What about Public Ed.?
No discussion of church-sponsored elementary and secondary schools can be limited to what such schools mean for the mission of the church (March/April). Private schools, whether parochial or charter, draw students from the families that care most about the education of their children and, in the case of parochial schools, have the resources to pay the bills. The result is a further decrease in community support for public schools and one more contribution to the growing socio-economic division in this country. Piety cannot exclude the integrity which requires conversation about this issue.

John W. Vannorsdall
Orange, Massachusetts

Looking for “Results”
As a recently retired ELCA Pastor, I resonated with Steven L. McKinley’s recent article on “Looking Ahead — and Looking Forward to It” (Jan./Feb.). He quips: “If the Lord tarries and the creek don’t rise, the time will come when I will be able to retire and actually have a life of some kind. Amazing.”

What I find amazing is that I have shifted from 41-plus years of parish ministry to retirement, and now life is measurable in terms of “results” and “productivity” which I did not have in any objective or observable assessment as a parish pastor. My wife and I do projects around and in the house that have a “beginning, a middle, and an end” to them. I compare them to years of confirmation instruction, and week-long Bible camp experiences, and Back Packing times in Wyoming’s Bighorn Mountains, to name just a few [examples] in the past years from 1963 to the present, and I have no idea whether any of those times with people [who gathered] in Christ’s name and life had any productive or resulting effect on anyone.

Now, in retirement, everything is measurable and resolvable in terms of a result and effect in our lives. Maybe this is what the Holy Spirit wanted all along: Wait until retirement for results for what you do and who you have been to, and with others. It is frustrating, however, as I must admit at this point. I’d like to know more of what happened because I was in ministry these many years with people.

So retirement is now something that is both a “looking ahead” and a “review” of the past. But Jesus did say we are not to let our left hand know what our right hand is doing, or vice versa. And “inasmuch as you did to and for the least of these...You did it to me.” Surprises about what’s past motivate one into the future. That’s enough productivity and result for any of us, I trust.

L.A. Jake Jacobson
Wilsonville, Oregon

Whose Interpretation?
Charles E. Rein asserts that “Rather than explaining proper biblical interpretation, which has always been taught in our seminaries, our pastors have been intimidated by members who learned and practiced biblical literalism in the community” (Letters, March/April).

Really!??! And which form of “proper biblical interpretation” would Pr. Rein have us explain and teach in and to our congregations? How about Bultmannian exegesis? Or Bornkamm? Markus Barth or Markus Borg? Or might it be the sort of interpretation employed by Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar? Might we even throw in a dose of biblical interpretation via process philosophy? Or how about deconstructionism?

You see, according to Pst. Rein, the issue is rather simple. If we simply throw enough confusion into the mix and adequately deconstruct the Scriptures, we can make the Bible say just about anything we want, and sound rather erudite in the process. However, that is not what Luther and the Lutheran Confessions advocate when espousing, not convoluted methods of interpretation, but the clear and consistent witness of Scripture.

You see, the problem is that there appears to be very little agreement in the ELCA as to what “proper biblical interpretation” actually is or should be. No wonder we have a church that seems to be a ship without a rudder. No wonder we espouse just about everything except historical, traditional, and confessional Lutheranism. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk!

Gary R. Jepsen
Puyallup, Washington

Sexuality Recommendations
Like many, I want the ELCA to make a just and appropriate accommodation to gay persons who strive to express their calling and dignity as people of God. This effort requires the ELCA to “sin bravely,” and with assurance of forgiveness realize that in the church and the world sin is inevitable and discipleship unavoidable.

However, the current proposal of the Church Council has less to do with sinning bravely and more to do with proposing artlessly. It departs from confessional teaching that ordination belongs to the whole church and each ordination is in principle approved and practiced by the whole church. Allowing individual congregations the right and rite of “their” ordination in “exception” from collective practice disavows the unity of this church and its oneness of belief and practice.

