© Brian Jackson, 2005. All Rights Reserved.

The LCMS: A Church Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

On September 23, 2001, just twelve days after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the Reverend Doctor David H. Benke offered a prayer during a memorial service at New York’s Yankee Stadium. Though the prayer was only 286 words long, it would capture the attention of a nationwide audience for nearly two years. The question was clear: to determine whether or not Benke had violated the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s (LCMS) doctrines against the mixing of religions, which are called unionism and syncretism. Despite the clarity of the question, its answers would be complex and would require a retrospective look at the history of the LCMS. To comprehend the issues and decisions in the Benke dispute, we must first understand the history of the church since the 1960s. Only then can we fully understand that Benke’s situation is only the latest in a series of rifts within the LCMS, a series that is likely to continue for some time.

The LCMS was founded in 1847 in St. Louis, Missouri by a combination of German and Anglo-Saxon immigrants to the United States.[1] For the next hundred years, Lutheranism in America would be characterized by a confusing mass of splinter groups, each of which claimed only a small percentage of the total Lutheran population.[2] By the 1950s and 1960s, the Lutheran Churches had settled into four principal denominations: the American Lutheran Church (ALC), the Lutheran Church in America (LCA), the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and the LCMS.[3] The churches ranged from the liberal LCA to the ultra-conservative WELS. The LCMS fell on the conservative side of the scale and remained there until the late 1960s.

In the early 1970s, the LCMS plunged into a chaotic period focused on its seminary at LCMS-owned Concordia University in St. Louis. The following account draws heavily on the work of Leonard,[4] Meilaender,[5] and Tietjen,[6] three men who extensively document the events at Concordia. On May 19, 1969, the LCMS named John Tietjen, a moderate Lutheran, President of the Seminary. Two months later, J.A.O. Preus, a conservative, was elected president of the synod. Almost immediately upon taking office, Preus began an investigation at the seminary, aiming to stamp out any heretical professors. Trouble had been brewing at the seminary for at least 15 years before Tietjen came to power, as the church began to come to terms with the new cultural ideas that developed during the 1960s. Preus’ investigation included interviewing all faculty members to determine their stances on church doctrinal issues. The interviews began in September 1970 and ended in March 1971 under faculty protest; Tietjen had not been informed of the interviews or of the investigation itself until he overheard a conversation between Preus and Preus’ brother, a professor at the seminary. Preus compiled the results of his investigation in what came to be known as the “Blue Book.” The Blue Book accused faculty members of teaching several false doctrines, but failed to identify faculty members by name; instead, it referred to members as Professor X or Y. The university’s Board of Control, its governing body, conducted its own investigation and found no evidence of wrong doing. This set up the conflict that even contemporary observers realized would likely end with some sort of catastrophe.[7]

In 1973, Preus took his issues with the seminary before the LCMS national convention in New Orleans. The convention adopted a statement finding that there was heresy at the seminary and also adopted a statement written by Preus titled “State of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” that established doctrinal parameters for the church. Furthermore, the convention demanded that the seminary’s Board of Control deal punitively with the Tietjen. In late 1973, the seminary’s Board of Control voted to suspend Tietjen. Tietjen refused to accept his suspension and threatened legal action, causing the board to delay the suspension. The board also set a mandatory retirement age of 65 which eliminated many long-term faculty, and the board insisted that all syllabi be approved by the board before the classes could be taught. The suspension of Tietjen simmered for several months before it was confirmed in January 1974. In response to Tietjen’s suspension, a substantial number of students and faculty dramatically left a faculty meeting and walked off the campus, never to return. They formed what soon became known as the Concordia Seminary in Exile or Seminex. It was physically located on the campuses of St. Louis University and Eden Theological Seminary, and students continued attending classes with their professors. Tietjen was formally removed from the official seminary in late 1974, and he soon was appointed president of Seminex. Seminex graduated approximately 100 students its first year before its students and faculty gradually became assimilated into other Lutheran churches. The assimilation was completed when a group calling itself the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC) broke off from the LCMS in 1976 and the remaining professors and students at Seminex joined it.

Over the last 40 years, there have been several explanations of the reasons behind the Seminex controversy. The center of the “official” debate on campus was the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. Several members of the faculty had become enamored with the developing methods of historical criticism, which emphasized the interpretation of scripture within a greater historical context and did not necessarily require a literal understanding of the texts.[8] Some, including Tietjen himself, have seen the inerrancy issue as a “smoke screen,” suggesting that there were larger issues behind the scandal.[9] Tietjen believes that the real issue was who would decide doctrine for the church. The group led by Preus believed that the national LCMS convention had the authority to impose new doctrines, while the group led by Tietjen believed that the only doctrines binding on Lutherans were the Bible and Martin Luther’s Book of Concord that dates from the 16^th century.[10] The final issue in the controversy was the autonomy and academic freedom of the professors at the seminary. Tietjen’s camp believed that the professors deserved to have broad latitude in policing themselves, while Preus wanted the school to be on a tighter leash.[11] It was, in all likelihood, a combination of these issues that drove the crisis at the seminary.

