Lutheran pastor apologizes for praying in Newtown vigil

A Lutheran pastor has apologized after being chastised by his denomination’s leader for offering a prayer at an interfaith vigil for the victims of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Pastor Rob Morris, who leads the Christ the King Lutheran Church in Newtown, violated the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s rule against taking part in joint worship services, said the synod’s president, Pastor Matthew C. Harrison.

Participation could be seen as endorsing “false teaching” because some among the diverse group of religious leaders at the vigil hold beliefs different from those of synod.

Full Article

This entry was posted in Spiritual. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Lutheran pastor apologizes for praying in Newtown vigil

  1. Ben W. says:

    Because we all know it's not bringing the love of Christ to those who are hurting and grieving that is important, it's making sure that the world knows that your version of Christ is the only one that is true and that all others are damned to hell for not believing in Him the exact same way you do.

    Ugh. I wish we could get past all this petty nonsense and focus on helping people. You know, like Jesus did.

  2. Kim says:

    Maybe instead of a knee-jerk reaction you should learn what the LC-MS believes about joint worship before commenting. To accuse them of believing that members of other denominations are bound for hell is childish and ignorant.

    I could say people like you should actually be able to form a coherent statement of belief tied to Biblical principles before calling yourself a Christian – but that would also be childish and ignorant of what you actually believe.

  3. Dude says:

    Perhaps Ben heard all he needed to know about what "the LC-MS believes about joint worship" from the original article:

    "According to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, participating in joint worship events, particularly with religions that "reject Jesus," is forbidden and violated the synod's constitution. In his letter, Harrison cited Romans 16:17 as the justification for this rule."

    According to Wikipedia, this response is similar to the church's stance on joint worship services during post-911 worship. So they are keeping a consistent stance on this.

    As a casual third-party to this, it would seem that Ben accused the church officials of focusing on church doctrine over what Jesus would have been doing to help those in grief (albeit a bit snarkily). Kim then admonishes him to be able to coherently state his beliefs before calling himself a Christian… kind of reinforcing his point.

    This sort of discourse always reminds me of this scene from The Life of Brian:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk

  4. Ben says:

    Kim,

    I took my information regarding the LC-MS belief regarding joint worship from the article. If that information is incorrect, then I have been misinformed. Further, if my reaction caused you anger or felt like an attack, I apologize. I did not intend to bring harm. But rather than passively-aggressively calling names, I'd prefer to open a conversation about the topic, create a dialogue, and form a human interaction and relationship from what is possibly our disagreement on this issue.

    So here's my perspective, and I hope that you'll be willing so share yours as well so that perhaps I can learn something about where you're coming from and why my comment created your reaction:

    I believe the focus of Christianity should be on two things: our individual relationship with God and our relationship with those around us. The vital part of that individual relationship with God is the gospel message of Christ crucified, for the salvation of every person's soul (as well as mine individually). The other aspect of Christianity in my mind is my relationship with the world around me, and the opportunities that I am presented to (I hope) demonstrate Christ's love in and through my life and my actions. And, I hope again, for the people with whom I have a relationship but they do not yet have a relationship with Christ, I can conduct my relationships with them in a way that would open doors for Christ to work in their lives.

    Here's the genesis of my "damned to hell" comment: I was raised in a denomination that had a highly legalistic and very closed-minded view of the Bible. In their eyes, any other group that did not follow their doctrine exactly as they did was truly bound for hell. As you can expect from that sort of cultish environment, I have suffered a great deal of spiritual abuse. It has absolutely colored my perspective on organized religion. When I read about a denomination that won't allow its ministers to participate in joint services with ministers from other faiths then yes, I absolutely will have the knee-jerk reaction that the organization in question has a closed-minded view on their faith. Fair? Maybe not, but it is an indicator of behavior I've seen all to well. (As a side note on the "damned to hell" comment, I'm also prone to use hyperbole for effect.)

    As for the LC-MS actual belief (again, just based on what the article has said – if that's inaccurate please correct the article's statements), I don't understand it. Is there a person alive who, upon observing that service, would look at the dias of ministers and think, "Oh no, Rev. XYZ is a Lutheran, but he's praying next to a Catholic priest – I bet he's lost the faith and/or Lutherans now believe [random Catholic belief]." That seems like an exceptionally unlikely reaction from ANY person in that circumstance. In my reality, it appears that the Lutheran church feels the need to exert total control over its ministers, to the point that it doesn't allow them to participate in an event that would have the opportunity to share Christ's love and a message of healing. To me, this need to exert total control on an individual level for a matter that would not logically have the effect the leadership says it would have equals spiritual abuse. The question in my mind is: if Christ were there, would he have stood on the podium and offered words of comfort to those who were hurting if Mohammed and Buddha were also there? The answer for me is yes.

    So my question for you is: what is the basis behind that decree, if not what is stated in the article? Because if the answer is what the article states, I stand by my belief that it's a rule that is ultimately harmful and does not benefit people – and here specifically would have harmed people who were already hurting.

    Again, if my comments brought you anger, I apologize. This is how I feel. And you?

  5. Stefanie says:

    Geeding – I love this site. 🙂

  6. Andy B says:

    It's nice to know the Lutherans have their theology perfected. All the second-class believers could learn something from them.

Comments are closed.