Current ELCA ordinations set us apart from such bodies as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Episcopal Church. Stressing the congregationalism of Missouri, C. F. W. Walther in 1852 wrote that “The holy ministry is the authority conferred by God through the congregation, as holder of the priesthood and of all church power, to administer in public office the common rights of the spiritual priesthood in behalf of all” (“On the Ministry,” Thesis VII) —though their 1995 Handbook (24) allows a larger role for district presidents. By contrast, the Episcopal Church stresses the indispensability of the historic episcopate in exercising the power of ordination, and with ecclesiological recklessness also permits “local option” ordinations.

Taking a middle course, the ELCA stresses the interdependence of congregations and churchwide (Constitution, 7:44.A96. a), and the normative but not indispensable (not jure divino) role of an ordaining Lutheran episcopate (Synod Constitution, S8.12c).

The ecclesiological intentions of Articles V, VII, and XIV in The Augsburg Confession preclude the Church Council proposal, implying as they do ecclesial unity in practice and teaching; and this is solidly stated by Melanchthon in Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope: “the church retains the right to choose and ordain ministers” (72). This right does not belong exclusively or by divine right to bishops nor to congregations; it belongs to the church which includes both the special ministry of the ordained and the priesthood of all believers. As written in LBW Occasional Services, ordination in rite expresses the oneness of the church and its ministry (193), and it expresses the teaching of the church which the ordinand vows to uphold in accordance with Holy Scriptures, the creeds, and the confessions (194). This very teaching is controverted if ordination is done for “exceptional” reasons which, in effect, fragment the body.

Ordination is neither a juridical action to legitimate public ministers nor an “exceptional” action taken by congregations or individuals to legitimate their own ministry of the Word. Ordination centers in the call from God to the ordinand through the church, to continue the ministry of Christ by laity and ordained. The proposed “local option” will not uphold the ELCA in unity of fellowship and teaching as we testify in our confession and rites. A more faithful way is needed.

Paul J. Seastrand
Lewistown, Montana

Our bishops and boards are being consumed by a decision that they fear may divide our church. But it isn’t as hard a decision as they are making it. My advice would be to follow two basic principles. The first is a kind of bumper-sticker theology, and as bumper stickers go, it isn’t too bad. It’s WWJD — What would Jesus do? And I realize that this is not always easy to discern, since Jesus did not have to face the same decisions we are faced with today, but let’s at least start there. And when we run into a brick wall, then follow the advice my seminary professor, Stan Schneider, gave me: “If you have to sin, sin on the side of grace.”

So let’s suppose that James and John are gay and they come to Jesus and say that they want to be disciples. WWJD? We really can’t say for sure, because we don’t know whether or not James and John were gay. But we do know that Jesus never spoke a word against gay or lesbian people and he did accept a lot of other folks who were outside the generally accepted circles. Lepers, centurions, tax collectors, prostitutes, or at least one woman with a pretty shady reputation. In fact, as I read the New Testament, the only folks I see Jesus getting really upset with were some of the church leaders, the pious ones who were so concerned about keeping the law.

“But,” you say, “Jesus was also concerned with keeping the law.” And that’s true, Jesus did not come to destroy the law but fulfill it. But you have to admit that he put some new interpretations on it, especially the traditional understanding of keeping the Sabbath. He pointed out to his critics that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In other words, the laws are there for our benefit, not as some test to see if we can pass, which of course we can’t, since, as good Lutherans know, we are saved by grace alone.

But as good Bible students we need to take into account that homosexual activity is condemned. We need to be clear here; nowhere in Scripture is there condemnation of homosexual orientation. Okay, so the jury is still out on that one. But after discussing this with my gay and lesbian friends and reading as much as I can about the issue, I’m pretty sure that some people are just created homosexual. Since we aren’t absolutely certain, let’s assume it is true. Would you feel the same way about homosexual persons if they didn’t make a choice? And if we can’t be sure, here’s where my second principle comes into play: If we have to sin because we just don’t know, sin on the side of grace.

