---

An Open Letter from Bishop David B. Zellmer

December 15, 2009

Dear Friends,

I write to you, one of the 128,000 members of our Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in South Dakota, knowing that you may be wondering about the recent news articles related to the decisions that were made at our churchwide assembly this summer.

First of all, let me clarify those decisions. We passed a social statement entitled “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” and then voted to allow congregations – if they so desire - to call a pastor who is living in a in a life long, monogamous, publicly accountable, same gender relationship. The document that was passed at the assembly outlines four positions on homosexuality that may be held by faithful Christians who have studied the Bible. The document states that we, as a church, do not agree on which of the four positions is “correct.” To say it simply, we have agreed to disagree. Each local congregation may call the pastor who they believe will best serve them.

So here we are in the midst of a churchwide body that doesn’t agree. You may find yourself in the middle of a congregation or even a family that cannot find agreement on these complex issues. I would offer you this: We are held together not by the correctness of our doctrine or the purity of our moral reasoning, but by Christ our King. Christ commands us to love one another not just when we agree, but especially when we don’t. I remain steadfast in my commitment to the ELCA and I would like to share with you a few of my thoughts about why I am staying in this church.

I choose to remain because there is a place in this church for people like me, who question the morality of homosexual behavior on the basis of God’s word. Our church acknowledges that on this particular issue, faithful believers have come to different positions. It does not hold any one position above the other. I find guidance in the following scripture, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35). This is a moral issue. It happens to be about sex and family, things that to us are precious, and about which we feel strong emotions. But God’s salvation does not depend on being right or wrong on this or any other moral issue. It depends only on Christ our King who died so that all who believe in him would not be condemned but have eternal life.

I choose to remain because the new policies place the authority to call a pastor where it belongs – with the local congregation. Congregations will be encouraged to continue to ask tough questions of pastors during the call process; this has not changed. Questions should be asked about moral issues including but not limited to sexuality. Congregations have always called and will continue to call the pastor who will best serve them.

My commitment to stay in our ELCA is rooted in the commands of Christ and in the fact that our church is about so much more than this disagreement. We are here to share the good news of Jesus Christ.

+ This church brings hope and healing to the suffering. One example is “Nothing but Net,” our church’s commitment to ending malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa.

+ This church shares the good news of God’s love with those in prison through our ministry at St. Dysmas.

+ This church shows God’s love by feeding the hungry in your community and throughout the world.

+ This church stands with the poorest among us, as evidenced by our Lutheran Lakota Shared Ministries in Pine Ridge.

+ This church goes where people are to share God’s love. Right here in South Dakota we have seven new ministries, including African, Latino, American Indian, and suburban mission starts.
All of us, together as the ELCA, stand together in God’s grace, focusing on sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is serious work that calls for a commitment from each one of us. We each bring everything we have, our gifts, our talents, our diversity, and even our disagreements to the service of God’s Mission.

Our church is not perfect. I will be working to change the polity of the ELCA so that congregations have more voice in this church. We need to find a way where all voices are heard throughout the decision making process. I will work with my colleagues here in South Dakota and in the Conference of Bishops to move forward on these changes.

I will remain faithful to the promises I made in my ordination and at my installation as the bishop of the South Dakota Synod. I promised to serve the whole church and to work for the life of the world. I will always keep the commands of Jesus at the center of our mission to “make disciples of all nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you” to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, tend the sick, and visit those in prison. We as a synod and as the whole ELCA have been faithful in living out those commands and I look forward to continuing this within the ELCA and with people across our synod and around the world.

Yours in Christ’s Mission


Bishop David B. Zellmer

 

Return to top

---

Additional Resources Regarding
2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Actions, 11/16/09

Below are two additional resources that may help in your discernment and discussions regarding the actions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

The first, ELCA Ordination of Persons in Same-Sex Committed Relationships, was written by the Rev. David W. Preus, professor emeritus at Luther Seminary and bishop emeritus of the American Lutheran Church (ALC).

The second, The Bible, the Church, and Faithful Discernment, was written by the Rev. Dr. Brian Peterson, Professor of New Testament at the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, South Carolina.

