I did not see the 9/11 memorial as a syncretistic “combination” service: more like a coming together of the various communities that make up the nation, so each could pray for the nation in its own way. Each religious group used their own ritual language (if any) and their own prayers and all that was expected of others in the audience was respectful attention.
Evidently there’s a large part of the Missouri Synod who would rather take it the hard-line Old Testament stance and not “suffer any false gods”: that not only should folks not worship any other deities, but must not do anything that recognizes any other religion on an equal footing, or be in the presence of their practices.
How defensible is this position in today’s America? (BTW they may have a solid doctrinal point from their own POV, but making an example of the Synod member that was at the 9/11 Memorial is taking a huge PR risk.)
I don’t see a more recent news item at their site.
The Missouri (and Wisconsin) synods of the Lutheran church are not exactly known for their ecumenical nature. That’s why they did not join most other Lutherans in the formation of the ELCA a few years back.
I’m not sure how this is a big PR risk…the kinds of folks who would most be bothered their actions are not the kinds of folks usually drawn to the Missouri Synod.
He was ordered to apologize to ALL Christians? I’m still waiting to hear from him. Of course, alphabetical order seems logical, and it’s only been a year… how long do you think it will take him to call all of us? If my name begins with ‘M,’ when can I expect to hear from him?
I’ve ranted about this in the Pit months ago. I noticed the update on the LCMS website a few days ago and started to rant again then. But I didn’t want to be accused of “attacking” the LCMS again. In my not so humble opinion, this is a despicable example of Christianity turn into self-boasting, exclusionary hypocrisy. I’ll go so far as to say it is antithetical to my understanding of Christ’s message.
Call me crazy, but wasn’t there alot of fear that the attack on the WTC would lead to backlash against the Muslim community, so
everyone decided to get together and show we can all, in fact, just get along?
But Benke, in the name of God, chooses to say that we can not live and let live.
I seem to recall the first commandment is something to the effect of not taking the name of the Lord thy God in vain. While I can’t speak for the Almighty (assuming there is on, for the sake of argument), I think these guys are going to have a lot of explaining to do once they hit the Pearly Gates.
God: So, tell me again how you managed to get your egomaniacal bigoted doctrine from My Word? Benke: Well, there’s this bit in bible… God: You mean that part that says “Love thy neighbor as thyself?” Benke: Well, not that part… God: You mean the part where I said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?” Benke: Well, no, not that part either… God: The part where I said “Before you examine the mote in thy neighbors eye, remove the beam from thine own?” Benke: Not that part either. It’s in the back somewhere.
President Benke, welcome to hell. Here’s your accordian.
This doesn’t surprise me much, actually. The Missouri Synod sits, in general, slightly to the right of the Birchers. It’s where all the dour Germanic patriarchs went when the rest of the Lutherans got all ecumenical on them.
Expressing surprise at this turn of events is slightly less logical than being scared out of your skin when the Jack-In-The-Box pops up.
I seem to recall about 15 years ago there was a big to-do in the Missouri Synod. It seems a professor in the local seminary was accused of heresy. I can’t remember what the outcome was, other than no one got stoned, burnt at the stake, or boiled in oil. Thank God.
I’ve actually given some thought to this, and I do think the Lutheran Synod’s position has a grain of truth.
I am a moderate Christian. I believe absolutely that there is only one God; it is, in fact, the first and most basic tenet of my personal beliefs.
I’m unable to decide where that would leave me in the hypothetical situation where I was invited to services that declared something other than that. What should I do when witnessing a pagan ritual, for example, that calls upon spirits I don’t believe in?
I recognize the duty to allow others to believe as they deem fit, and to be respectful of those beliefs. But as a Christian, I believe I also cannot do anything that violates the first tenet of my faith, which is that there is only one God. And by standing by while others invoke the name or blessings of other gods, do I not by my silence imply that those other gods exist?
One of the things I’ve learned from this Board is the importance of being willing to stand up and say “I don’t believe that.” Because people will take silence as assent. If I don’t say “Fred Phelps doesn’t speak for me and is not a Christian,” then people say “well, you must agree with what he says, becasue you don’t oppose it.” Doesn’t it work the same if I am silent while others invoke gods or spirits I not only do not believe in, but affirmatively state, as a matter of faith, do not exist?
In other words, I can see that there is a place at which “there is no God but the One God, though I respect your right to think otherwise” can look an awful lot like “I think there is no God but the One God, but I could be wrong.” I am willing and indeed want to stand for the former; I am very wary of being taken as standing for the latter, which is absolutely against my beliefs. But that can be a very fine line, IMO.
Slight hijack for interesting historical background behind this:
I studied Missouri History in getting my BA from the University. Specifically, as part of the course, I had to do a history of a Missouri community. I picked Concordia, since it was exactly 69 miles from Columbia, and I always liked that road sign. It turns out I learned alot about the history of religion in Missouri as a result of my choice.
Missouri was basically founded by three different groups. One group was people from Kentucky of the farmer class, who perhaps owned at most one or two slaves. Another was the sons of wealthy slaveowning families on the eastern seaboard. The third group was Lutheran Germans, most of which came here at first because of a popular book that had been published in Germany by a Missouri settler comparing our state to parts of Germany. They came in wave upon wave to our state, bringing their religion with them. At the time, the South had not yet been evangelized (and when it was evangelized it turned mostly Methodist at first, Baptist later on) so the German immigrants were far and away the largest Protestant Christian presence in the state. The Germans were staunch abolitionists, and this polarized the population during the decades leading upto the Civil War. Missouri Lutherans, as I understand it, draw alot on their tradition in this state, so I’m not surprised that the Missouri Synod’s policies are resistant to change.
