Home > Liberal Christianity > An Important Letter for American Lutheranism

An Important Letter for American Lutheranism

May 20th, 2009
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com

I received a copy of this letter, and found it to be very interesting.

An Open Letter to the Voting Members of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly

We are grateful that the church has called you to serve as a voting member for the 2009 Churchwide Assembly. Your role at the assembly will be a difficult one. We are writing this open letter as Lutheran theologians and church leaders concerned about the fidelity and future of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

The proposals are in fact no compromise

The teaching of the church will be changed The proposals to be considered by the Churchwide Assembly this summer from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality are perceived by some as compromises that will permit the ELCA to live faithfully with internal diversity on controversial ethical questions. The proposals are in fact no compromise. They clearly imply that same-sex blessings and the ordination and rostering of homosexual persons in committed relationships are acceptable within the ELCA. The teaching of the church will be changed. We should not make such an important decision without clear biblical and theological support. The Task Force did not provide such support, nor has it been provided in statements from some of our colleagues in ELCA institutions.

Indifference to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church

1. If the assembly adopts the proposed rules of procedure, a simple majority of one Churchwide Assembly will alter the moral teaching on sexuality we have shared with the vast majority of the church past and present. We are concerned that such a procedure shows an indifference to the common mind of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church throughout the ages and across cultures. At the least, a two-thirds majority should be required, if indeed the assembly should be voting on these matters at all.

The church is founded on the whole Word of God, both law and gospel

2. The proposals claim that the ELCA can live with profound differences on sexual questions because our unity is centered exclusively on the gospel and the sacraments. This claim separates law and gospel in a way contrary to both Scripture and the Confessions. The church is founded on the whole Word of God, both law and gospel. The Task Force texts seem to permit variation on all ethical questions, no matter how fundamental. How Christians behave sexually is not a matter of indifference to our life in Christ.

It would damage our ecumenical relationships

3. If the ELCA were to approve the public recognition of same-sex unions or the rostering of persons in such relationships, it would damage our ecumenical relationships with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and Evangelical churches, all of which affirm the clear teaching of Scripture that homosexual activity departs from God’s design for marriage and sexuality. Furthermore, it would put the ELCA at odds with many of our sister Lutheran churches, especially in Asia and Africa. The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have also recently upheld scriptural teaching on this matter. These bodies have officially recognized that the biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity remain applicable today to consensual sexual relationships between persons of the same sex.

Our unity will be fractured

4. With regard to calling rostered leaders, the statement proposes “structured flexibility,” which we believe will lead inevitably to “local option.” If adopted, this proposal will mean that the relationship among bishops, candidacy committees, and congregations will become confused and conflicted. Practically speaking, there will be two lists of candidates for rostered leadership in the church. The result will be that not all pastors and congregations will be in full fellowship with each other, nor with many of the pastors and congregations of those denominations with whom we are in full communion. Further, laity seeking a congregation to join would need to ask about which option a congregation has chosen in calling its leaders. Our unity in the office of ministry will be fractured.

Conscience can err

5. The social statement calls for opponents in the current controversy to respect each other’s “bound conscience,” referring to Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. Luther, however, was not merely claiming that he was sincere about the convictions he held; he asserted rather that his conscience was bound to the Word of God. Conscience can err. The Word of God, not conscience, is the final court of appeal in the church. We are deeply sensitive to the need of the church to provide pastoral care for all people. We are aware that there are some in the church who will disagree with this letter. Nevertheless, we feel we are called to support and advocate the biblical teaching on human sexuality. We pledge to you our prayers and we invite you to work with us for the renewal of our church under the Word of God.

Rev. Richard Bansemer, Salem, VA, former Bishop, Virginia Synod
Dr. Robert D. Benne, Director of the Center for Religion and Society, Roanoke College, VA
Rev. John C. Beem, Miltona, MN, former Bishop, East-Central Synod of Wisconsin
Rev. Dr. Paul S. Berge, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. Dennis D. Bielfeldt, Professor of Religion, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD

Rev. Dr. Carl E. Braaten, Professor Emeritus, Systematic Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Rev. Mark C. Chavez, Landisville, PA, Director of Lutheran CORE
Rev. Dr. James R. Crumley, Jr, Chapin, SC, Former Bishop, Lutheran Church in America
Rev. Jaynan Clark Egland, Nine Mile Falls, WA, President, WordAlone Network
Rev. Dr. C. Jack Eichhorst, President emeritus, Trinity Lutheran College, WA

Dr. Rebecca Frey, New Haven, CT, Lutheran Forum Editorial Staff
Rev. Gregory P. Fryer, Immanuel Lutheran Church, New York, MY
Gracia M. Grindal, Professor of Rhetoric, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Mr. David J. Hardy, Esq., Chicago, IL, Former General Counsel of the ELCA
Rev. Dr. Roy A. Harrisville, Jr., Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN

Rev. Dr. Roy A. Harrisville, III, Menomonie, WI
Rev. Dr. Mary Havens, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Prof. of Church History, Columbia, SC
Rev. Carol S. Hendrix, former bishop, Lower Susquehanna Synod, PA
Dr. Hans J. Hillerbrand, Professor of Religion, Duke University, NC
Rev. Dr. Paul R. Hinlicky, Professor of Religion, Roanoke College, VA

Rev. Dr. Stephen J. Hultgren, Assistant Professor of Religion, Fordham University, Bronx, NY
Rev. Dr. Robert W. Jenson, Princeton, NJ
Ben Arlen Johnson, Th.D., Professor emeritus, Lutheran Bible Institute in California
Rev. Dr. Richard O. Johnson, Grass Valley, CA, Editor of Forum Letter
Rev. Corinne R. Johnson, Crystal Falls, MI

