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.

An Evangelical Both/And
It was invigorating to read Nathan Frambach’s “Evangelical Living” (September/October 2006) as I rode both the highs and lows of his article. What a superb witness account he shared regarding Leslie (from the Wiccan religion). His focus on listening and caring are right on target. Alas, then he went on to trash “evangelism” as “not our business.” I fully understand his repulsion to coercive manipulations, yet the New Testament clearly calls us repeatedly to “go and tell” and to "proclaim the Gospel.” It is our unique and primary assignment. ELCA Lutherans do not have a problem with over-speaking! We need to focus on and practice caring evangelical witness as something we do. It needs to be a both/and, not an either/or. We “show and tell”; we “live it and lip it.”

Chris Brekke
West Concord, Minnesota

Deeper Listening
Thanks to William A. Decker (“Listening, Learning, Living,” September/October 2006) for his insightful reading of Acts 8’s story of Philip and his encounter with the eunuch on the Gaza road as an exemplary episode of what “evangelism” is all about. Deeper listening to the text, however, is called for, and leads to yet another dimension of evangelism: its boundary-breaking character.

St. Luke takes great care in introducing Philip’s exotic conversation partner on the road to Gaza with seven vivid and highly detailed descriptive words and phrases. But in all four subsequent references to the man in St. Luke’s account, the Ethiopian/ eunuch/finance minister/of the Candace/ come to Jerusalem to worship/seated in a chariot/reading the scroll of the prophet Isaiah is described simply as “the eunuch.”

Apparently, to St. Luke, of all the possible ways of describing Philip’s conversation partner, the man’s sexual condition/status was the one by which he chose to identify him. So why does our editor choose to ignore this clear textual preference for referring to the man as “the eunuch” and instead insist on referring to him as “the treasurer” five times (including one “Ethiopian treasurer”) with only [an] introductory reference to his being a eunuch? Is the word itself objectionable or problematic? Why avoid the text’s clear preference?

The “evangelical listening” and hospitable “evangelical living” that the editor is advocating (in reference to the following Frambach article) surely needs to begin with a deep listening to the resonances of the text itself. The welcome and inclusion of eunuchs among the faithful is not the issue on the frontier of the church’s practice of evangelism among sexual minorities today. But we know what is.

Whoever has ears to hear, let her/him hear....

John Rollefson
Los Angeles, California

Disagrees with Alarms
...I do not agree with the alarms sounded by Dan McKnight and Scott Grorud (Letters, September/October 2006) about having abandoned Reformation convictions [regarding worship]. My conviction is that Martin Luther was disturbed about:
(1) a Roman Catholic Church that spoke Latin, preached Latin, and did not communicate the gospel to its congregations in their language;
(2) a need to communicate the basic doctrine of Scripture. “He who through faith is righteous shall live” or “The just shall live by faith.”

We no longer live in Luther’s sitz im Leben (situation in life) nor in his weltanschauung (world view). As an evangelical Lutheran church in the year 2007 we must proclaim the gospel to our day and age.

Furthermore, we cannot please everyone all the time. Those who want to live in the world of 1517 CE will just have to pick up their 1517 CE excess baggage and go home.

We who live our faith in 2007 CE will rejoice in our freedom in Christ, we will worship and praise him as individuals, as congregations, and as part of the body of Christ throughout the world.

So “to God be the glory!”

Martin Obst
Boerne, Texas

One-Answer Approach
The problem with ELCA policy concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) couples and individuals, and the reason I speak publicly and critically of it and those who carry it out, is this: it is a lie, an untruth. It bears false witness to who we are as ELCA Lutheran Christians.

In truth, we in the ELCA embody several (not one) legitimate hermeneutical/interpretive approaches, as attested to by a variety of respected scholars, and as taught in our ELCA seminaries, church colleges, campus ministries, and those congregations with in-depth Bible study. This delightful “wildness” is part of our gift to the wider church and world, and the reason I am an ELCA pastor. While there are certainly many wrong answers (we’re not “anything goes”), we don’t believe there is only one legitimate “right” answer in much of biblical interpretation.

