See also    
Letters published in past printed issues of Lutheran Partners    
Letters submitted from the website    
Submit a letter to the editor    

All letters to be published in Lutheran Partners magazine/Lutheran Partners Online must include your name and where you reside. Address: Editor, Lutheran Partners, 8765 W. Higgins Road, Chicago, IL 60631-4101; e-mail, Lutheran.Partners@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 no more than 600 words in length. Shorter letters are preferred. Those selected for publication may be excerpted in the interest of space.

Acceptable Hermeneutics
Gary Jepsen wrote of his lack of understanding of acceptable Lutheran principles of biblical interpretation, in view of the confusing nature of current theories (Letters, July/August 2005). He seems to believe there is no ELCA agreement on “proper biblical interpretations.”

I’ve learned that biblical interpretation for ELCA Lutherans has five basic points. We are to study Scripture using these tools: (1) Scripture interprets Scripture; (2) interpret texts in literary context; (3) interpret texts in historical context; (4) recognize various types of literature; and (5) discern the point.

Furthermore, we strive to make moral decisions based on Scripture, church doctrine, experience, [and] knowledge.

These principles are enumerated in theological tomes. Even better, they were clearly defined for lay members in our ELCA study booklet, Journey Together Faithfully — Part 2.

The joy of using that study is the knowledge of and use of these principles in that study. Regardless of one’s view of sexuality concerns, use of that booklet was invaluable for learning basic Lutheranism.

Gloria Weber
St. Louis, Missouri

Confidentiality and Rights
I [would like some] clarification about client/pastor confidentiality...

...[R]ecently, an Air Force cadet shared in confidence a situation with a chaplain, and now later in federal court the judge asked for the information to be disclosed. Is not person/pastor confidentiality to remain confidential; and no one, not a judge or military court, can force disclosure?

This [also] came to my attention when an Air Force cadet — could be the same one as above — confided in an attorney and the military court wanted the attorney to turn over the file.

Life today seems so complicated and complex. My question is: Are pastors of the ELCA encouraged and supported to keep confidence with persons in their congregation or anyone who comes to them and asks to keep a matter in confidence? Do ELCA pastors still honor pastor/person confidentiality? If so, how and is there a time when confidentiality needs to or must be disclosed?

I personally believe that an individual has placed his/her trust in the role of the office of clergy and expects the clergy, regardless of the situation or act, to hold the matter in confidence.

Stan Hoobing
Boise, Idaho

Tricky Word Studies
Word studies are tricky because words are used differently at different times. The common understanding of “religion” is certainly as Pr. Mullins uses it (Some Words About... Threskeia, July/August 2005). But a lexicographical look makes it clear that “religion” begins and ends in peoples’ thinking, desires, and practices. I think it was William Lazareth who first made me realize that the Christian faith (like the Hebrew and Muslim ones) is not a religion because it does not begin with humans seeking the divine. St. Paul makes it clear that for all our religious stirrings, it is not we who find God.

Are we God-wired? I don't know, but the plug lies in the Creator’s hand, not mine. That’s what Paul was saying to the philosophers on Mars Hill: “In him we live and move and have our being.” That’s not religion; that’s discovery.

Richard J. Zimmerman
Honolulu, Hawaii

Memories of Rural Life
The July/August 2005 issue was a good one. The cover of the windmill reminded me of the one my mother wanted to see “one more time” when I took her there. She could barely travel but she wanted to go to Dumas, Texas and see where she lived when she was a child (1902-1908). The house she lived in was [still] there after all those years. But no one lived there when we came by. She could still point out who lived at the neighboring farms.

Back in my early years of parish ministry, Pastor Reus was in charge of Rural Church Life, a division of the National Lutheran Council (NLC). Through his work, he probably saved a lot of our rural parishes from losing hope and dying. At that time I was in North Dakota and later at Beeville, Texas (1951-8). In 1958, the merger into The American Lutheran Church was pending which brought together Scandinavian and German Lutheran [U.S.] church bodies. Even a new hymnal was being worked on [at that time].

Now we are in the ELCA and a still newer hymnal [is being developed], with updated American English and the three-year cycle of Scripture readings, including Old Testament and New Testament lessons with RSV or NRSV translations. Our church has left the King James Version behind — that is good.

To God be the glory.

Martin H. Obst
Beorne, Texas

Stunned Reaction
“Stunned. Disappointed. Embarrassed to be a Lutheran. Heart sick.”

Recommendation #3 offered crumbs to the dogs waiting under the table, but the Churchwide Assembly declined even that.

Please, stop touting the ELCA as a welcoming church. Stop preaching sermons about risk taking, embracing outcasts, crossing boundaries, trust. This current culture-bound ELCA has determined that the primary mark of the Spirit’s presence and activity is... conservatism. How sad for the church. How sad for [the] world.

The only bright spot in all this is that slightly under half disagreed with the Assembly’s verdict. Will there be a place in this church for us in that substantial 49 percent to live out our convictions regarding scriptural interpretation and the deeper implications of the Lord’s justice and gospel?

Meanwhile, we pray for the day when LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual] couples, individuals, and their families will finally be truly welcomed into fullness of life and fullness of ministry, with all the joys and responsibilities therein.