The fallout from the scandal had wider implications for the LCMS. First, many people were personally affected by the scandal. Students, professors, and congregations all had deep and intensely personal reactions to the events in St. Louis, and the issues created a great deal of uncertainty within the church.[12] Second, the break-off of the AELC served to cause the conservatives to gain a larger majority in the synod. The AELC was a group of predominately moderate to liberal congregations that were unhappy with the more conservative trajectory of the LCMS. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the Seminex controversy and the departure of the AELC churches led to the ostracizing of the LCMS from other Lutherans. As soon as 1977, it became apparent to contemporary observers that the moderate ALC and the LCMS would split apart as a direct consequence of the Seminex scandal.[13] The ALC was widely seen as the moderate buffer between the conservative LCMS and the liberal LCA, and from the 1970s, the LCMS feared that the ALC and the LCA would join forces.[14] A guest lecturer at Seminex during its first semester soon argued that because of the depth of feeling about the scandal, there would be no going back.[15]

During the 1980s and 1990s, the tensions within the LCMS bubbled just below the surface. In 1988, the LCMS’s fears came true, and a new church calling itself the ELCA formed from a merger between the LCA, the ALC, and the much smaller Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches.[16] Soon after, at the 1989 LCMS convention, a major schism within the synod was barely avoided. The convention featured a debate between groups alternately called “conservatives,” “the far right,” and “traditionalists,” and those who were seen as “soft” on issues like “unionism and syncretism.”[17] Similarly, at the next convention in 1992, the synod again nearly divided after the election of synod President A.L. Barry.[18] It was only through his leadership that the schism was avoided by an eventual compromise that made neither side happy.

Today, Lutheranism in America is marked by three primary branches. The largest is the ELCA which comprises approximately 5.1 million members.[19] The LCMS is the second largest with about 2.6 million members, and the ultra-conservative WELS has about 400,000 members.[20]

It was against this background that Rev. Benke offered his prayer on September 23, 2001. Benke had grown up in a Lutheran family: his great-grandfather founded twenty LCMS congregations in Wisconsin, and his grandfather was president of the Wisconsin District of the LCMS.[21] His brothers, Michael and Robert, were pastors at LCMS churches in Reno, Nevada and St. Paul, Minnesota.[22] In 2001, Benke was serving as the pastor at St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in Brooklyn, New York, and as the President of the Atlantic District which encompasses 102 congregations and 41,000 baptized members in the eastern half of New York State.[23] He had suffered a heart attack in early August of 2001, and he was still recovering at the time of the terrorist attacks.[24]

Benke was no stranger to controversy within the LCMS. In 1998, he had signed a written apology for participating in an interfaith prayer service for the poor at St. Peter’s Cathedral in New York after the synod threatened him with expulsion from the church.[25] In the apology, he stated, “My participation in this prayer service was a direct violation of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions…While well-intended, what I did was wrong…I assure the synod that I will not repeat this error in the future.”[26] This statement would become important in the controversy that would erupt after his prayer.

Benke first learned about the prayer service on September 14 when he attended a meeting with former New York Mayors Koch and Dinkins and other members of the New York-area clergy.[27] The prayer service was to take place at Central Park, though a date had not yet been set. Security considerations soon prompted organizers to move the service to Yankee Stadium where admission would be by ticket only to ensure the security of the event.[28] Before agreeing to participate in the service, Benke consulted with Gerald Kieschnick, the president of the LCMS and Benke’s direct supervisor,[29] as well as with other pastors within his own district.[30] On September 23, Benke offered the prayer at the service, which included Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant clergy members.[31] The introduction to his prayer was the lead for many secular news stories about the service and read:

Oh, we’re stronger now than we were an hour ago. And you know my sisters and brothers, we’re not nearly as strong as we’re going to be. And the strength we have is the power of love. And the power of love you have received is from God, for God is love. So take the hand of one next to you now and join me in prayer on this field of dreams turned into God’s house of prayer.[32]

Significantly, the prayer also included two references to Jesus in the lines, one in the middle where Benke said, “O Tower of Strength, open innocent and victimized hearts to the sacrifice of the Innocent One,” and one at the end where Benke made his prayer “in the precious name of Jesus.”[33] Though the prayer lasted for approximately one minute and contained 286 words, it would rock the foundation of the LCMS.

