opposite
> side on issues, just for fun...though I do firmly oppose these silly
> charges against Benke & Kieschnick, especially after visiting Ground
> Zero, hearing the stories of my father's congregation members
> escaping, having a member in my home congregation perish on the 102nd
> floor, and just being out here, 15 minutes away from Manhattan...it's
> a different world out here...and there is no doubt in my mind, and
> even in my pastor's mind, that what Kieschnick and Benke did was right
> in such the circumstances.
I don't consider the charges against Benke or Kieschnick "silly" in the
least. I consider them a bridge to the old charge of liberalism that
has plagued the LCMS since before the days of Seminex. Please read Dr.
Kurt Marquart's "Anatomy of an Explosion" for details.
While I don't go on attacking people personally, and never have, my
comments always are salted with the Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms
of the Book of Concord and, most of all, by Scripture Itself. This is
not a personal vendetta. It is a concern of anyone who will not
compromise the truth. Melanchthon did. Luther did not.
Merry Christmas.
cwg
>These are two different situations and you missed what was
> said about the Law. Verse 22 applied with the adultress and Jesus.
How do we know verse 22 applies, not versus 20-21? Isn't an unmaried woman
who has sex with a married man also an "adutress"? Couldn't that apply in
this case, in which case the proper punishment is death for the woman and
not for the man? What have I missed about what was said?
> But, it also demonstrated that the Pharisees who wanted to test Jesus
> did not understand the Scriptures.
It is clear that their real intention was to trap Jesus, not to argue
Scripture. But if the answer is as simple as them having a poor
understanding of Scripture, why didn't Jesus just correct them? Why make
does he instead make the radical statement
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at
her."?
> You're begging the question. Jesus' attitude about the Law was found in
> verse 22 of Deut. But, responding to the Pharisees, He responded in a
> way that the woman herself would be able to grasp. In His defense of
> the woman, he appealed to something the two parties would undoubtedly
> know. The concept of what constitutes a sin. The woman was probably
> guilty, but the accusation also has to be in accordance to the Law. It
> wasn't.
I don't see where any of that is stated in this passage.
> I gave Jesus the benefit of knowing what the Law says about the sin and
> how it is to be prosecuted.
Then why doesn't Jesus prosecute her? Wouldn't justice have been served by
correcting the Pharasiee's mistakes so she could be prosecuted correctly?
Although I'm still not convinced they made any -- the passage indicates that
they were acting according to the law. I don't see any indication in the
passage that their understanding of the law was wrong.
Jesus was well aware of the woman's guilt, he refers to her life as a "life
of sin". Following the law would require that she be punished in some
fashion. But Jesus doesn't do as the law prescribes, instead he asks her:
"Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared.
"Go now and leave your life of sin."
Doesn't this passage indicate Jesus' desire for her to be free from sin,
rather than condemned by the law? Isn't it an indication to all of us that
rather than condemnation of all of us sinners, Jesus brings salvation? What
am I missing?
Clueless Joe
"PastorKliner" <pastor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011202195309...@mb-mr.aol.com...
> Kami wrote:
> >There were those of leaders of Judasim, Hinduism, Muslim faiths at the
> >prayer service as well as Christian. What type of message does
> >that send? That Christians feel that we're just one religion
> >among many and it doesn't really matter what one believes?
>
> Actually I agree with you on this matter. I have despaired at how quickly
ELCA
> and other Christian clergy rushed onto stages to hold "inter-faith"
worship
> services with Islamic Imams. What God did they pray to? Allah or the
Triune
> God-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We do not worship the same God, no
matter
> how much the media and American society wants to make it sound like.
>
> Jerry
>
I too, don't care for the inter-faith services with Islamic Imams. Why hold
a joint service with a religion that seeks to eliminate us "non-believers"?
But as I recall from my "Non-western Religion" course in college Christians,
Jews and Muslims all worship the same god. No, the Jews and the Muslims
don't worship the Triune God but Allah/Yahweh are the same godhead. If I
accept that our God is different from their Allah, I would also have to say
that our God is different from the Jewish Yahweh. Or maybe I missed
something somewhere...
Jay
Gruetzner
> Then why doesn't Jesus prosecute her? Wouldn't justice have been served by
> correcting the Pharasiee's mistakes so she could be prosecuted correctly?
> Although I'm still not convinced they made any -- the passage indicates that
> they were acting according to the law. I don't see any indication in the
> passage that their understanding of the law was wrong.