ELCA Ordination of Persons in Same-Sex Committed Relationships The Rev. David W. Preus October 1, 2009 I am an opponent, past and present, of the ELCA decision to ordain persons in a same sex committed relationship. I have been asked what I intend to do as a result of the ELCA action affirming such ordination. My first answer is simple. I am and intend to remain a faithful, fully participating and supporting member of the ELCA. I do not believe this matter is of sufficient confessional import to require division among disagreeing brethren. There are faithful, Bible believing, confessional Lutherans on both sides of this issue. The debate will continue. My second answer is that I am a dissenter with respect to the action taken. Continuing dissent is not for me a new reaction to ELCA decisions. I am also a dissenter and outspoken critic of the ELCA action with regard to CCM, which I consider to be a greater mistake than the ordination decision. I do not, however, consider either issue to be of such confessional import that it should lead me or anyone else to separate ourselves from our fellow members who disagree with us. My suspicion is that most ELCA members dissent from some portion or another of ELCA organizational and ethical traditions. I do not believe such differences rise to the level of confessional disagreement. It is my conviction that a distinction must be made between issues that bear directly on the heart of the Christian faith and issues that are comparatively peripheral. I do not believe the issue at hand threatens the gospel of God. The Lutheran Confessions do not explicitly address the issue. That is not to say that comparatively peripheral matters are unimportant. It is to say that there is room for disagreement on various issues that are important but not all-important. My ancestral church body, the Norwegian Lutheran Church in America, came into being as a result of a church merger in which the members declared their unity in spite of strong, differing convictions regarding predestination. Those differing convictions have continued to this day. It is such an example that I believe to be appropriate in regard to both the CCM and homosexual ordination. There are, however, grounds for opposing the ordination of persons in same sex committed relationships. The action of the ELCA Assembly has not changed them. .I here list reasons that led me to oppose the action. 1. The ELCA constituency is deeply conflicted with respect to Scripture interpretation and authority. Taking definitive action to change church polity and ethical positions in the face of that conflict is an invitation to continuing conflict. Clearly the re-interpretation of salient Biblical passages has not been found convincing by large numbers of ELCA members. The interpretation of the relevant Bible passages is the main issue and the two documents, “Human Sexuality---Gift and Trust” and “Report and Recommendations,” simply conclude that there are “different opinions” without a thorough examination of the pertinent Bible passages. 2. A fundamental flaw is that the two above named documents do not base their recommendation for change on a careful exegesis of contested Biblical texts. Rather the recommendations are made in order to accommodate everyone’s “bound conscience.” Lutherans have insisted that the conscience is bound by Scripture. The question is not whether or not the conscience is bound but whether it is bound by the Scriptures. 3. An overwhelming majority of church bodies in the ecumenical church believe that faithfulness to the Scriptures demands opposition to ordination of persons in same-sex committed relationships. Their voices have barely been noticed in ELCA documents. 4. The two kingdoms concept should have received greater attention in the ELCA documents. Sexuality is not a matter of salvation, God’s kingdom on the right. Sexual ethics belong to God’s kingdom on the left which deals with the good of society. 5. Proponents of ordination of persons in same-sex committed relationships, to my knowledge, have not responded to the widespread charge that the relevant ELCA documents ground ethical action on the gospel rather than the law. In the opening section the ELCA document does describe the Lutheran understanding of the law and briefly mentions Luther’s understanding of the two kingdoms, but in the subsequent discussion of sexuality (III-VII) neither the law nor the two kingdom concept is mentioned at all. 6. The virtually unanimous witness of Christians for 2000 years declares opposition to homosexual practice on the basis of Biblical injunctions. For the ELCA to take solo action in the face of such heavy historic consensus suggest that the ELCA has some superior insight in the matter. I am not aware of the bulk of ELCA members being given opportunity to hear the reasoning of non-Lutheran Christians or even from partner Lutheran churches who are overwhelmingly opposed to the ELCA action. 7. The assertion that the change in ELCA ordination of persons in same-sex committed relationships is comparable to historic changes made in matters of slavery, adultery or the ordination of women is highly debatable. Each of those issues must be dealt with on its own. Looking to the future the good news is that congregations will have to make their own way in dealing with this matter. This puts the ultimate decision where it should be--in the basic unit of Christ’s church, the local congregation. The Rev. David W. Preus David Preus joined the Luther Seminary faculty as director of the Global Mission Institute and distinguished visiting professor in 1988, the same year he was named bishop emeritus of The American Lutheran Church (ALC). He retired from his positions at Luther Seminary in 1994. Preus had served the ALC as vice president in 1968-73 and as president and presiding bishop in 1973-87. Ordained in 1950, Preus served pastorates in Brookings, S.D., (1950-51), Vermillion, S.D. (1952-57), and Minneapolis (1957-73). He was a vice president of the Lutheran World Federation and a member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches.