Yet, ELCA policy towards LGBT persons rests on such sinking sand. Based on a vote (of all things!) and under a false pretense of “unity” and “the good of the whole,” the majority takes all and the minority is shut down from living out their convictions. This is not right.

I’m on the side of allies who preach, teach, practice, and affirm fullness of life and fullness of ministry for monogamous LGBT couples and individuals. We have found more than sufficient cause for this conviction. We do not wish to impose our view on the opposition. We show consideration for those who want to keep LGBT couples, individuals and their families away from their altars, out of their pulpits, and out of sight as invalids. But don’t impose your view on us. We decline to let you shut us down from living out our convictions. Our convictions flow from our own seminary studies, faith journey, pastoral and life experience, and our imperfect but life-transforming understanding of God’s gospel and justice in Christ surging through the whole and heart of Scripture.

Not only have we boxed ourselves into mere “conservatism” by our hugely bureaucratic ELCA and synod assembly structure, but we’ve allowed ourselves to be hoodwinked into a one-answer-only approach to Scripture.

Ron Rude
Tucson, Arizona

A Misrepresentation
I understand all ELCA pastors have received copies of [Pastor] David N. Glesne’s book, Understanding Homosexuality: Perspectives for the Local Church (Kirk House Publishers, 2005), which is also advertised on a full page ad in The Lutheran (September 2006). I appreciate Pr. Glesne’s considerable research and effort that has gone into this work, and his attempt to be empathetic and compassionate.

Without getting into the fray of the overall issue, I would like to point out a serious misrepresentation in Pr. Glesne’s claim to be painting “a fairly clear picture of the kinds and frequencies of behavior engaged in by homosexual persons” (p. 44). On page 45, Pr. Glesne informs the reader about numerous sordid aspects of homosexual behavior, with percentages of those who indulge in them. But this page should not go unchallenged. Let me mention five points:

(1) The “facts” of this behavior are quoted from a certain Stanley Monteith. The only identification we have of Mr. Monteith is his listing in the Endnotes as the author of The Gay Agenda: The Report. The Report is a Southern California fundamentalist media production linked to a TV ministry affiliated with the charismatic Spring of Life Ministries in Lancaster, California. It produced what has been called “the notoriously homophobic and defamatory video, The Gay Agenda.”

In this video, Dr. Monteith, of Santa Cruz, California, graphically describes certain gay sex practices, and cites authoritative sounding data about what percentage of gay men do them. However, the Los Angeles Times (2/22/93) reported that he was quoting from a tiny study of dubious validity conducted by an anti-gay crusader named Paul Cameron. Cameron has been expelled, according to the Times, from the American Psychological Association, and denounced by the American Sociological Association, for having “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research.”...

...A book is as valuable as its sources are reliable. Is this the “voice of science” that Pr. Glesne is calling us to listen to (p. 12)? By giving us these images quoted from a disreputable psychologist, Pr. Glesne has thrown all homosexuals, except those who are “determined to remain chaste,” and “those who are in the process of exiting homosexuality” (p. 44) together into a cage that smells of repugnant, dirty behavior. It seems to me that this pornographic page is a major factor in setting the negative tone toward homosexuality that prevails throughout the book.

(2) It is not surprising to learn of degrading behavior among promiscuous persons, but does that not apply to heterosexual as well as homosexual persons? Why is there no mention of parallel promiscuous heterosexual behavior?

(3) Why are the descriptions confined to male sexual behavior? Where is the expose of female practices, or are female homosexuals in a different category?

(4) Pr. Glesne has failed to make any distinction between a promiscuous category and what might be called the “committed” category among homosexual persons. His only exceptions to the “homosexual lifestyle” are the celibate and those exiting. Is it not unfair to lump together the promiscuous and those who have a sincere desire to serve their Lord and live in faithful relationship?

