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.

A Weird World
We were delighted to see George Murphy’s “Handiwork” article “How Weird is the World?” (Jan./Feb. 2006) And we agree that it is important for theologians and other non-scientists to have some idea of what quantum theory is about. The weird aspects of the world — [glimpsed] most notably through quantum theory — can prove fruitful for discussions in a science-theology dialogue in the context of the theology of the cross. The weirdness comes from the many implications of quantum theory that are contrary or inconsistent with common everyday experiences — as George Murphy points out — and expresses paradoxes of human existence and the hiddenness of nature. Quantum theory brings to any dialogue the concepts of uncertainty, indeterminacy, and the probability of knowing.

The nonlocality problem discussed in the article led to the Bohr-Einstein debate that was still unresolved at the time of their deaths. The debate was centered around the entire conceptual structure of quantum theory. And the debate focused on the question: Is the atom an object or an abstract construct of our imagination that provides useful relationships matching certain defining equations? If an atom really is an object then it should have a location and a definite motion. However, quantum theory denies this! There may be one or the other but not both.

This dichotomy led Heisenberg to his celebrated principle of indeterminacy or uncertainty principle and Bohr to his framework of complementarity. That is, two models [and] not one are needed to completely describe a quantum system. These models are complementary rather than contradictory and lead to the particle-wave duality discussed by George Murphy. It was later proved by John Bell that the debate could be settled experimentally, and nonlocality became a reality for quantum theory and nature.

Quantum theory demonstrates that reality can seem capricious when perceived by the five senses and common everyday experiences. This forces us to look for other ways of knowing and to admit that there are different levels of truth.

The language we use, to be sure, both creates and is created by the context we experience. We are continually challenged to understand the dynamics of our context as an interpretive framework for the way we think, act, observe, and express our reality and truth. Isn’t it interesting that both quantum theory and a theology of the cross can be expressed in similar language such as: that which is inductive, and not deductive; hidden under its opposite, and not empirically obvious; ambiguous, and not clear in intent; indirect and concealed, not direct and open; and paradoxical — to use just a few phrases. What a unifying quality for these seemingly two different world-views.

Thanks, George, for continuing to spread insight through articles that may be seen as useful for a science-theology dialogue in the context of the theology of the cross.

Carol and Janice Peterson, Columbus, Ohio

I have no quarrel with George L. Murphy’s summary of 20th-century physics, though in its condensed form it probably serves best as an invitation to read further. I do have misgivings about some theologians he refers to who try to reconcile conceptions of God’s nature and actions with aspects of quantum physics. They need to learn from the profound German Christian philosopher Georg Picht. [Some theologians] speak of such matters as the Incarnation and the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist as if words and thought could define them and reconcile them with processes that are dealt with in scientific terms. [But] God-reality is beyond all human thought. In Picht’s words, thought is ultimately “an abyss.” Beyond hints, we can know God only through his actions culminating in the ministry, death, and rising of Jesus. All this was experienced and reported, not turned into metaphysics, by his disciples and the prophets who preceded them. There is no need to reconcile them with science and there is no conflict. Unfortunately Picht’s crucial work is available only in German and I owe my knowledge of it to an enlightened and inspiring Missouri Synod colleague, Dale Laski, who has translated it for the blessing of his friends.

Leroy Martinson, Valparaiso, Indiana

Who Will Serve?
Thomas Miller’s opinion that Lutheran Partners should refuse advertisements for chaplain recruitment from the U.S. Army would have negative effects. Federal law sets the age limits for eligibility; non-Roman Catholic or Jewish clergy over 37 years of age are not eligible. Changing that legislation would be extremely difficult.

As my retirement from the U.S. Army Reserve chaplaincy wends its way through the bureaucracy, I would offer this insight as I express my opinion on the matter. I hope that Lutheran Partners continues to carry such advertisements for all branches of the Armed Forces. During my 22 years in the system, which included a 15-month deployment to Germany, I have seen many changes. One which saddens me is the diminishing number of liturgical Protestant chaplains, especially Lutheran. Another is the increasing number of chaplains who are from no solid theological tradition who will do almost anything to accommodate their ministry to prevailing trends and who will disparage any other ministries.