 Return to top

---

The Bible, the Church, and Faithful Discernment Rev. Dr. Brian Peterson – Professor of New Testament, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary In the reactions to the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, there have been frequent charges that by adopting the statement on human sexuality and the proposals regarding the blessing of unions and the ordaining / rostering of partnered gay and lesbian people, the ELCA has abandoned the authority of the Bible. My hope is that the following examination of a few biblical texts will be helpful to those who are hearing the accusations and wondering what they and their congregation ought to do and say at this point. The Scriptures are “the authoritative source and norm for *the church’s+ proclamation, faith, and life” (ELCA Constitution). If we are to honor that affirmation, we need to avoid, as much as possible, confusing the authority of the Bible with the authority of poor translations, incorrect assumptions, partial knowledge, or contested interpretations. The Bible clearly and unambiguously declares God’s condemnation of sin and God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ. But that does not mean that the meaning of every individual text, or how it should shape the church’s life, is simple or obvious. The texts involved in this discussion must not be ignored or pushed to the side. However, the difficulty of interpreting them likewise cannot be ignored if we are going to take the authority of the texts seriously. We must face the texts we have, and not simpler texts that we wish for or imagine. The following will address a few texts that have been the focus of much of our discussion, and which I believe are most often viewed as the “clear word of Scripture” which the Assembly’s actions supposedly violate. They are certainly not the only texts that ought to shape our decisions. They may not even be the most important ones. But they are the ones which, for better or worse, have formed the center of our debate. Two passages from Leviticus (Lev 18:22, 20:13) reject male same-gender intercourse. One issue which must be addressed, however, is whether or not such regulations continue to apply to the church (fortunately, no one in our discussion seems to be advocating that we are bound to continue the punishment assigned in Lev 20:13 for this behavior). The church, from the beginning of its life, has needed to make such decisions. Leviticus also includes commands not to eat shellfish (Lev 11:10, 12). Of course, the church can point to the teaching of Christ in the setting aside of dietary regulations (Mk 7:18-19), but that did not make it simple for the early church. Peter’s reaction to the vision given to him in Acts 10 was still to assume that some foods were improper. It took time, and an encounter between Cornelius’ household and the Holy Spirit, to convince Peter that such regulations could be, and must be, set aside. The regulations in Leviticus also include commands not to wear clothing made from two different materials (Lev 19:19), something that Lutherans seem universally to ignore. One could respond that clothing material is “obviously” unimportant, but sexual behavior is not (though that of course begs the question of why we find this “obvious”). Leviticus also, just a few verses before prohibiting male homosexual intercourse, lays down rules about what times during the menstrual cycle a husband may have intercourse with his wife (Lev 18:19). This is certainly an issue of sexual behavior, and yet few of us, I suspect, view the Leviticus prohibition as normative in this case. The church will make wrong decisions from time to time, but the discussion about whether or not such biblical regulations apply to the church’s life is not, in itself, an unfaithful action or a denial of the Bible’s authority. In fact, such biblical discernment has been a central part of the church’s life at least since the church in Acts welcomed uncircumcised Gentiles. Perhaps another example of the church’s work of discerning how a biblical commandment addresses our lives will help. Despite the clear word in the 10 Commandments against killing, the church has usually said that there are some situations in which killing is not murder, and therefore not forbidden for Christians (killing in war, or in defense of a neighbor’s life, for example). Thus, the decision that some forms of a prohibited behavior may not come under the biblical condemnation is not necessarily a denial of Scripture’s authority. In a similar way, we may ask whether there are contexts in which homosexual intercourse might not come under these verses’ condemnation. That, it seems to me, is what the ELCA has discussed for many years, and which the Assembly found to be possible when it opened the way to bless homosexual unions. Just as killing in war or defense of the neighbor is not murder, so too homosexual intercourse, within the context of a public, exclusive, and lifelong relationship, held to standards of faithfulness and mutuality, does not fall under condemnation from Leviticus. Such a move is not an abandonment of Scripture, but a serious reading of this text within the whole Bible’s witness to God’s will for human life and relationships. There are two texts from the Pauline letters (1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10) which seem to mention homosexual people in lists of those whose behaviors are contrary to God’s will. However, there are serious difficulties with how to translate and understand the terms involved in these verses. The word translated as “sodomites” by the NRSV in both verses is a word that does not appear in any document earlier than 1 Corinthians. Such a situation, with no historical “track record” of how this word is used, makes it difficult to determine precisely what Paul means. In this case, two words have been combined: the word for “male” and the word for “bed” or “intercourse.” We could translate it awkwardly as “men-bedders”. This word would reasonably seem to refer to some kind of male same-gender intercourse, but Paul does not explain what he has in mind here, and the wide variety in translations demonstrates the uncertainty. Luther translated it as “defilers of boys”. The King James Version tried “abusers of themselves with mankind”. Several recent translations have introduced the language of homosexuality here, and used “homosexual offenders” (New International Version) or “practicing homosexuals” (New English Translation), but we need