The first official hint that some found Benke’s prayer objectionable was a resolution passed by the Wyoming District of the LCMS asking for an investigation into several questions they raised. Among these questions were “In what ways is it, if ever, permissible for us to ask Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, and confessing members of other false religions to pray with us?” and “In what ways are we able to refer to heathen as ‘brothers and sisters’?”[34] The Wyoming District was also upset over Benke’s statement that the differences between the ELCA and the LCMS “seem so trivial,” and the district questioned whether Benke had violated his 1998 promise not to officiate at ecumenical worship services.[35]

Shortly after the Wyoming District filed its questions, the reverend Joel Beasley of Dearborn, Michigan filed the first official allegations against Benke with the synod’s national office.[36] More charges were filed by other pastors on November 12, November 28, December 16, January 8, and March 10.[37] In total, five pastors alleged that Benke was guilty of syncretism (equating non-Christian religions with Lutheranism), five alleged that he violated the synodical constitution and bylaws, four said that he was guilty of unionism (equating non-Lutheran Christianity with Lutheran Christianity), three said he violated the First Commandment, two said he violated the Second Commandment, and two claimed that Benke publicly defended false doctrine.[38] Unionism and syncretism are old doctrines within the Lutheran Church and have been the source of many internal struggles since at least the 1910s.[39] The doctrine developed out of fear of polluting what the LCMS’ founders saw as the one true faith and relied on several scripture passages to justify its tenets.[40] In addition to the charges related directly to the events at Yankee Stadium, Benke was also accused of unionism for a prayer that he and Synod President Kieschnick offered with several high ranking ELCA officials at a prayer service on September 19, 2001.[41]

Benke wasn’t the only one to be charged which violations of church doctrine; Kieschnick was also charged by several pastors. Rev. Steven Bohler of Crookston, Minnesota filed charges against Kieschnick for his participation in the September 19 service. Rev. David Oberdieck of Labanon, Missouri filed charges against Kieschnick because he had supported Benke’s decision to pray at Yankee Stadium.[42] Both of these charges were dropped within a few months, as the church’s Committee on Constitutional Matters ruled that charges against a sitting synodical president could only be brought by the entire synod at the national convention.[43]

In response to the official filing of charges, Synod Second Vice-President Wallace Schulz was assigned to hear the case against Benke on January 19, 2002.[44] Normally, the highest ranking officer in the synod would hear charges against a sitting district president, but both Kieschnick and the district’s first vice-president recused themselves from hearing the case due to conflicts of interest. After an investigation, Schulz prepared a report that was released in June of 2002 and came to conclusions regarding each of the charges against Benke.[45] The report said that because Mayor Giuliani had stated his desire to bring people from different religions together and Benke participated, the allegation of syncretism was established “in fact.”[46] Furthermore, the report claimed that Benke said in April 2002, “Clearly this event was syncretistic.”[47] According to Schulz, “The substantiated allegations of syncretism, not just in the eyes of the church, but primarily in the eyes of God, is so serious that additional allegations would be totally unnecessary to warrant President Benke’s removal from membership in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.”[48] Schulz did go on to address the other charges, though, concluding next that Benke had violated the constitution and by-laws of the synod by participating in a unionistic service.[49] He said that Benke violated the unionism doctrine because he worshipped with “one Methodist, one Reformed, two Roman Catholic, one Episcopalian, one Armenian, and one Greek Orthodox.”[50] Schulz said that Benke broke the First Commandment as well:

By President Benke’s joining with other pagan clerics in an interfaith service, no matter what the intent might have been, a crystal clear signal was given to others at the event and to thousands more watching by C-Span. The signal was: While there maybe [sic] differences as to how people worship or pray, in the end all religions pray to the same God.[51]

Schulz concluded that Benke not only sinned by breaking the First Commandment, but he also broke the Second Commandment because as

Pastor Beasley writes that Pastor Benke’s acts ‘could not have been of the Spirit because they were a sin against the Second Commandment. Instead of keeping God’s name sacred and separate from every other name, it was made common as it was dragged to the level of Allah.’[52]

Finally, with respect to the charge of preaching false doctrine, Schulz found Benke guilty because he had continued to defend himself after the charges were filed against him. To Schulz, this meant that the allegation against Benke was “substantiated in fact.”[53]

Overall, Schulz wrote, “The above listed allegations are serious, not only in man’s eyes, but especially in the God’s eyes. [sic]”[54] Schulz seemed acutely aware of the great responsibility resting on his shoulders, as he wrote that

I, Rev. Wallace Schulz, in stating the above allegations of the complainants are substantiated in fact, realize that I, too, will someday be judged by God regarding my faithfulness in carrying out my responsibility in judging this case fairly and in a God-pleasing way.[55]

Schulz rejected the argument that Benke could be excused from his conduct because he had received permission from his ecclesiastical supervisor, Kieschnick, because “…every Christian and especially every clergyman is finally responsible for his own actions.”[56] Schulz ended his report with two comments: first, he called for Benke’s repentance, calling it “not a call for you to merely return to the parochial practice of the LCMS. This is a call to return to the practice of Bible-based historic Christianity.”[57] Second, he put Benke on suspended status, giving him the option to appeal the decision within fifteen days or face expulsion (excommunication) from the synod.[58] The suspension meant that Benke could no longer carry out his duties as District President nor as an advisor to the Concordia University in New York, but he remained pastor of St. Peter’s Church. The suspension took effect on June 12, 2002, and Atlantic First Vice-President Charles Froehlich took over Benke’s responsibilities “in full support of Dr. Benke’s action, with the expectation that the suspension will be removed and Dr. Benke will be fully exonerated.”[59]