And if this were the way they were created, would Jesus want to deprive them of the same intimacy that heterosexuals enjoy? Would Jesus want them to live promiscuously or in committed relationships? Would Jesus not want them to use their God-given gifts in a ministry they felt called to? WWJD? And again, if we have to sin, sin on the side of grace.

Will it divide the church? That’s not the question. The question is, How do we faithfully live out the good news? Or WWJD? And don’t be so anxious, remember what Jesus said in Mark 8:35.

Gil Splett
Madison, Wisconsin

Scripture knows nothing about couples that are gay or lesbian, who seriously care about each other and want to commit themselves to a loving and permanent marriage relationship for life. Calling for a vote on this issue now in the ELCA would not be helpful. As fellow Christians we need to share the reasons that we have acquired about why we have chosen our given views and how we can live together.

Since we regularly confess that we are “in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves,” we sense the need to confess our sins, not only sins which we recognize but especially those sins of which we are not aware that are known only by God. Thus we cannot be definite about which of our personal judgments might be in need of change and about which we should keep. Thus, the most appropriate way for us to proceed would be to realize that we cannot be certain that we are on God’s side and could benefit from further study, reflection, and dialogue.

Are we strictly biblical? I judge that most of us no longer believe we need to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it...” (Gen. 1:28b), since the Earth is now overpopulated already and harmfully mistreated! We do not follow all of the customs of ancient Israel, such as requiring a present-day brother-in-law to impregnate a barren sister-in-law for his dead brother to have offspring, since Onan was supposedly killed by God for withdrawing from intercourse and spilling his “seed” on the ground (Gen. 38). Paul regarded homosexual acts as a punishment for idolatry (Romans 1:18-25). None of these attractions has been linked to idolatry. Moreover Jesus also taught us “to judge not that we be not judged” (Matthew 7:1).

In Scripture and in our Christian tradition, God is experienced as doing many “new things.” He delivered Hebrew slaves out of Egypt and led them to a land of their own. He raised up prophets in Israel to speak a word of judgment to the kings, priests, and people in ancient Israel. He also spoke critically of certain persons who continued Old Testament scriptural admonitions. Why should we not treat gays and lesbians, especially those who appear loving and committed to one another, in the spirit of Jesus’ love? This is especially true since we have even changed Jesus’ and Paul’s admonitions related to remarriage for heterosexuals (Matthew 5:31-32 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

The Bible had no understanding of our contemporary view of a gay or lesbian sexual orientation or anything like lifelong commitments of gay and lesbian couples. We also know how much more safe gay men and women would be in permanent committed relationships. Not allowing something similar to marriage is not only discriminatory, but also seems harsh and vindictive. Moreover it has been shown that homosexual children, adopted by gay or lesbian persons, benefit very much from the caring they receive from those who have had to live through growing up gay and lesbian — often in hostile environments.

Congregations can be enlightened by inviting committed homosexual couples to share their life stories in open sessions, asking them questions, and having them describe their experiences growing up, especially in church. Ask yourself, “How would you have felt had you as early as five to eight years of age realized that you were not going to marry a person from the opposite sex or had you been in middle school and your first sexual feelings were toward the same sex?” When I heard comments like these, I began to realize how difficult life has been growing up as homosexual persons, difficult enough to be responsible for the majority of whatever psychological disorders they might suffer. It would be in the spirit of Jesus for heterosexual Christians to take an empathetic view of homosexuals by realizing that their psychological disruptions are not related to their being gay or lesbian, but results from the negative views of religion and society toward homosexuality.

Would it not be meaningful were all humans to experience God’s good gift of their sexuality, and in doing so could save countless gay and lesbian suicides and sufferings that they and their families have experienced as a result of our religious and cultural negative and condemnatory views of persons who are gay or lesbian?

I have shared what are my reasons that has led me to accept my fellow Christians who are gay or lesbian and to ordain them into the ministry of our church. I look forward to others sharing their views whichever side of this issue they might find themselves.

