LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 77

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT
• We saw the looks of shock and horror on the faces of
young police officers, firemen, and volunteers.
• We did what we knew how to do. We prayed. We cried.
We grieved. We prayed some more.
• We demonstrated tangible care to survivors and relatives of victims in any way we knew how.
That’s the context in which President Benke made a
pastoral decision to participate in the Yankee Stadium
event and did so with my counsel as his ecclesiastical supervisor. Some have vehemently disagreed with his decision and with my counsel to him. Many others have expressed strong support for both, thankful for his presence
and prayer at a time of crisis and trauma.
My counsel to President Benke was based primarily on
the Synod’s collective understanding of the teaching of Holy
Scripture, expressed in Resolution 3-07A of the 2001 Synod
Convention. Pertinent quotes from the unanimously
adopted report of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations, commended by that resolution “for continued use
and guidance in the Synod,” include:
• “Pastors . . . 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.
Subsequently, a few members of the Commission serving in 2001, having been asked, have indicated that they
never anticipated an event such as Yankee Stadium when
approving this report. I submit that few, if any of us anticipated an event such as the one that occurred on September
11, 2001.
Others have suggested that the Synod’s Constitution,
Bylaws, and convention resolutions should not be used to
address the propriety of actions of members of the Synod,
only specific passages of Scripture. In fact, our synodical
covenants of love are based on the premise that our Synod’s
Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions are in accord with,
or at least not contrary to Holy Scripture, as the Synod, in

77

convention, collectively determines what we understand
the Bible teaches concerning a specific matter of faith and
life. If an individual member or officer of the Synod believes
there is a conflict between our Synod’s governing documents and the Scriptures, he or she has both the opportunity and the obligation to persuade the Synod that such is
the case, in accord with our agreed upon process.
The bottom line is that, when faced with the necessity
of providing pastoral counsel to a District President of the
Synod, who needed to make a pastoral decision in a time of
public trauma and deep spiritual need, I found in the CTCR
report, guidelines that sounded eerily as though they had
been written for just such a circumstance—guidelines that
were “commended for continued use and guidance” in the
Synod.
If this 2004 Convention of the Synod should decide that
it does not agree with that resolution adopted by the 2001
Convention, or with my interpretation of it, then this convention has the responsibility to express the position of the
Synod in a different way. Unless and until such action is
taken, I have no choice but to stand by my oath of office as
President of this Synod, to fulfill my constitutional duty
and God-given responsibility to uphold and abide by the
Synod’s collective will, regardless of any individual understanding or opinion that may be expressed otherwise.
Further, as indicated in Part I of my Report to the
Synod, I agree with and uphold the position of the LCMS
that pastors of our Synod should have the freedom, tempered with the accompanying responsibility, of “offering
prayers, speaking, and reading Scripture at events sponsored by governments” if the organization in charge does
not restrict a Christian witness, and if this can be done
without any compromise of our Scriptural, Confessional,
and constitutional commitments.
Along with this decision-making freedom there must be
a climate of trust in the Synod, especially among our pastors. For The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to be
functional and healthy, we must trust that our pastors can
and will make God-pleasing decisions in day-to-day circumstances, as well as in exceptional situations. I truly
pray and trust, especially in extraordinarily difficult and
gut-wrenching times of pastoral decision making, that our
pastors will seek to follow the Lord’s will and that in circumstances where disagreements surround another’s decisions, charity will prevail.
Our pastors must be allowed to be pastors, without fear
of backlash or formal charges around every decision-making corner. This kind of trust, resulting from Scriptural
faithfulness and Christian charity, will enable a healthy,
faithful, and bold public witness to the Gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
One more word needs to be said on this subject. As previously reported to the Synod, I believe Dr. Benke’s prayer
could and should have been a stronger articulation of the
truth of Holy Scripture regarding the absolute necessity of
faith in Jesus Christ as the only way to eternal life. Here is
what I said on two occasions, in my memos to the Synod of
February 11, 2002, and January 22, 2004:
Some from among both those who agree and those
who disagree with Dr. Benke’s Yankee Stadium participation have expressed the view that his prayer was

2004 Convention Proceedings