to realize that (1) there is no ancient Greek word for “homosexual” or “homosexuality”, and all such translations are a recent innovation; and (2) these more recent translations hide an important interpretive decision, namely they assume that Paul’s unusual term is meant to indicate those we would today call homosexuals. That may or may not be right, but it is certainly dishonest to say that anyone who would disagree about that interpretive decision is therefore denying the authority of the Bible. After all, Luther’s translation reflects what is often criticized today as a “liberal” attempt to avoid the “clear meaning of the text.” Taking the Bible seriously at this point means recognizing the difficulty of this word, and not confusing the authority of the text with one particular (and questionable) understanding of a rare and difficult word. The other relevant term in 1 Cor 6:9 is even more difficult to translate, as is again seen in the various attempts of the translators: “effeminate” (King James Version), “weaklings” (Luther, Tyndale) , “those who make women of themselves” (Darby Bible), “the self-indulgent” (New Jerusalem Bible), “male prostitutes” (NRSV). Here, the Greek term is actually a common one, meaning “soft”. The problem for us (and obviously for translators over the last several centuries) is that “soft” was a description which covered a wide range of behaviors. Basically, one was considered “soft” if one allowed desires to gain control. This language of “soft” was used to describe men who ate too much, slept too much, and those who engaged in too much sex, whether with boys, or men, or multiple women, or even with one’s own wife. There are clearly some cultural assumptions here from the first century that differ from our own, and that we need to consider as we read this text. In the most general understanding, this verse addresses situations where one’s desires gain control of life (one is “soft” in first-century terms), and it declares the good news that the Kingdom of God means the end of being ruled and controlled by such desires. However, to limit this word to meaning “passive homosexual partners” (New English Translation) or “those guilty of homosexual perversion” (New English Bible) or “male prostitutes” (NRSV) does not in fact honor the authority of this text over our lives, but instead limits its meaning to situations that would let heterosexuals off the hook. We live in a culture that tries to define and evaluate everyone based on how well we fulfill our desires – for food, for wealth, for comfort, and for sex. This text speaks against all such life lived in the service of fulfilling our own desires. These two words used together would indicate, then, those who surrender themselves to desires (“the soft”) and those who take advantage of that specifically in some form of male homosexual sex. The question then becomes whether or not these words describe the kind of committed, lifelong, responsible, and exclusive same-sex partners which the ELCA Assembly’s actions addressed. I think it does not. The assembly’s actions in fact seek ways to encourage and support homosexual persons to live out their lives and relationships in stable and faithful ways (and to hold all of us accountable to those standards), rather than in ways that are characterized by the unregulated desire and exploitation criticized in these Pauline verses. The remaining NT passage is the most theologically developed, Romans 1:26-27. It is important to notice the logic, assumptions, and the point that Paul is making here. First, Paul argues that the behavior he is describing in vv. 26-27 is the result of Gentiles worshiping idols (vv. 20-25). Notice, Paul is not saying that same-gender sex IS idolatry in some abstract sense of placing one’s self above God and God’s law, but is saying that Gentile activity of worshiping statues has led to this homosexual behavior. A common Jewish critique of Gentile society in the first century is that their idolatry has led to all sorts of behavioral problems, from theft to perjury to sexual impurity to murder, and Paul shares and reflects that view here (note Rom 1:28-32). Paul’s language about being “consumed with passion” (v. 27) is a very common first-century explanation for same-gender intercourse. It was seen by both Jewish and Gentile writers as an example of desire gone out of control. It was widely assumed that the same desire that leads one into marriage with a woman, if left uncontrolled, would eventually grow into adultery, pedophilia, and then intercourse with another adult male. Finally, we should notice that the POINT of Paul’s argument is not to tell the church that homosexual behavior must be abandoned, but rather to point out that Gentile society in general had turned from God to idols, and as a result suffered from uncontrolled passion. Same-gender intercourse is used by Paul, as it was by other Jewish writers, as a prime example of this. The primary question that arises from noticing these aspects of Romans 1 is not whether this text is normative for the church, but rather HOW it exercises that normative authority. It is not at all clear that this text actually describes the people and the relationships that the ELCA Assembly’s actions address. The gay couples in our congregations do not, presumably, engage in the worship of statues, nor do they seem to be more consumed by passion than other people. There are times when biblical texts mention something within the story or the argument that is assumed in their ancient culture, without that element being something taught by God’s Word. For example, the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 assume an ancient Near Eastern view of the universe and how it is constructed, with water above the earth held up there by a dome in which the stars are placed. We can (and I think do) rightly affirm Genesis’ insistence that God has created all things, without being tied to the ancient view of cosmology written in the text. Joshua 10:12-14 describes the sun standing still. This text was, wrongly as it turns out, used by the church to deny and condemn Galileo’s claim that the earth went around the sun. The point of the Joshua text was not to teach that the sun went around the earth, but to declare God’s faithfulness to Israel in their struggle. We can affirm the text and its authority without adopting the assumptions of ancient astronomy. In Romans 1, Paul similarly uses assumptions from first century culture, medicine, and science, particularly an