Rev. Ralph A. Kempski, Aiken, SC, Bishop Emeritus, Indiana-Kentucky Synod
Rev. Dr. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA
Rev. Gerard H. Knoche, Bishop, Delaware-Maryland Synod
Rev. Dr. Marc Kolden, Professor Emeritus, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. David W. Lotz, Washburn Professor Emeritus of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY

Rev. Dr. Lamontte Luker, Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC
Rev. Dr. Paul V. Martinson, Professor Emeritus of Missions, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. Mark C. Mattes, Professor of Religion, Grand View College, Des Moines, IA
Rev. George P. Mocko, Bishop Emeritus, Delaware-Maryland Synod
Rev. Dr. James A. Nestingen, Professor Emeritus of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN

Rev. Richard J. Niebanck III, Delhi, NY
Rev. Dr. Oliver K. Olson, Minneapolis, MN
Rev. Dr. Steven D. Paulson, Professor of Systematic Theology, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. David W. Preus, Minneapolis, MN, Former Bishop, American Lutheran Church
Dr. Michael Root, Dean, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC

Rev. Dr. Paul E. Rorem, Professor of Church History, Princeton Theological Seminary, NJ
Rev. Russell E. Saltzman, Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, MO
Rev. Kenneth H. Sauer, Columbus, OH, Former Chair of Conference of Bishops
Rev. Dr. James A. Scherer, Professor Emeritus, Missions and Church History, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Rev. Dr. Amy Schifrin, Hershey, PA

Rev. Paul A. Schreck, Round Lake Beach, IL, former Executive Assistant to the Secretary, ELCA
Rev. Henry Schulte Jr, Boerne, TX, former Bishop, Southwestern Texas Synod
Rev. Frederick J. Schumacher, Manchester Township, NJ, Executive Director, American Lutheran Publicity Bureau
Rev. Dr. Hans Schwarz, Professor of Systematic Theology and Contemporary Theological Issues, University of Regensburg, Germany
Rev. Dr. Frank Senn, Immanuel Lutheran Church, Evanston, IL

Rev. Dr. Franklin Sherman, Schnecksville, PA
Rev. Dr. Trygve R. Skarsten, Pickerington, OH, President Emeritus of Trinity Lutheran College, Everett, WA
Rev. Paull E. Spring, State College, PA, Former Bishop, Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod
Rev. Dr. John R. Stumme, Chicago, IL, former Director of the Department for Studies in the Church in Society unit of the ELCA
Rev. Dr. Anders Tune, Campus Minister, Wittenberg University, Springfield, OH

Rev. Paul M. Werger, Iowa City, IA, Former Chair of Conference of Bishops
Rev. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, Associate Research Professor, Institute for Ecumenical Research, Strasbourg, France
Dr. David S. Yeago, Professor of Systematic Theology, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC
Rev. Dr. J. Larry Yoder, Professor and Director, Center for Theology, Lenoir-Rhyne University, Hickory, NC

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Categories: Liberal Christianity
  1. Jack Kilcrease
    May 21st, 2009 at 10:15 | #1

    Many people have misunderstood the rejection of women’s ordination as having to do with the denigration of women or sexism. My fiancee has a Ph.D and is a history professor and like myself rejects women’s ordination. My mother in a CEO of an educational foundation and has a Ph.D as well, and again, she does not believe in the ordination of women. Neither of them thinks that such a stance consigns women to remain in a subordinate role.

    What it does do is suggest that men and women have different roles in creation. After all, men can’t have children and women can. This doesn’t make them unequal, it merely makes them different. In the same way, Scripture teaches that women are not to serve in ministry (see I Cor. 14:34-7, I Timothy 2:8-15) and that men are. This is based on the fact that God in the Garden of Eden gave Adam the Word making him the first minister and Eve the first Church (see Luther’s Genesis commentary.) That I think is the point that Rev. McCain is making about the homosexuality issue as it is connected to the ordination of women. If you reject one part of the orders of creation (by letting women serving in ministry) then it logically leads to a rejection of the other ones (exclusively heterosexual relationship being blessed).

  2. Bethany Tanis
    May 21st, 2009 at 10:17 | #2

    I would have to agree that women’s ordination does “open door to other challenges.” The same hermeneutic and some of the same arguments used to allow women’s ordination are coming out again in this debate. Leaving aside whether “love, tolerance and truly touching people’s lives” is the saving Gospel of Christ or a man-made one designed to satisfy itching ears, no one says that women are less functionally capable than men in the office of the ministry. We are merely ontologically incapable of receiving such a call. I also agree with Pastor Janssen that #1 and #3 are equally true to women’s ordination. Given that the majority of signers support women’s ordination, using the same arguments to block the ordination of homosexuals in committed relationships seems a bit unfair to me. On the other hand, I sympathize with the position of many younger theologians and pastors in the ELCA who have grown up with female pastors and are therefore unlikely to critically engage the issue since it has simply become part of the background wallpaper of their existence. The same is true to women’s suffrage in the LCMS, whether or not you agree with it. I feel especially badly for female pastors in the ELCA who are in the unhappy position of fighting against the ordination of homosexuals in committed relationships using the very same arguments (#1 and #3 for example) that undermine their own occupational choices and livelihood. It’s not an intellectually enviable position to be in and I would imagine that at least a couple are self aware enough to feel it.

Comments are closed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1750 access attempts in the last 7 days.