The reaction to Benke’s suspension was mixed in the synod and in the secular world. Perhaps the most outspoken critic of the decision was President Kieschnick. He made it very clear that

Contrary to the impression given by recent articles and reports, the decision to suspend…Dr. Benke was issued by one man, a single church official…The decision rendered was his alone—not that of the Synod in Convention or of some other decision making body or tribunal of the church.[60]

In the same letter, Kieschnick asked for a review of Schulz’s decision to suspend Benke, though the request probably was not legal as only the parties to the complaint can ask that it be reviewed.[61] Kieschnick did attempt to maintain some level of the conservatism expected by other LCMS pastors, particularly in his statement that

The real tragedy of what happened in New York and outside of Washington, DC on Sept. 11 is that in all likelihood, many of those who died in that atrocity are not in heaven today—they’re in hell—because they did not know or accept Jesus Christ as Savior.[62]

Kieschnick’s most scathing criticism of Schulz was that Schulz ignored a church policy called Resolution 3-07A which had been approved at the synodical convention in 1998. Kieschnick wrote that “Any decision which he [Schulz] might make regarding the suspension of an LCMS pastor must be based on the understanding of what Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions teach as determined by the LCMS in its Constitution, Bylaws, and Synodical Resolutions.”[63] [Emphasis in original] The focus of Resolution 3-07A was on “cases of discretion” and aimed to clarify the syncretism and unionism doctrines by arguing that “Not every occasion where worship takes place is necessarily a manifestation of church fellowship.”[64] The resolution’s focus seemed to have been on the laity attending things like “Baptisms, confirmations, weddings, funerals, etc. of family and friends in churches not in church fellowship with the LCMS.”[65] It also included a note to pastors that stated:

There are also ‘once in a lifetime’ 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 only be evaluated 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. [66]

Kieschnick said that his approval for Benke’s prayer was a result of this paragraph in the convention document.[67] In his response to the charges, Benke confirms that in his phone conversations with Kieschnick, Kieschnick was concerned with the issues related to Resolution 3-07A.[68]

For Pastor Benke, the Schulz Report was one more in what he saw as a continuing line of injustices. In a special report on the religious aftermath of the September 11^th attacks, the PBS series Frontline featured comments by Benke that included this anecdote:

One man [who wrote to him] said genuine terrorism was me giving that prayer. I just want to say that I have not gotten over that, and I can’t get through that. And I’ve talked to people whose loved ones were murdered. And for me to be put in that same category is just not tolerable to me. I can’t take it.[69]

Benke had apparently begun to question organized religion itself during his struggle against what he saw as an unjust situation. His comments on Frontline continued:

Their belief is that the doctrine of the church does not allow a Christian to stand at the same podium with someone of another faith or everybody is going to get the same idea that all religions are equal, and we have to make absolute claims, exclusive claims about our faith. If religion leads people to make these kinds of accusations at exactly the worst moments of American history, then what’s underneath religion? Is religion really part of a lust for power and control in people’s lives?[70]

In a direct response to the accusations in the Schulz Report, Benke uses Luther’s argument about two worlds to justify his position. He claims that in the World of God, it is necessary to ensure that Lutheranism is not confused with other religions, but in the World of Man, compassion and charity must prevail or witnessing will also be doomed to failure. Benke in fact argues that not only can Lutherans pray with and for others, but they must: “If there’s really a drought, do we pray for the rain to fall only on the REALLY JUST, that is the Lutherans of the Missouri Synod variety?”[71] [emphasis in original]. In short, Benke refused to back down from his claim that his actions were justified and praiseworthy. Before long, he too decided to ask an appeals panel to review Schulz’s decision.

In the broader church, the reactions were also quite mixed. The faculty of the Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne, Indiana received many requests for an opinion on the Benke matter from many sources, and in December of 2001, they issued an opinion that condemned Benke’s actions. First, they claimed that the terrorist attacks allowed for a clear delineation of good and evil, a position held by many conservatives. Specifically, they wrote, “The terrorism seen on September 11, 2001 is a terrible expression of the sinfulness of man and the power of Satan in the world.”[72] They soon moved on to the Benke matter, arguing that “True love comes only from believing in Jesus Christ, and this alone gives comfort. We cannot love other people by giving them false hope.”[73] Thus, they saw Benke’s actions as perpetrating a fraud on those who listened to him. To the faculty, because Benke attempted to provide comfort for non-Christians in their time of mourning, he actually contributed to the eternal damnation of their souls. It is unsurprising, then, that the faculty concluded, “We must disagree with President Benke’s participation in the prayer service and President Kieschnick’s support of his participation.” The comments by the faculty sparked some debate within the church, not just in their substance, but also in the larger issue of whether the faculty should be commenting on a matter that was still under consideration. The faculty of the Concordia Seminary in St. Louis also received requests for opinions, but they “believe[d] that any public statements would best be made following that opportunity for fraternal and collegial discussion and first-hand dialogue with President Benke as well as President Kieschnick.”[74] Kieschnick himself said in response to the Ft. Wayne comments that “Individuals and groups in the synod have every right to express themselves about this issue, and others have the right to disagree.”[75] While controversial, the comments by the Ft. Wayne Seminary’s faculty would be widely cited in many of the condemnations of Benke as academic proof that Benke’s actions were heretical.