assumption that same-gender intercourse is the result of runaway passions. We should hear in this text the claim that life lived apart from God leads to disordered relationships. We should hear in this text that sexual addictions, which our culture seems so good at promoting and which consume so many lives, are in fact contrary to God’s will. We should hear in this text a clear word against any society obsessed with how sexually active people are and which abandons fidelity in relationships for the sake of sexual self-gratification. However, the text does not require us to affirm the 1st century cultural assumption that all same-gender intercourse is the result of runaway passion or to conclude that those same-gender couples in our congregations must be secret idolaters, any more than Joshua requires us to affirm that the sun goes around the earth. This stance is not an abandoning of the authority of Scripture over the church, but in fact results from taking the text and its authority seriously enough to read carefully and to notice the point that Paul was actually making. As we think about how Scripture functions authoritatively to shape and guide the life of the church, there is one more text that we ought to consider. In Acts 10-11, and again in chapter 15, the early church had to face an issue that the rules in the Old Testament seemed to have settled quite clearly: to belong to God’s people, Gentile men would have to be circumcised. As Peter and the other leaders in Jerusalem found out, however, God seemed to be doing something else. God had called Peter to go to the Gentile Cornelius, and God had poured out the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household without requiring circumcision. The church leadership met in assembly at Jerusalem to discuss this and to set policy for the church. As part of that discernment, they listened to what God had been doing among the Gentiles through Peter, Paul, and Barnabas. In the end, they decided that the old regulation was no longer binding on the church. Circumcision was not required. What the church in Acts did in seeking God’s will involved listening to the experience of brothers and sisters in other parts of the church, and they took seriously the possibility that the Spirit was working and speaking there (see Acts 15:28). The actions of the 2009 ELCA Assembly are the result of an extended period of study and discussion. For the last 20 years and more, we in the ELCA have carried on this conversation of discernment around Scripture, prayer, and listening to each other’s stories of how we see God at work. We have not arrived at overwhelming agreement about what to say and do with regard to homosexuality, though these discussions have brought some changes, as seen in the Assembly’s actions. We have also, for many years, consistently heard some of our brothers and sisters say that they believe God is calling partnered gay and lesbian candidates into ordained ministry. We have consistently heard them say that, in their context, they need, value, and benefit from the ministry of these people. The actions of the Churchwide Assembly are undoubtedly imperfect, as all human efforts are. However, I believe that those actions faithfully reflect and respond to the years of discernment that we have done together, attempting to honor both the disagreement that remains and the calling by God that many have discerned. We should move through these changes with humility and trembling. Our discernment may be faulty. Our plans may be flawed. But in listening to one another over long years of discussion, and in seeking the Spirit’s movement in those stories, the ELCA has not made an unfaithful move, but rather has been shaped by the pattern within Scripture itself. This is what the church in Acts did. This is what the church is always called to do. It is not my goal here to argue that my way of reading these texts is certainly the one right way. It has been my goal, however, to show how someone can read these texts with a high regard for their authority over the life of the church, and still speak in favor of the proposals adopted by the ELCA regarding homosexuality. As one who supported (and supports) these proposals, I do not believe that doing so constitutes the abandoning of the Bible’s authority. Honesty and the commandment not to bear false witness against others requires that we not confuse our disagreements about the meaning of these texts with faithlessness, heresy, or the denial of Scripture’s authority. It is true that the Bible never says a single positive thing about same-gender intercourse. The few mentions of same-gender intercourse in the Bible are universally negative. But serious questions remain about how these texts address the issues we are facing and the people involved. There are legitimate questions about how well the concerns addressed in these biblical texts correspond to the committed, exclusive, faithful, lifelong relationships that are the focus of the ELCA’s action. There are genuine difficulties in understanding some of these verses, and we ought to wonder whether, and why, we are trying to place too much weight on a few uncertain verses. Proper interpretation always involves listening to each text within the context of the whole witness of Scripture. There we hear with absolute clarity God’s desire and call for mercy, compassion, faithfulness, and love of our neighbors. We hear that God’s saving, sufficient grace has been poured out through Jesus Christ crucified and raised. We hear the promise that the Spirit will lead the church into God’s truth. I believe that the ELCA Assembly’s actions have been shaped by, and are in agreement with, this authoritative biblical word. The Rev. Dr. Brian K. Peterson Dr. Peterson earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Augustana College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the Master of Divinity from Luther Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, and the Doctor of Philosophy degree from Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia.  He served as pastor of Calvary Lutheran Church in Winger, Minnesota, and of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Lexington, Virginia. With particular expertise in Greek, Pauline letters and theology, and Johannine literature, Dr. Peterson has published articles in scholarly journals including Interpretation and Horizons in Biblical Theology, and is a frequent contributor to Lectionary Homiletics. He joined the LTSS faculty in 1998.