Boyd Gibson
Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania

What’s at Stake?
(Re: Paul M. Bauermeister’s letter [Letters, March/April 2005] who wrote a letter responding to two articles, entitled “What’s at Stake in Our Sexuality Debates?” [Nov./ Dec. 2004])

Trexler and Ritola asked, “What’s at stake?” Paul Bauermeister answers by telling us “What’s important” but he got it wrong. And what he got wrong is what is really at stake.

Bauermeister wrote, “The ELCA is too important and too beautiful to be taken apart by poor management of these issues.”

No, Paul, the ELCA is not “too important.” What’s important — what’s at stake — is the faith once delivered to the saints. The ELCA is not the church. The ELCA is not a church. The ELCA is not important. Something else is important.

Harvey W. Von Harten
Valley Stream, New York

The “Artificial” Test
It is reported that the Vatican is about to “recommend maintaining life support even for people in a ‘permanent vegetative state’ without any discernible brain function” (Newsweek, Feb. 28, 2005). The Catholic Church has always been opposed to any form of artificial contraception or human intervention to prevent the formation of life in the womb. But, isn’t it true that life sustained solely by modern medical technology has something of the “artificial” about it and exists only because of “human intervention”?

If scientific methods to prevent the beginning of life are forbidden, how can similar methods be required to prevent its ending? While active euthanasia will always be offensive to Christian consciences, “letting nature take its course” can actually be a powerful witness to the believer’s faith in the wisdom of God’s eternal plan and design.

When thinking on this issue, we would do well to ponder Christ’s words where he says, “Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?” (Matthew 6:25)

James E. Townsend
Sacramento, California

Ministry and Pope’s Suffering
Like everyone else I have been watching and reading and listening with interest to the news relating to the passing of Pope John Paul II. So much of his life and ministry was a witness to the cross of Christ. There was through him a clear message of Christ’s selfless suffering for the sake of the world and our own call as Christians to faithfully follow with lives of service which will entail some suffering. His groaning hour of morning prayer seemed a good example of this message.

It made me kind of sad, because this message seems to be less than clear in our ELCA. Our Lutheran heritage claims to lift up the “theology of the cross,” and yet we are silent on the value of suffering and sacrifice. Most congregations don’t ask for a pastor who will suffer with them and serve with them in the shadowed valleys. Instead, they insist on one that would love to be their pastor, one that could not think of anything they would rather do, one that will be happy and make them happy too. Likewise in our national and synod offices: If a pastor and a congregation suffer through some difficult experiences, it is almost automatically considered a mismatch or something that can be fixed if the pastor gets some psychological help. Sometimes this is the case but often it is not. When, if ever, is the pastor or the congregation encouraged to simply bear the cross and rejoice in a suffering that will bring endurance and hope for the sake of the Kingdom?

When we recruit candidates for the ministry we try to entice them with talk about the wonderful fulfilling life they will lead but we are careful not to mention the cross. Our main job as pastors is simply to suffer. When we suffer we have a better capacity for communicating the message of the cross .When the burdens become too much, we turn to our Lord and somehow what comes out of our pulpits more clearly than it did before is Christ and him crucified. What kind of future pastors will we have if they don’t expect to be called to take up their cross and follow our Lord?

We clergy have been taught to think more in terms of our own needs and fulfillments rather than the church’s needs or other pastors' needs. What else could explain the disparity between vacancies in bigger towns and bigger churches verses smaller towns and smaller churches? It can’t possibly be the work of the Holy Spirit. Our mobility system needs to be overhauled. If you have been in a call you like for a while, you should take a turn in a call you don’t like so someone else can have a call they like after years of one they didn’t like.

This brings up the issue of clergy salaries. Why is the disparity related to the size of the church or the executive position? Isn’t this the way of the world which we are not to conform to? Isn’t this a form of glory theology that hides the theology of the cross? If we are not going to have a more equitable salary system then we should at least base the disparity on the amount of suffering. This seems more Christian and less American to me.

