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.

Long-Awaited Emphasis
Thank you, Lutheran Partners, for a long-awaited emphasis on mutual ministry with such excellent related articles in the July/August 2006 issue. My D.Min. thesis for McCormick Seminary (class of ‘91) was entitled “Developing Mutual Ministry in the Parish.” I have since often wondered if I were somewhat alone in my zeal to revive this pivotal doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as traditionally proclaimed by our denomination. The mutual sharing of ministry between pastor and parishioners is essential to a fuller understanding of our baptismal calling towards a blending of corporate divine gifts we all have been given to facilitate the mission of God’s church on earth.

John F. Merck
Charlotte, North Carolina

The features on mutual ministry ... properly focused on moving congregations to embrace fully the shared ministry of pastor and people. But sometimes when we stress general concepts, we lose certain specific concerns. “Pastor/Parish Relations” committees or “Support and Review” committees have often been called “Mutual Ministry” committees. Such a title may have been misleading, but the need for such committees is still real. Opportunity for feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the pastor and the effectiveness of his or her role in leadership is precious — and should not be lost in the larger focus of “mutual ministry” as set forth in those articles. (Note: they did not disparage such efforts, but neither did they mention their value.)

For those who have such a committee — or consider establishing one — I would simply suggest a critical question often missing in guidelines from synods and others. Who owns the process? Is it the pastor? Fine, then its purpose is to help him or her grow in effectiveness. Is it the congregation? Fine, then its purpose is constructive performance evaluation. Either can work, but it is absolutely critical that everyone understand which of these approaches is being used. When mixed together or ambiguous, such a process can lead to more tension and misunderstanding ... or worse!

Paul J. Hoh
Reading, Pennsylvania

The July/August issue ... is a valuable tool for consideration by Mutual Ministry groups and Professional Leaders. Susan M. Lang’s article was especially insightful. I would recommend the following for inclusion with the listing of Resources: Clergy Burnout (Fortress Press, 2006) by Fred Lehr. This fellow pastor of our church identifies twelve typical forms of co-dependence into which we often lapse.

Clyde A. McGee
Akron, Ohio

The Christian and War
I was surprised to find [a] letter to the editor by Bernhard Kern, “Time to Leave Iraq”. This is not an issue usually discussed in a church magazine. But I am glad that you included this letter anyway.... Our country is fighting a controversial war in Iraq with thousands of people, Americans and Iraqis, dying and many more maimed for life. But regrettably, in the life of our church, this seems to be on the back burner and far away. Business as usual is still “sexuality and homosexuals” or ecclesiastical in-house matters. I think it is high time that our church begins to address the issue of war....

On Target
Jerry Johnson’s article is right on target (Facets, “Screening Your Staff’s Background,” July/August 2006). Despite good intentions and the best of motives, there are individuals who previously have gotten onto the ELCA clergy roster for whom a background check would have disqualified them for candidacy and consideration for call. Let’s face it, since we rely on our synod staffs to work the process and use their discernment, they sometimes fail to see the clearly hoisted warning flags and some candidates fall through the cracks in the safety net. Once they’re planted in congregations — particularly vulnerable or at-risk congregations — the potential for disaster is not only great, but inevitable. Only a naive person, or someone with ulterior motives, would argue against the challenge to have as many safety features built into candidacy and call processes as possible. In fact, I would advocate that such “checks” be instituted at the seminary level and the synod candidacy level.

George Vila
Gardena, California

When Names are Required
I am a bit concerned that the ELCA does not have a statement that clarifies how pastors are to respond when members of their congregation councils ask for the names (written out) of those members they visit at home and in the hospital. My understanding is that both show a lack of regard for a pastor’s integrity on the part of the congregation council. If nothing else, I have always understood that requiring the pastor to publish the names of the members he visits goes against pastor-parishioner confidentiality. And, requiring the names of those visited in the hospital goes against the HIPPA guidelines.

I would greatly appreciate it if you or your staff would research these expectations and write about your findings in Lutheran Partners in the very near future.

Herbert L. Wood, Jr.
York, South Carolina

Response from Paul Schreck, executive assistant to the Secretary, ELCA: I would like to assure Pastor Wood that, although not explicitly addressed in a “statement,” the expectations for ordained ministers on this matter are quite clear. Provision 7.45 of the Constitution, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America commits this church to “the historic discipline and practice of the Lutheran church” in protecting confidentiality. Specifically, “to be true to a sacred trust inherent in the nature of the pastoral office, no ordained minister of this church shall divulge any confidential disclosure received in the course of the care of souls...” (emphasis added).

Although the Congregation Council may request a general accounting of how the pastor’s time is utilized, requiring the pastor to report (either in writing or orally) the names of individuals to whom pastoral care is provided would cause that pastor to violate this church’s discipline. “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline” adopted by the ELCA Church Council describes the disclosure of such confidential information without the express written consent of the person involved as “[c]onduct incompatible with the character of the ministerial office....” Protection of privileged information, including the identities of individuals receiving pastoral care, is an important matter. Any breach of this trust undermines the effectiveness of the pastor. If the intent is to assess professional attention to duties, some other method must be designed in consultation with the pastor.

A resource produced by Lutheran Services in America regarding concerns about HIPAA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, titled “The Intersections of HIPAA and Pastoral Care: Questions and Answers for Pastors,” can be found online at www.lutheranser-vices.org/documents/pcarehipaa1.pdf.

Paul Schreck, executive assistant to the Secretary: Constitution and Rostering Interpretation and Oversight, Office of the Secretary, ELCA, Chicago, Illinois

Considering Emma
Many thanks to Janice and Carl Peterson for raising the issue of end-of-life decisions (“End-of-Life Decisions and the Science-Theology Debate,” July/August 2006, p. 24). Way back in the 1980s, a wise Joseph Sittler said [to me in a conversation], “Every day some of our Lutheran people have to face these decisions. Unfortunately the church does little or nothing to train our pastors to help them at the time or to prepare them in advance to make these kinds of decisions.”

Consider Emma, at 96 years, a Christian saint, who chooses not to be treated for an illness known to be terminal because she has lived long enough and does not wish to burden her family with the cost and care of heroic treatments. “Besides,” she says, “after having lived over 1,100 months what do I need with another five or six?” Further she believes that there are others with far greater need of the medical resources that would be used in her treatments.

Emma is choosing to die. With a smile she says, “I thank God for giving me my life. Now I am ready to give my life back to God.”

Can anyone question Emma’s love? Emma’s faith?

Paul Bauermeister
Washington, Missouri