Return to top

---

Conference of Bishops Report from Bishop Dave

October 15, 2009

Grace and peace to you in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

I wish to bring you some information from the Conference of Bishops meeting earlier this month. The meeting was a productive one, with much time spent in healthy conversations among the bishops and with the executive staff from the churchwide organization. We had opportunity to speak from our heart, to share the hurts, the joys, and the issues that we have faced since returning home following the Churchwide Assembly.

You should know that the bishops are committed to stay in the ELCA. We have determined, after carefully examining what was passed in August and after healthy and very precise conversations, that we will be a church that is going to hold divergent views on the recognition of same-gender relationships and on the rostering of individuals who are in publicly accountable same-gender relationships.

I have said this before and I have not seen evidence that I am wrong: We have not changed the teaching of this church. The Social Statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, clearly says that marriage between a man and woman for a lifetime is still normative. The language of Recommendations Two and Four both say that having a gay or lesbian pastor who is in intimate relationships will be made possible for those congregations that want to do so. The text of these recommendations makes an argument about how they are framed. Arguing from a biblical and confessional position, the statement maintains that sexual relations for homosexual people can take place within a publically accountable, lifelong, same-gender relationship.

Let me be clear: The Social Statement and the “Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies” do not require anyone in this church, laypersons or rostered leaders, to agree with that position. Those who continue to hold to the normative position will not be dismissed, or forced into a position of dissent or opposition. There will be no requirement—implicit or explicit—to act, teach, preach, or live against one’s position. Rather, we will work toward mutual respect and compassion for everyone, despite our differences.

We had several very careful, precise conversations about the proposals for the new rules and policies that will be going to the ELCA Church Council for approval. The Conference of Bishops is recommending to the Church Council that it waits until its April 2010 meeting before it votes on the new rules and policies. This would allow ELCA churchwide units and the Conference of Bishops two additional opportunities for conversation on the rules and how they are to be implemented. One policy, the policy on reinstatement of rostered leaders, will go to the November meeting of the ELCA Church Council for consideration. If the policy is approved it will allow the reinstatement of publically accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender rostered leaders to begin in January 2010. But no process will be completed until changes to all the ministry documents are approved. We want to get this right the first time and be sure that we are carrying out the will of the assembly. At the same time we want to honor the “bound conscience” of both sides of these issues. To achieve those ends, we need to take a deliberative path.

I can also report that our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are not stepping away from the ecumenical dialogue, nor are other church bodies. With the exception of the Silesian Lutheran Church, our partners in Lutheran World Federation continue to be in conversation with us.

Unfortunately, we have learned that there are rumors and misinformation circulating in these tense times. For example, it was erroneously reported at the Lutheran CORE meeting last month that the ELCA is withholding money from our immigrant congregations, and using money as a way to “keep them in the fold.” That information is false. Thank you for helping to ensure that such rumors do not spread.

I invite your prayers and discernment, and am grateful for your willingness to be in conversation with one another and with the rest of the synod. We are not “church” alone. We are one body in Christ and Jesus is still Lord of the Church. It is through Christ and Christ alone that we are held together.