The Board of Directors (BOD) of the LCMS is an elected body that controls the church’s mission and direction. Shortly before Schulz issued his report, in February 2002, the BOD ordered an immediate halt to the distribution of any information concerning the charges against Benke from any official synod source, including its web page, its monthly magazine, and its newsletters. The BOD cited as the reason for its decision LCMS Bylaw 8.21e which

clearly and specifically prohibits publicity from being given to a dispute by any party involved while a decision in the matter is pending or while an appeal is being contemplated. The Commission on Constitutional Matters has recently explained that this bylaw applies to all parties to the dispute.[76]

Furthermore, the Board claimed that the publicity from synod sources, and in particular the synod’s e-mail news service “has been divisive and unfair, has undermined the objectives of the synod stated in Article III of the Constitution and has brought shame upon the Synod. In some cases, it has violated Bylaw 8.21e.”[77] The Board said that it wanted the discussion about matters in dispute to be resolved “decently and in good order,” a reference to 1 Corinthians 14:40. In fact, the decision was more likely based on the large amount of negative publicity the church had received in both secular and Christian newspapers and magazines. The information halt from the synod continued until the appeals board decision became final April 2003.

The Council of Presidents includes the President of the LCMS and four vice presidents of the synod, known as the Praesidium. The Council adopted a resolution on November 22, 2002, in response to increasing criticism of the church that included five objectives they felt would help to address the controversy. The objectives essentially stated that the focus in the dispute should be on working cooperatively to determine the most God-pleasing course of action. It specifically decried strong partisanship by either side, instead urging all parties to keep open minds and consider the other’s point of view.

Other LCMS pastors also weighed in on the situation. Rev. Daniel Preus, the nephew of the Preus who was Synodical President during the Seminex controversy, astutely pointed out that “It seems as though the reactions [to the Schulz decision] are a bit of a microcosm representing different views within our church in matters of fellowship.”[78] He condemned the service as a model “for those who have adopted a postmodern mindset which holds that all religious truths are equally correct, each validated by the individual believer.”[79] To Preus, the prayer represented everything that was wrong with the LCMS in 2001—ecumenicalism, tolerance, and acceptance of other beliefs. It is not surprising that “When it comes to the Interfaith Service in Yankee Stadium…[he] cannot come to any conclusion except that his [Benke’s] participation was wrong.”[80] Other pastors were more receptive to Benke’s approach to the controversy. The New Jersey district pastors’ conference joined several other districts around the country in expressing the sentiment that Benke and Kieschnick deserved praise for “responding pastorally in an extraordinary circumstance,”[81] a veiled reference to the “once-in-a-lifetime” rule discussed above. Kieschnick claimed that “While some have registered disagreement with an LCMS pastor in that event, the overwhelming majority of responses have been supportive of such participation and have expressed appreciation for President Benke’s involvement in the civic event.”[82] Despite Kieschnick’s remarks, it seems clear that there was no consensus within the church, and it would take official action to create anything approaching agreement among the various factions.

The response by the secular press to the situation was almost universally negative. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, an important newspaper for the LCMS because St. Louis is the home of church headquarters, argued in an editorial appearing in December 2001:

Shouldn’t everyone recognize that there are many different ideas about spirituality, all of them to be respected? Shouldn’t the members of one faith feel comfortable worshiping their God, even in the company of people worshiping another? Aren’t we more alike than different?[83]

The Columbus (OH) Dispatch ran a column that noted Benke had the support of all ten Lutheran members of Congress and also refuted the specific charges, claiming that

Benke’s prayer at Yankee Stadium was no watered down plea to an unspecified deity. It was an authentic Lutheran prayer with direct references to Jesus Christ…His crime was simply being there on the podium with other hurting Americans, including police officers and firefighters, none of whom asked the religious identities of those whom they were trying to save.[84]

In Tampa Bay, a column by Daniel Ruth openly mocked Schulz and his decision, calling his efforts “ham-handed,” and characterized Kieschnick’s statement delineating the synod from Schulz as equivalent to “It was that moron Schulz who’s embarrassing us! He’s the one you want!”[85] Ruth goes on to argue that

Even more dopey was that the whole idea of the Yankee Stadium event was to promote greater tolerance among the nation’s diverse faiths, and now one of the leading figures of American Lutheranism finds himself given the bum’s rush from his ministry precisely for trying to express that God’s love is boundless.[86]

Numerous other editorials and columns ran in newspapers across the country, almost all condemning Schulz’s decision as a travesty of justice. News pages carried stories of each step of the process, which only served to fuel the outrage among Christians and non-Christians alike. The response of the secular media was very troubling to the LCMS, which is an evangelical institution and works to create a good public reputation, and the concern manifested itself in numerous documents throughout the course of the controversy.

