Peter S,
He asked (did not order-- an apology can't be ordered, and there is no way a DP or SP could order me to say something publicly I wasn't sincere about) Pr. Morris to issue his non-apology apology in which he stood by his decision but expressed regret at having offended those who felt otherwise, and called for everyone to chill while we take a fresh look at the guidelines.
I question this. When the Synodical President asks for an apology, what exactly does that mean? Is it merely a request, just as if I asked for one?
Or is there something more to it?
It seems to me that many just want to act as if this is just a discussion — and that there is no threat, no danger, no de-frocking involved. Is that true?
I've found your responses inadequate on this Peter. You are acting as if this situation were simply what goes on a forum board: discussion, back and forth — maybe some name calling, having to reel in a few individuals — but other than that, nada.
When I read this:
I asked Pastor Morris to apologize for taking part in this service. I did this for several reasons:
1. I believe his participation violated the limits set by Scripture regarding joint worship, particularly with those who reject Jesus (Romans 16:17), and was thus a violation of Article VI of the LCMS Constitution.
And this is being said by the Synodical President, I see the request coming from a position of power and authority. He has the authority to admonish and reprove in this situation, does he not? So, his request is not just a request.
Once again, I'm not saying that Pres Harrison is playing a heavy here. I am saying that you can't neatly separate his pastoral role from his authoritative role. And it is this point that I have tried to make: in our Synod, there is no protection for individuals when it comes to unionistic and syncretistic activities. Since we have initially set the bar so high — praying with other Christians is wrong (a la Brux) — there are no CTCR documents or prior actions that an individual can say "Well, this was my reasoning."
I mean, we all know that to call something "a worship service" is a fairly low standard. (I think the current definition is "Someone prays") A public high school Baccalaureates — two prayer, no vesting, a "sermon" that needs not mention religion, no sacred music — is considered a worship service. What else would not be?
But nor is it the case that our position is "We do not participate in anything that could ever remotely look like a worship service that has non-Christians taking part." The whole point of our 2004 CTCR document illustrates that. The entire document is proof that we do not hold to this position.
The frustration is that all of this discussion is simply for naught. When it comes to fellowship within the Synod, we simply ignore what has been said previously. And we simply pick and choose what we want our fellowship position to be. This is true of both X and Y.(insert your choice of appropriate distinctions within the LCMS) .
And what further frustrates me Peter is how the argument is framed in this situation. Too often, the criticism is not "I don't think Pastor Morris should have participated in an event such as that." Rather it is "That was a worship service and by participating in it, Pastor Morris has taught universalism."
By setting up the argument in this fashion, we miss the point. Our Synod has had plenty of opportunities to say "Never participate in anything that looks close to a worship service." We have not. So, for every event that looks like a worship service, to have the accusation again ("Well, the problem is this is not a civic event/hootenany/other — it was a worship service and we ought not to participate in them.") is also frustrating.
The whole thing frustrates me, because it shows how we simply cannot talk about and deal with the issue of fellowship within our Synod. Which is why I have come out of the woodwork to comment on this subject.