Yours in Christ,

Bishop David B. Zellmer

---

Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust Some Resources from the ELCA Website Here are links to some materials from www.elca.org regarding Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, the Social Statement that was adopted at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, and the ministry policy resolutions that also were adopted by the assembly. We hope that you will find them useful to you in your discussions of these matters. + The starting place for these resources is at Adopted Social Statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. + Download Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust  + The Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America made a series of "friendly amendments" to clarify the proposed social statement, but no substantive changes to content. It also approved resolutions to implement the statement into the mission and ministry of the church. Download these changes here.  + Other Materials: The Executive Summary FAQ on Social Statement  FAQs on Bound Conscience Reflections on the Bound Conscience in Lutheran Theology by Timothy J. Wengert  Frequently Asked Questions about the 2009 Churchwide Assembly Actions Regarding Human Sexuality

---

A Pastoral Message from Bishop David B. Zellmer, Recorded 9/3/09
Bishop Dave recorded this message to address some of the questions arising from the actions of last month's ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

---

Our Faithful Mission Together: What does it mean to be faithful?
Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson's invitation to conversation

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, has recorded a message to introduce new pages on the ELCA website that address questions arising from the ELCA Churchwide Assembly and which explore ways in which faithful members of the ELCA are answering these questions. Click the image below to view the video message on the ELCA website.

 

  

---

A Pastoral Letter from Bishop David Zellmer

"As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:12-17)

August 27, 2009

My Dear Friends in Christ,

I greet you again with St. Paul's words to the Colossians, for they have been at the forefront of my mind since the conclusion of our Churchwide Assembly last week.

Since then, as I promised in my previous letter, I have spoken with our Synod Council, our synod staff, many of our voting members from South Dakota, other ELCA bishops, and many other good people whose counsel I value. And I have prayed. I have prayed for you, for our synod, for the church, for those who are disappointed and hurt by the outcome of the Churchwide Assembly's votes, and for those who are elated and hopeful because of it.

I report back to you now with a sense of hope. Cautious hope. Most of you know that for theological reasons I was not a supporter of the Social Statement on Human Sexuality and I worked to defeat it. Once it was apparent that the will of the assembly was to adopt it, I turned my efforts toward ensuring that this church--our church--will always be a safe and welcoming home for everyone, regardless of how he or she stood on the sexuality issue. To my joy and relief, I find that same sentiment in large measure throughout our ELCA and our South Dakota Synod. No matter where they stood before Churchwide Assembly, many people--rostered leaders and laypeople alike--are now asking what we can do to ensure that we will move through these difficult early days as we have always been: God's people faithfully journeying together. And so I am hopeful.

Let's not pretend that there is no anxiety; there is. Many people are angry, upset, and confused at the outcome of the assembly. I think we all understand and appreciate that. But I urge them, I urge you: Be calm. And be at peace. Our Lord is still Lord of the church. Let us give ourselves time to see the form our future is taking and how we may live into it together.

One important fact cannot be over-emphasized: This will be a long process. Nothing will change immediately, and I anticipate a wait of several months before we begin to see proposals for revision of our policies, guidelines, and rules. That is a good thing for us since it will give us the time we need to pray, discuss, reflect, and discern.

I assure you of two things: First, as I have emphasized many times before, your congregation will always be completely free to choose whom it will call as its rostered leader. No congregation in this or any other synod will ever be forced or coerced into calling a particular pastor. That has not changed, and that will not change.

Second, as your bishop I promise to work diligently to make sure that this synod and this church will always have room for those who disagree. We will create safe spaces for everyone--laypeople, rostered leaders, candidates for ministry--all across our church. To me, this is the meaning of the concept of  "bound conscience," so often referenced in these discussions: You and I may disagree, but we respect one another and our differing interpretations of God's desire for this church. We commit to caring for one another. And then we work together to come through these uncertain times.

In return, I ask this of you: Be calm, and encourage those around you to be calm. Believe me, I know how difficult this is in times of uncertainty. But no one in this synod or anywhere else will benefit from hasty decisions made in the heat--and the hurt--of the moment. We really do have time on our side now and we need to take advantage of this gift.

Many pastors, including myself, have already heard from people who are thinking of leaving the ELCA. What do we say to them? I usually point out, as gently as possible, that it's hard to hurt the church without hurting yourself. I remind them that if they leave, they lose their voice in this church that they love; but if they stay they can help to craft the future of the ELCA. And I remind them that they are loved and needed, for God's work requires all of our hands.

We already disagree on many things and have done so for years. We have found ways to work through disagreements, and I am confident that we will do so again. As I said, I am hopeful--cautiously so, but hopeful, full of faith that Christ is Lord and Savior, and full of gratitude for you, for our church, and for the great things God has planned for us!


In Christ's Love,


Bishop David B. Zellmer
South Dakota Synod, ELCA

---

Statements from Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson

Bishop Dave Zellmer wishes to direct your attention to two helpful video statements from ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson following last week's Churchwide Assembly. The video clips on the ELCA's Churcwide Assembly page are titled "Bp Hanson Remarks" and "Closing Remarks," and may be accessed by following this link. "Bp Hanson Remarks" and "Closing Remarks" are, respectively, numbers 39 and 40 of the 42 video clips presented there.