While the uproar continued inside and outside the church, a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) convened to consider Schulz’s decision. As the BOD had ordered a halt to the distribution of information from the synod, little information is available about the panel itself. Several people within the synod said that the composition of the panel was controversial and that the decision as to who would be on the panel required its own appeals process, though this information has not been confirmed through any of the church’s official channels.[87] The panel eventually consisted of Jack Keers, John Denman, and Rev. Marvin L. Temme. Of the three, only Temme is listed as a pastor on the official report.[88]

The DRP issued its report in May of 2003. They first concluded that Schulz did nothing wrong procedurally; that is, he followed all the policies and guidelines that were appropriate for deciding the Benke case.[89] The panel faults Schulz, though, because “His conclusions appear biased, subjective, and without credible and sustainable fact.”[90] In his oral testimony before the DRP, Schulz characterized Resolution 3-07A (the resolution allowing for cases of discretion in once-in-a-lifetime circumstances) as “ ‘pork barrel’ last minute additions by ‘some’ to the Resolution,” a position that the DRP rejected.[91] The panel overturned Schulz’s decision on the basis of Resolution 3-07A, writing that

While it is true that only the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions are the basis for membership or expulsion from the Synod, it is also true that the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod represent the collective study and will of members of the Synod as to what Scriptures say and how its members covenant together to teach and practice its doctrines. For this reason, the collective will of the synod’s members is to carry out its resolutions and to provide avenues for dissent for any disagreement until such time as the Synod itself in convention alters its position or practice.[92]

Thus, while the DRP affirmed the LCMS teaching that upholding the Bible and Luther’s Book of Concord from the fifteenth century are the basic requisites for membership in the synod, it also recognized that those ideas need interpretation, and that the synod needs a mechanism to provide that interpretation in a modern context. The DRP also cited a recent decision by the synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) that stated that a member of the synod cannot be charged if he gets permission from his ecclesiastical supervisor before the event in question.[93] The DRP concluded its report with the procedures for an appeal, and a note that the appeal needed to be filed within thirty days of the date of the decision.[94] Kieschnick announced the decision on May 12, 2003, one month later, after no one had filed paperwork to appeal the decision.[95]

While Benke was clearly relieved by the panels’ decision and his reinstatement to all his former duties, Schulz strongly disgreed with the process. He chose not to appeal the decision because “Our synod has been through enough of this process,” but he made his views clear in a May 11 letter to the synod secretary that spanned some 60 pages.[96] In the letter, Schulz wrote:

The Panel’s decision makes over 25 references to the controversial resolution and an additional 35 references to bylaws but fails to make even a single reference to the Holy Scriptures! ... In other words, even though this case involves a very serious offense against God’s First Commandment and must therefore be dealt with on the basis of God’s Word, the Panel has decided to rule on the basis of a man made resolution! … In its decision, the Panel has clearly violated the Constitution of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and sinned against the Word of God, since Article VIII of the LCMS constitution states, ‘All matters of doctrine and conscience shall be decided only by the Word of God.’ If the Panel’s decision is permitted to stand unchallenged, its impact will reach far beyond the Benke case, fundamentally changing our Synod and leading it to resolve spiritual issues on the basis of men’s opinions rather than God’s word.[97]

The letter, which is full of vitriol, attacks against members of the DRP, and emphatic language, was dated May 11, 2003, one day after the last date for Schulz to file a formal appeal of the DRP’s decision. At least publicly, Schulz did not make Benke aware of his decision not to appeal the DRP’s decision until the deadline had passed likely causing anxiety for Benke. The DRP itself responded to Schulz’s criticism, writing that “The Synod is not elevating resolutions which it adopts over the Scriptures when it requires its members to honor and uphold such doctrinal resolutions and statements. This is rather a recognition of what it is that the majority of its members understand the Scriptures to teach.”[98] In a show of support, the Atlantic District re-elected Benke President of the District in June 2003, one month after the DRP’s decision was publicly announced.[99]

The parallels between the incidents surrounding Benke’s prayer and earlier events in LCMS history, particularly Seminex, are numerous. In both cases, the incident that received public attention was only a small part of the deeper challenges that the LCMS faced. In Seminex, the church debated the issue of Biblical Inerrancy and in Benke’s case, it debated the doctrines of syncretism and unionism; they both represent the larger moderate versus conservative argument that is shaking the LCMS. In Seminex, the clash between Tietjen and Perus was really about Tietjen’s more modernistic, moderate ideology and Preus’s older, more conservative theology. In the Benke case, Schulz represented the conservative, separatist movement within the church while Benke represented the moderate, inclusive groups within the synod. In both cases, the immediate issue seemed trivial in light of the larger issues facing the synod, but it only by parametricizing the larger debate down to a single issue that people felt free to express their opinions. That is, the debate between the overall moderate and conservative is so complex that attempting to debate all the issues seems impossible, so members of both groups focus on one issue at a time. Unfortunately for the parties involved, they became pawns in a larger game that affected the entire synod.