We also need to change our pension system. Instead of counting calendar years, we should count suffering years.

Sometimes three years in a difficult parish setting has as much suffering as an average setting would have in eight years. On the other hand, sometimes a match is so nice between a pastor and a parish that ten years should only count for two. When your ministry adds up to thirty-five suffering years, you can retire.

Why are we so silent about the cross with one another? Why don’t we bear one anothers’ burdens? What are we afraid of? Where is our faith?

Eric Midthun
Gonvick, Minnesota

Sermons in Song
Our Lutheran church at one time was known as “The Singing Church.” Probably one of the main reasons the Protestant Reformation spread as quickly was the music it spawned, due to Luther’s singing and composing. Luther’s musical messages were directed not just to the people but to the ministers and their training in music. In his Table Talk he said “...Before a youth is ordained into the ministry, he (sic) should practice music in school” (emphasis added), from Luther’s Works, Weimar edition, 5, No. 6248 as cited in What Luther Says: an Anthology, compiled by Ewald M. Plass [Concordia Publishing House: St. Louis, 1959], vol. 2, p. 980)

I am not aware of any Lutheran seminary that provides this “exercise in music” especially if it’s singing in a sermon. I have used singing in preaching from the beginning of my ministry. I first used a portion of a hymn at the beginning or end of a sermon, and did it a capella. The response of my congregation was so appreciative [that] I prepared a song-sermon for the following Christmas. The sermon consisted of stanzas of Christmas hymns, solos from The Messiah, spirituals, Christmas solos, and the spoken word. My organist would give me a note or chord and accompany me. There were no pauses, interruptions, or hesitations. The sermon flowed together as a unit, ending with me raising my hands inviting the congregation to join me in singing “Joy to the World.” This was so well received I prepared another for Easter. For some fifteen years I had a song-sermon on these festivals. People packed the church.

These sermons were in no way entertainment, sensational, or for popularity. They were more biblical than most of my other sermons except about half of them were sung. I was inspired to sing in my sermons by the many references in the Old and New Testaments. For instance: Isaiah 48,“With the voice of singing declare ye this”; Ezra 3:11, “And they [priests and Levites] sang one to another in praising and giving thanks unto Jehovah”; 2 Chron. 5:12,“The Levites which were singers…”; 1 Chron. 6:32,“They ministered with singing”; Acts 16:25,“Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God. ”These are just a few; there are many more.

I studied voice in college and then for two years under a Latvian refugee who had been the first baritone in the National Opera of Latvia. He said “Good singing and good speaking come from the same areas of one’s mouth and diaphragm.” At 65 his voice was that of a 45-year-old and [he] attributed it to having learned the Belle Canto style of singing in Italy. This method does not come naturally. It must be learned, and can be [learned] by seminary students who can sing.

I do not suggest that our seminaries give voice lessons, but I do suggest that they have a short course in the introduction to “Singing in Sermons.” It would not only create a new outreach in preaching but aid them in projecting words, meanings, and ideas. Also, we would be doing more than we have in following Martin Luther’s advice: “...Before a youth is ordained into the ministry, he (sic) should practice music in school.”

David F. Conrad
Oneonta, Alabama

Correction
The author of a letter, entitled “Shackled Policies” by the magazine (May/June), wrote that the title was misleading. It is not the institutional church that is “shackled,” rather it is rostered gay and lesbian individuals who are, in the author’s opinion, shackled by the church’s policies regarding sexuality. We regret any misunderstanding this may have caused.

All letters to be published in Lutheran Partners must be signed. Address: Editor, Lutheran Partners, 8765 W. Higgins Road, Chicago, IL 60631-4101; e-mail, lpartmag@elca.org, Lutheran_Partners@ecunet.org, or LUTHERAN PARTNERS (if on Ecunet/Lutherlink). Because we wish to publish as many letters as possible and at the same time maintain some control over the length of the letter section, letters should be 600 words or less in length. Shorter letters are preferred. Those selected for publication may be excerpted in the interest of space.