Of course, Missouri goes extreme with everything religious. The pentacostal Assemblies of God church was founded in southwest Missouri, and you will find no more extremely fundamentalist, religiously unwavering group in the nation. It always amazed me (and this is personal experience here, so don’t take it as a universal indictment) how each of the three major denominations in Springfield, MO (where I attended high school) spent so much time battering each other. I got off scot-free as an athiest, but get an Assemblies of God parishoner going against a United Methodist and the ensuing fireworks were quite something.
That’s the kind of thing that happens when we have Christian leadership that ignores what Jesus taught…
Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
It is my belief that Jesus message was (essentially) “Your relationship with God should be between you and God, and is not a matter for others to be concerned with (hence Matthew 6:5). Your relationship with others will be the outward sign of your relationship with God, and it should follow xyz guidelines”
Where “xyz guidelines” are, amongst other things, loving thy neighbor, judging not, etc.
I am therefore of the opinion that ‘ardent’ believers such as the Missouri Synod, Westbro Baptist Church, Jack Chick, etc are not following the teachings of Jesus very well. I personally believe that God (as outlined in the New Testament) would be more offended by the Missouri Synods decision to publicly censure and berate this one person than He would be over the President Benke’s tolerance and participation in this prayer service.
I don’t see how this is true. Perhaps if you recited the prayers and invocations with them, then you could be be seen as endorsing their beliefs. But standing silently is simply showing respect for their right to believe in whatever Gods they serve.
I disagree with your conclusion of concerning silent assent in this case. It is true that if you don’t oppose Fred Phelps, then some will assume you secretly agree with him. But it is not necessarily true that your silence during a “heathen” prayer indicates you believe that prayer to be effective.
The difference is in the motive. Fred Phelps is calling for violence against another real, human. He must be opposed.
Prayers, however, are simply calling upon a diety who may or may not exist.
nitpick…it’s the Missouri synod of the Lutheran church. They are a distinct synod from the “mainstream” ELCA group of Lutheran churches. (I think I got that right…I’m an RC guy)
**
I think a lot of it depends on the context. Are you the only person thats not pagan…is the service really a “pagan service”. Would a reasonable person think that your mere presence at the event is an endorsement of the beliefs. If you are a lutheran minister showing up at a Samhain service…then yeah it could lend credence to the notion that you were in “support” of that kind of thing.
In the case of the OP though, the nature of the event, and the uniqueness of the event, does not seem to be putting one particular stamp of theology on the event.
For example, Roman Catholics are required to attend an RC mass to fulfill their liturgical “obligation” In a general (and overly simplified) sense, attending another denominations’ service “doesn’t count”. However, every year, on one Sunday in spring, there is an ecumenical service at the basketball arena in the town where I went to college. The service is planned for many faiths (yes…Christian), and the RC bishop publically announces a special dispensation for those RC-ers who attened that service…IOW it “counts”. Attendance at this event does not mean that the central belief of weekly attendance at Mass is wrong, or that the sacraments are not important that day.
I realize that this is a bit different, because all attendees are “Christian”. Yet for the perspective of the RC church, that normally does not translate into a proper liturgy for church members. On this day, for this special circumstance, it’s OK.
**
Well what happens if you’re not involved in the Fred Phelps thread? Are you expected to join all threads where you have a particular moral viewpoint…lest other dopers infer a viewpoint for your absense?
**
**
[/quote]
There is also an argument to made for “time and place” considerations. I’m pro life. I’m not ashamed to debate and stand up for those beliefs. Right now, there is a thread in IMHO asking about people’s abortion experiences. Should I pounce on that thread outlining the serious moral and ethical problems (as I see it) with abortion? Would that serve much purpose? Does my silence mean that I endorse abortion?
I’ve been drug to church by Christian friends. I sat still and respected their practices and their beliefs when they prayed, when they did their altar call, etc. I didn’t run out of the building, I didn’t shout out how wrong they all were.
I’m about as staunch an atheist as you’ll ever meet. I would never give even tacit approval of the belief in god, let alone the supernatural accessories that belief takes on in the Christian religion. I didn’t see myself as approving of their beliefs by attending their ceremony and remaining silent. I had my own motives for doing so, mostly friendship for attending and common politeness during the ceremony.
Intellectually, I know that either A or ~A is true. It has to be one or the other. “Support” and “opposition” of those statements is a different matter entirely. I can believe something is false without “opposing” it, I might simply not care to waste my time on something that doesn’t really concern me. I might decide that even if it’s false, opposing it wouldn’t do much good for anybody. So this particular minister decided not to actively oppose a contending viewpoint at a point in time at which opposition would have been especially divisive when unity was in fact the desired result. Sounds like a smart decision to me.
Thanks for the responses. I’m not trying to start a debate, I’m just interested in others’ opinions on the issue of when, in this context, respect for others’ rights to their beliefs may or may not look like condoning those beliefs. It sounds like you guys don’t see the line as a particularly fine one, so maybe I’m seeing a hypothetical problem where one doesn’t exist.
I’m not trying to start a debate, I’m just interested in others’ opinions on the issue of when, in this context, respect for others’ rights to their beliefs may or may not look like condoning those beliefs. It sounds like you guys don’t see the line as a particularly fine one, so maybe I’m seeing a hypothetical problem where one doesn’t exist.