It is interesting to look at the eventual fallout of Seminex to attempt to predict what may soon occur within the LCMS. After the controversy had died down and several moderate churches had left the LCMS to form the AELC, the conservatives quickly moved to consolidate their power. At the 1977 convention, the conservatives moved to control nearly every synod-wide office and distanced themselves from the AELC and the ALC, two more liberal branches of Lutheranism.[100] In the Benke case, the moderates officially “won,” and already, some ultra-conservatives within the church are discussing the possibility of splitting from the LCMS. A conservative Texas Lutheran group called Concord, for example, has implicitly and explicitly suggested splitting from the LCMS as the only alternative left open to conservatives.[101] A problem with this approach that several pastors have suggested is that many of the church’s large donors are conservative, and if the LCMS were to moderate its stances on key issues, the money could easily dry up.[102] In either case, some sort of a split appears likely in the LCMS in the near future. The next synod-wide convention will be in St. Louis in June 2004. It will be the event to watch to determine the future of the LCMS.

The situations the LCMS has faced over the last thirty years have been small waves of the deeper currents that are steering the church. The Seminex controversy and the controversy over Benke’s prayer in New York are microcosms of the larger issues in the LCMS. It is only by coming to grips with these “big-picture” issues that we can understand how and why such seemingly trivial issues get blown up to enormous proportions. The LCMS is a church in crisis, and without massive changes in the attitudes of its factions, a schism appears almost certain in the near future.

Back to Academic

Back to Writing

Back to Home

Endnotes

---

[1] Nafzger, Samuel. 1994. “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod: A brief history.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. http://www.lcms.org/NAFZGER.HTM

[2] Dishno, Richard. 1989. “America’s Lutherans: Who Are They?” Christianity Today 33:22-25.

[3] “Wisconsin Synod Withdraws.” 1963. Christian Century 80(S 4 1963):1069.

[4] Leonard, Bill J. “Schism Memoirs.” Christian Century 107:1096-1098.

[5] Meilaender, Gilbert. 1991. “How Churches Crack Up: the case of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod” First Things, June-July 1991, pp. 38-42.

[6] Tietjen, John H. Memoirs In Exile: Confessional Hope and Institutional Conflict. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

[7] Marty, Martin E. 1972. “Showdown in the Missouri Synod.” The Christian Century 89:943-946.

[8] Tietjen, John H. “Piercing the Smokescreen: toward an understanding of issued in the Missouri Synod.” Christianity Today 19(Ap 11 1975):8-10.

[9] Meilaender, Gilbert. 1991. “How Churches Crack Up: the case of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod” First Things, June-July 1991, pp. 38-42.

[10] Nehaus, Richard J. “Schism and renewal in American Lutheranism.” Theology Today 30 (O 1973):292-295.

[11] Tietjen, John H. “Piercing the Smokescreen: toward an understanding of issued in the Missouri Synod.” Christianity Today 19(Ap 11 1975):8-10.

[12] Marty, Myron and Shirley. 1974. “Moving Out and Moving In.” Christian Century 91:422-425.

[13] Adams, James E. 1977. “Missouri’s ‘Compromise’”. Christian Century 94:709-710.

[14] “The Lutherans: Fractured Fellowship.” 1976. Christianity Today 21(5):81-84.

[15] Neill, Stephen C. 1975. “Ecumenism’s Past and Future: Shifting Perspectives.” Christian Century 92:568-572.

[16] Nafzger, Samuel. 1994. “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod: A brief history.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.

[17] Maudlin, Michael G. 1989. “America’s Lutherans: Where They’re Going.” Christianity Today 33:26-29.

[18] Stanich, Susan. 1992. “Missouri Synod Defuses a Crisis.” Christian Century 109(Ag 12-19):732-734.

[19] “Essential Questions.” 2003. Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. http://www.elca.org/co/quick.html

[20] Nafzger, Samuel. 1994. “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod: A brief history.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.

[21] Benke, David H. “A Prayer at Yankee Stadium.” Open Letter. May 2002.

[22] Ibid

[23] Ibid

[24] Ibid

[25] “Benke Apologizes to Synod Over Prayer Service.” St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 98-87. 20 Nov 1998.

[26] Ibid

[27] Benke, David H. “Response to Charges.” 12 Nov 2001.

[28] Schulz, Wallace. “Written Statement of Matters in Dispute.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. 25 June 2002.

[29] Ibid

[30] Benke, David H. “A Prayer at Yankee Stadium.” Open Letter. May 2002.