Ron and Nancy Rude
Tucson, Arizona

God’s Call and Sexuality
To those who would like to make homosexual activity a God-given right, let me say this. Existence of inclinations, orientations, or preferences cannot relieve us of God’s call upon our lives. Social science is finding many powerful factors that shape character and influence morally laden choices. Alcoholism, anxiety-proneness, illtemperedness, promiscuity, or propensity to violence are made more likely by the presence of genetic and family variables. Is it unfair then for God to hold up sobriety and moderation, or trust and faith, or self-control and patience, or restraint and respect, as moral values for us today? No, of course not, for God is the Maker, the one who sets the design and goals. So, even if there are inclinations toward homosexual behavior it does not mean that we should make them legitimate.

The gay community argues that no one would choose to be gay. However, one does not choose to be prideful, envious, greedy, lustful, angry or slothful, yet we engage in all of these behaviors. Does that mean they are all good? No, rather it means that we are all sinners and need to repent of our sins. Furthermore, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, a drug addict, addicted to gambling, [or] a pedophile. Are these then good as well? The problem [with some homosexuals] is that [they don’t] think [their] behavior is sin, and that [they] should ask God to forgive and help [them]. Rather [they] want to “un-sin” sin.

Also, some have tried to make an analogy between our sympathetic treatment of some divorces and how we should therefore treat homosexual relationships. The analogy is wrong since we are talking about two different categories or subjects. Divorce is a departure from the faithful man and woman relationship, which was created by God. Homosexuality, even a faithful relationship, is a rewriting of creation itself.

In creation God makes Adam and Eve only, and not Adam and Robert on the side. God’s purpose in creation was upheld by Jesus in Matt. 19:4-5.“Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning, made them male and female and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” God’s creative purpose for man and woman has not changed, and no amount of biblical manipulation can change it.

Don Docken
Maplewood, Minnesota

The book of Proverbs offers this wisdom: “One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 17:5). I think this proverb describes the current debate on homosexuality fairly clearly. Some faithful Christians sincerely believe that blessing gay unions and ordaining practicing openly gay or lesbian Christians would be to justify the wicked. Other faithful Christians sincerely believe that refusing to do so is to condemn the righteous. Both sides shake their heads in disbelief at the conclusions and resolve of those who disagree with them.

Clearly, the church must come to an understanding regarding gay and lesbian Christians. Are gay and lesbian Christians simply different from straight people the way tulips are different from roses, or are gay and lesbian Christians dysfunctional heterosexuals? If gay and lesbian Christians are simply different then the church dare not commit the abomination of condemning the righteous. “It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?” (Romans 8:33b-34). Rather, let the church rejoice and celebrate the diversity of creation that God has made, for then God has given even to homosexuals the repentance that leads to life (Acts 11:18).

Repentance for gay and lesbian Christians, in this regard, is often the realization — coming to one’s senses — that they must die to the desire to be saved through their striving to conform to heterosexual norms (i.e., tulips transforming themselves into roses).

Rather, they must learn to live by faith as well-adjusted gay and lesbian Christians (repentance from dead works and faith toward God, Hebrews 6:1). If gay and lesbian Christians are simply different — tulips, not un-roses — then the church has no reason not to welcome them as part of the one body in Christ, and individually as members one of another with gifts that differ according to the grace given to us (Romans 12:5-6).

On the other hand, if the church concludes that gay and lesbian Christians are not merely different but are in fact dysfunctional heterosexual Christians, then the church must not commit the equally abominable act of justifying the wicked. Clearly, those who persist stubbornly in sin must be called to repentance and freely offered the promises of the gospel, for God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that they should turn from their ways and live (Ezekiel 18:3). But how shall they live? As well-adjusted tulips or as dysfunctional homosexuals who have conformed to heterosexual norms?

R. Don Wright
Omaha, Nebraska

In “Letters” [July/August 2005], Harvey W von Harten writes: “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.” This sentiment is oft-repeated in one form or another in the on-going debate. [H]owever, it is misleading. [W]ere it precisely refined, it would argue that Scripture says nothing about such couples, restricting coitus to heterosexual couples.

The implied ignorance on the part of Scripture and its authors is false, especially in regards to the writers such as Luke or Paul who were, at least, hellenistically astute. One needs only to consider, for example, the Sacred Band of Thebes who, at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 B.C.E, demonstrated indisputable commitment. All but forgotten in our day, it was famous in the ancient world.

Walter L. Wolff
Hazen, North Dakota

The word “homosexual” is a Latin, not a Greek, word in the Greek New Testament. “Homosexual” came into Christian vocabulary when Saint Jerome translated the Greek New Testament into Latin. But in a footnote he cited that the actual Greek term means “pedophile”; even many pagan Greeks condemned such a common cultural practice in Greece. Unfortunately, the footnote dropped out in future copies of the Latin [translation], which for centuries was used as the official and only language in the Western Church. Homosexuality is not even addressed in the New Testament!

Ergo: In matters of sexuality, no Christian should try to prove his/her interpretation of Scripture (pro or con) by misusing the Holy Word of God.

Merrill Carlson
Austin, Texas

Whole Person
There is a frequent reference to “soul” in letters, commentaries, and sermons. Soul seems to be a mystical entity within a person. Decades ago there was a popular ballad, “Body and Soul.” However, biblical scholars tell us that the biblical word for soul is nephesh, and it refers to the whole person.

Lawrence Martin
Apple Valley, Minnesota