(5) Why make an issue of private consensual behavior at all? I don’t consider myself prudish, but is it really necessary to expound on the private sexual behavior — of anybody — in sermons and books that profess to be constructive?

Pr. Glesne says that he has learned that “fears of homosexuality are best overcome by gaining accurate information” (p. 19). Why, then, was this bizarre material put near the beginning of the book, thus emotionally setting up the reader to be repulsed by homosexuality from p. 45 on?

Kenneth J. Dale
Claremont, California

Response from David Glesne:
I read Kenneth Dale’s concern over misrepresentation as motivated by the rightful desire to see the realities of homosexual behavior portrayed fairly and accurately. This desire is particularly challenging for all concerned in light of the difficulty of collecting data on such a socially sensitive issue. Because of space constraints, I’ll address the two most major concerns cited.

First, clarification needs to be made that the kinds and frequencies of behavior profiled in this section are not to be read as being representative of the overall gay population. The chapter title gives a context and alerts one that this chapter is talking primarily about homosexual behaviors connected to “the gay lifestyle.” A lifestyle characterized by promiscuity, “many of these encounters will be with total strangers in bath houses...public restrooms and back rooms of gay bars” (pp. 43-44). This is the “fuller picture” which I contend is not by and large known by many in church or society. The profile of homosexual encounters is descriptive, then, of that group of gays participating in what might be called a subculture characterized by “the gay lifestyle,” behaviors that are condemned by many gays.

Second, the reliability of the kinds and frequencies of these gay behaviors put forth by Monteith (based on Cameron’s research) is called into question. In leading into the section on gay behaviors, I state that “the testimony about homosexual behavior coming from both sides of the debate paints a fairly clear picture.” For a testimony from the other side of the debate, I would direct our attention here to The Gay Report by Jay and Young (Summit Books, New York, 1979).This 850-page report is the first major survey on homosexuality and one of the largest studies ever conducted with 5,000 gay persons of all ages and from all walks of life (and Christian denominations) surveyed on various aspects of their lifestyle and subculture. The study was conducted by English Professor Karla Jay, Ph.D, and journalist Allen Young, who holds two masters degrees. Both are gay activists. The work is still cited today in academic work (see www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html).

When one compares the figures [regarding homosexual behaviors] presented by Monteith and Jay & Young, they are remarkably similar....

[But] are these surveys from different sides of the debate reliable?...[I]t would be extremely difficult, it seems to me, to disregard these behaviors cited by gay activists like Jay & Young. These surveys give one a glimpse into sexual behavior in a subculture which the gay community is reticent to share with the straight mainstream.

With regard to the percentages [cited in the references] who engage in them, how would critics know that the information is not accurate unless they have done their own studies? And if so, where are they? Any study can be improved upon. Both the surveys by Cameron and Jay & Young have had their critics. Are the criticisms warranted? Maybe — but they are hard to sustain. We are always open then to better studies by those who criticize. Until then we deal with the evidence we have currently.

The homosexual behaviors are cited [in the book] not to degrade or demean the people involved. It is not meant to be a judgment on homosexual persons (what we do is different from who we are) but to make possible a fair and helpful and graceful assessment of their behaviors. Love and compassion for one’s homosexual neighbor, it seems to me, compels one to address the negative and compulsive and destructive consequences of homosexual behavior.

David Glense
Fridley, Minnesota

Membership and Ads
The September issue of The Lutheran reports a net loss of more than 79,000 members in the ELCA for the year 2005. The last two issues Lutheran Partners display a full-page advertisement of “a revolutionary 12 week DVD and web-based exploration of Jesus Christ for the third millennium.”

I assume you are familiar with the beliefs and teachings of the “leading religious voices of our day” listed in the ad, including Marcus Borg, Dom Crossan, and John Spong.

Do you see a relationship between the ELCA’s dismal membership decline and the heresies you are advertising (promoting)? I do.

Gordon A Selbo
San Jose, California