[31] “New York Prayer Service.” New York: C-SPAN, video recording. 23 Sept 2001.

[32] Ibid

[33] Ibid

[34] “Wyoming District Resolution.” Wyoming: Wyoming District of the LCMS. 3 October 2001.

[35] Ibid

[36] Schulz, Wallace. “Written Statement of Matters in Dispute.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. 25 June 2002.

[37] Ibid

[38] Ibid

[39] Schulz, Wallace. “Written Statement of Matters in Dispute.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. 25 June 2002.

[40] Hattery, John W. 1970. “The Historical Development of the Doctrine of Unionism of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 43:179-181

[41] Benke, David H. “A Prayer at Yankee Stadium.” Open Letter. May 2002.

[42] “Events prompt two to bring charges against Kieschneck.” St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 87. 9 Nov 2001.

[43] Ruling voids charges against Kieschneck.” LCMSNews, No. 97. 11 Dec 2001.

[44] Schulz, Wallace. “Written Statement of Matters in Dispute.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. 25 June 2002.

[45] Ibid

[46] Ibid

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid

[49] Ibid

[50] Ibid

[51] Ibid

[52] Ibid

[53] Ibid

[54] Ibid

[55] Ibid

[56] Ibid

[57] Ibid

[58] “Update on Atlantic District President.” St. Louis: LCMSNews. 28 Jun 2002.

[59] Mahsmann, David L. “Keischneck calls on Schulz to reverse Benke suspension.” St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 38. 12 July 2002.

[60] Strand, David. “Press Release.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Office of the President, 11 July 2002.

[61] Ibid

[62] Strand, David. “Press Release.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Office of the President, 11 July 2002.

[63] Mahsmann, David L. “Resolutions praise, criticize Benke role at stadium event.” St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 86. 9 Nov 2001.

[64] Commission on Theology and Church Relations. “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. 1998.

[65] Ibid

[66] Ibid

[67] Kieschneck, Gerald B. “A Statement from Dr. Gerald Kieschneck.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Office of the President. 15 Nov 2001.

[68] Benke, David H. “Response to Charges.” 12 Nov 2001.

[69] Benke, David H. “The Question of Religion.” Frontline: PBS. Video segment/transcript. 3 Sept 2002.

[70] Ibid

[71] Benke, David H. “A Prayer at Yankee Stadium.” Open Letter. May 2002

[72] Wenthe, Dean O. “A Pastoral Response to the Events of September 11, 2001.” Ft. Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary. 14 Dec 2001.

[73] Ibid

[74] Mahsmann, David L. “Fort Wayne seminary joins Benke debate.” St. Louis: LCMSNews. 11 January 2002.

[75] Ibid

[76] Mahsmann, David L. “BOD orders information halt in Benke dispute.” St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 7. 11 Feb 2002.

[77] LCMS Board of Directors. “A Statement to the Church: Let All Be Done Decently and in Order (1 Cord 14:40).” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. 15 Aug 2002.

[78] Preus, Daniel. “Dr. Benke’s Participation: Your public Opinion?” Public E-Mail communication. 3 October 2001.

[79] Ibid

[80] Ibid.

[81] Mahsmann, David L. “Resolutions praise, criticize Benke role at stadium event.” St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 86. 9 Nov 2001.

[82] Ibid

[83] “The Limits of Tolerance.” Editorial. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (3 Dec 01): B6.

[84] Rudin. A. James. “Pastors’s Interfaith Outreach Brings Unfair, Hateful Retribution.” Columbus Dispatch (OH) (26 Jul 02): 2D.

[85] Ruth, Daniel. “C’mon Now Wally, All They Were Doing Was Praying!” Tampa Tribune (FL) (15 Jul 02): p. 2.

[86] Ibid

[87] Personal Communication with several pastors within the LCMS. They requested to remain anonymous for fear of censure for violating the BOD’s decision.

[88] Dispute Resolution Panel. “Decision of Dispute Resolution Panel”. St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, 2003.

[89] Ibid

[90] Ibid

[91] Ibid

[92] Ibid

[93] Commission on Constitutional Matters. “Minutes.” St. Louis: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. 20-21 Jan 2003.

[94] Ibid

[95] “Dispute panel lifts Benke Suspension”. St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 40. 13 May 2003

[96] Ibid

[97] Schulz, Wallace. Letter to Dr. Raymond L. Hartwig, Secretary, LCMS. 11 May 2003.

[98] Dispute panel lifts Benke Suspension”. St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 40. 13 May 2003.

[99] “Atlantic re-elects Benke.” St. Louis: LCMSNews, No. 51. 17 June 2003.

[100] Adams, James E. 1977. “Missouri’s ‘Compromise’”. Christian Century 94:709-710.

[101] “Concord.” Internet Home Page. http://www.concordtx.org Accessed 1 Dec 03.

[102] Personal Communication with several pastors. They requested anyonmity.