> Jesus was well aware of the woman's guilt, he refers to her life as a "life
> of sin". Following the law would require that she be punished in some
> fashion. But Jesus doesn't do as the law prescribes, instead he asks her:
> "Has no one condemned you?"
> "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared.
> "Go now and leave your life of sin."
> Doesn't this passage indicate Jesus' desire for her to be free from sin,
> rather than condemned by the law? Isn't it an indication to all of us that
> rather than condemnation of all of us sinners, Jesus brings salvation? What
> am I missing?
Not much. You seem to have the letter and the spirit of these passages
down quite well. I might add that the Pharisees looked to the letter of the
law for guidance, and ignored the spirit of the law and the Spirit. They did
not understand the law--they underemphasized it--and so also were
unable to appreciate grace.
Grace which becomes linked to a requirement is no longer grace.
Thanks for posting.
James K. Gruetzner
Daniel & Amy North
"cwg" <c...@nomailplease.com> wrote:
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luthe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat1-0FE97...@news.mindspring.com...
> >These are two different situations and you missed what was
> > said about the Law. Verse 22 applied with the adultress and Jesus.
>
> How do we know verse 22 applies, not versus 20-21? Isn't an unmaried woman
> who has sex with a married man also an "adutress"? Couldn't that apply in
> this case, in which case the proper punishment is death for the woman and
> not for the man? What have I missed about what was said?
She may well be an adulterous, but that was not what the Law was
addressing. The Law made the distinction between the two. The
distinction that you are muddling.
> > But, it also demonstrated that the Pharisees who wanted to test Jesus
> > did not understand the Scriptures.
>
> It is clear that their real intention was to trap Jesus, not to argue
> Scripture. But if the answer is as simple as them having a poor
> understanding of Scripture, why didn't Jesus just correct them? Why make
> does he instead make the radical statement
> "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at
> her."?
Trying to get into the mind of God Incarnate is very dangerous. As one
wise person said, "It is not wise to speak about the character of God in
His presence." I suspect that Jesus knew their hearts more than you
did. He knew that to correct them would not settle the chain of events
and spare the woman. In His action, he demonstrated the mercy of the
Gospel and He did it in a way that completely confounded the accusers.
How often do we see that when dealing with a God who knows infinitely
more that we do?
> > You're begging the question. Jesus' attitude about the Law was found in
> > verse 22 of Deut. But, responding to the Pharisees, He responded in a
> > way that the woman herself would be able to grasp. In His defense of
> > the woman, he appealed to something the two parties would undoubtedly
> > know. The concept of what constitutes a sin. The woman was probably
> > guilty, but the accusation also has to be in accordance to the Law. It
> > wasn't.
>
> I don't see where any of that is stated in this passage.
Then you don't accept the Reformation view of Scripture interpreting
itself. I take Scripture as a whole. I wish you did.
> > I gave Jesus the benefit of knowing what the Law says about the sin and
> > how it is to be prosecuted.
>
> Then why doesn't Jesus prosecute her? Wouldn't justice have been served by
> correcting the Pharasiee's mistakes so she could be prosecuted correctly?
> Although I'm still not convinced they made any -- the passage indicates that
> they were acting according to the law. I don't see any indication in the
> passage that their understanding of the law was wrong.
Jesus dealt with the Law and the right prosecution of the Law.
Therefore, the woman was pardoned by the wrongful interpretation of that
Law by the accusers. This is also the reason why Jesus referred to them
later in John 8:44 as being of their father the devil, the father of
lies.
> Jesus was well aware of the woman's guilt, he refers to her life as a "life
> of sin". Following the law would require that she be punished in some
> fashion. But Jesus doesn't do as the law prescribes, instead he asks her:
> "Has no one condemned you?"
> "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared.
> "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Gospel. The devil accuses and Christ pardons. Remember basic law. A
pardon does not mean that the person never did the act, but only that
the penalty for that has been erased. That is the same with all who are
guilty and upon confession, they receive absolution. This is what Jesus
gave to the woman. The example was temporal, but it was an example of
what faith in Christ does eternally.
> Doesn't this passage indicate Jesus' desire for her to be free from sin,
> rather than condemned by the law? Isn't it an indication to all of us that
> rather than condemnation of all of us sinners, Jesus brings salvation? What
> am I missing?
An open mind. That is exactly what it means. God would rather have us
trust in Christ's redemption on the Cross than to leave us lost in our
own pursuit of righteousness, which leads us, not to salvation, but to
damnation.