If Lutherans lose contact with hundreds of thousands of service members when they are on active duty, [this] would be a pity indeed. What is of importance here is not that someone cannot serve due to age restrictions, but rather finding those who do qualify for an important ministry. The issue is not age discrimination; the issue is finding the next generation of Lutheran chaplains.

Arthur Turfa, Blythewood, South Carolina

Not Latin Either
M. Carlson wrote (Letters, Nov./Dec. 2005): “The word ‘homosexual’ is a Latin, not a Greek word... ‘Homosexual’ came into Christian vocabulary when Saint Jerome translated the Greek New Testament into Latin.”

In fact “homosexual” is an English word that appeared in print for the first time in 1892, as did “heterosexual.” R.V.Young writes about the history of the words in “The Gay Invention: Homosexuality Is a Linguistic as Well as a Moral Error,” (Touchstone, Dec 2005, pp.36-41).

Young points out that the proper meaning of the English word “sex” (from the Latin root sexus or secus, meaning “cut,” “sever,” “divide,” or “halve”) is to note the division of the human species into male and female, and was used with this meaning until the 20th century. Young comments:

“If ‘sex’ is understood in its proper sense, then ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ are senseless words. Etymologically, ‘sex’ means the ‘difference’ or ‘division’ that makes men and women separate and complementary. To link the unique Latin word sexus with the Greek word for 'same' is a contradiction in terms — an unnatural verbal conjunction. ‘Heterosexual,’ on the other hand, is tautological: sex, by definition, requires someone ‘other’ or ‘different.’”

Mark Chavez, Andover, Minnesota

Quoting Romans 1:26-32
Those who quote Romans 1:26-32 [regarding sexuality issues] should be aware of the fact that Paul is writing to those who recently became Christians. He is exhorting them to give up their former pagan ways of thinking and behavior. He lists a catalog of pagan ways applying to what we today would call homosexual and heterosexual people.

To heterosexuals “natural” has many meanings: love, respect, pleasure, bearing and rearing children (some do not want children). Homosexual people and those who have lesbians and gays among their family, friends, and colleagues know they feel “natural” too, except for bearing children (even though they may love and want to adopt them). They can fear and love God and help people the same as heterosexuals.

Then don’t forget Paul in 2:1,“when we judge others we are judging ourselves.” Some Christians believe homosexuality is an aberration while other Christians believe God creates a variety of sexual beings of equal value and objects of God’s redeeming love. If the latter is true, then we will have to stop using homosexuals as scapegoats.

Or perhaps we may be like the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) who thanks God for not being homosexual like other people but being a righteous heterosexual.

Merrill J. Carlson, Austin, Texas

Serving the Death Penalty
(Note: The author titled his letter “A Cynical Piece on the Death Penalty”)

As the trials for murder proceeded in Laramie, Wyoming, and in Jasper, Texas, for alleged hate/racial crimes, it dawned on me that the time has come to revise our juridical system. Therefore I proposed a radical and yet biblical method of meting out justice. In particular, I am referring to the death sentence, and the role of the twelve-member jury that metes it out.

Take, for example, the case of Matthew Shepherd in Wyoming. His murderers, so charged, tried, and eventually convicted, should have experienced the same kind of death they had perpetrated on Matthew Shepherd. Only their death would not be by lethal injection, hanging, or the electric chair. The selected representatives of the public, namely the jury itself, would have carried it out. Those twelve members would simply replicate in as close detail as possible the method and manner of death delivered to Matthew by the perpetrators of the crime. No sterile means of justice by a third party would be allowed. The jury would act on behalf of the entire body politic, and in the case in Texas, the jury would see to it that all guilty of murder would be dragged behind a pickup as the victim was, until their body parts experienced the same dismemberment as the victim himself.

Two things would be accomplished in American jurisprudence: First, the actual crime would respond to a text Bible-quoting folks fail to mention, i.e., Deuteronomy 19:21, which reads “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Second, the cost of executing criminals who evoke the death penalty would be absorbed into the cost of impaneling, selecting, and maintaining those very people who heard the evidence first-hand at the trial. Who else could best carry out the death penalty than those who delivered that verdict?

A final benefit would be a renewed examination of the gravity and meaning of the death penalty itself in American society. Jury selection would take on a new meaning and purpose that would benefit all of us.

L.A. Jake Jacobson, Wilsonville, Oregon