---

A Pastoral Letter from Bishop David Zellmer

Bishop Dave writes from Minneapolis with this pastoral letter, which he invites you to share widely throughout your congregations and among any you know who have concerns after the ELCA Churchwide Assembly that concluded today:

August 22, 2009

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

First of all let me quote our Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson: "I make this request: We need one another. We need time, we need the voices of those who lament and those who rejoice over these actions."

It has been quite the week not only for the 1,045 voting members and 1,000 visitors at the Churchwide Assembly but also for you who have watched and listened on the live webcast or read in the newspaper the work of the Assembly. Following significant debate it was the will of this assembly that we should accept the Social Statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust and to approve the four recommendations for Practice and Policy of Rostered Leaders.

For some of those gathered here or listening in this was long-awaited good news, and for others this was a decision that would have been avoided if it had been within their power. Many questions remain:

* Will there be a place for me in this church, if I disagree with the decisions?
* Do I have to leave my church or can I find a way to stay?
* Will we have to call someone or teach something we don't agree with?

I remind you again: Congregations will continue to choose their pastors, and their educational materials. And the Churchwide Assembly took steps to ensure that your congregational home will continue to be your home, as it has always been: In the fourth recommendation we were able to amend the suggested pathway into the future to explicitly make room for those who by their "bound conscience" cannot agree with the decisions that were made here. Candidacy committees and bishops will be able to vote their consciences. There is room in this church for those who disagree.

On Tuesday of this week I and our synod staff will be meeting with our Synod Council in Chamberlain to discuss ways that we might live together into the future. We will have a letter to you from our work together by next Thursday.

Please know that there is much work yet to be done. New rules will need to be written by Vocation and Education; those rules will need to be vetted by the Bishops and finally approved by the Church Council. It will be several months before that work is completed.

Let St. Paul's words to the Colossians be the last word here: "Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body." (Colossians 3:14-15)

Bishop David B. Zellmer
South Dakota Synod, ELCA

---

A Special Message from Bishop David Zellmer
Regarding the Upcoming ELCA Churchwide Assembly

Recorded July 21, 2009

---

Other Synod Publications
PDF files require the free Adobe Reader, available here

2009 Synod Assembly Minutes Synod Council Minutes - May 30, 2009 2009 Synod Assembly Highlights God's Work. Our Hands: Together 2008 Synod Assembly Highlights 2008 Synod Assembly Minutes Minutes of the South Dakota Synod, ELCA, Hearing on the Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality  South Dakota Synod Handbook Constitution and Bylaws of the South Dakota Synod

---

Other Publications
PDF files require the free Adobe Reader, available here

South Dakota Synodical WELCA Newsletter (a PDF file) TEEMmates News (a PDF file) Vision and Expectations—Ordained Ministers in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Americais a document that informs candidates for ordained ministry, seminaries, congregations, and candidacy committees regarding the ELCA's vision for ordained ministry and the high expectations it places on those who serve in this way. Vision and Expectations is online here.

---

Synod Council Resolutions
At its March 13-14 meeting, the South Dakota Synod Council adopted two resolutions. The resolutions--Vote Margin on Changes in this Church's Policy and Practice and Resolution Affirming Marriage--have been forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of the ELCA. As directed by the 2008 South Dakota Synod Assembly Resolution 5, Participation in the Process Toward ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality, those resolutions are posted here:

Vote Margin on Changes in this Church's Policy and Practice
Resolution Affirming Marriage

Helpful Resources in the Face of the H1N1 Influenza A ("Swine Flu") Pandemic Added 9/29/09: H1N1 Flu: A Guide for Community and Faith-based Organizations (C/FBOs), Health and Human Services Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Added 5/1/09: Worship in Times of Public Heath Concerns: Guidance from the Worship and Liturgical Resources Section of the Office of the Presiding Bishop, ELCA, 4/30/09 Responding Faithfully to Pandemic Flu, ELCA Disaster Response Congregational Planning for Flu Pandemic, ELCA Disaster Response (archived) Caring for Health: Our Shared Endeavor, ELCA Social Statement  (2003) Pastoral letter by Bishop Anderson, Southwestern Minnesota Synod Key Facts about H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) and You, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention H1N1 Flu Video, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC Free Flu Materials, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention How to Add the CDC Swine Flu RSS Feed, Centers for Disease Control (instructions for getting automatic updates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on your desktop or web browser)

PDF files require the free Adobe Reader, available here.

---

121509