Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Merry Christmas 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Pastoral Letter

Much has been made of the Northeastern Iowa Synod Council’s expression of disapproval toward the votes on ministry policies from the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly. (For more details on these resolutions and 60+ reader comments, check out Pretty Good Lutherans.)
I have followed the reaction to the synod council’s vote with more than a passing interest, as my dad is the bishop in that synod. One of the most curious responses has been from folks wondering “why is the bishop silent?" For many, the underlying implication is “if the bishop made this decision, why isn’t he explaining it to congregations?" I suppose it’s a reasonable question for people who are unaware of the role of bishop. The reality is this -- ELCA bishops cannot make unilateral declarations of synod-wide ministry policies or roster status. They work within the framework of decision-making bodies (typically committees and councils that are 60% lay and 40% clerty) to uphold good order within the roster of pastors and other leaders.
In the same way that the sexuality votes at CWA were more about scripture than sexuality, the months afterward have mostly been about teaching people the intricacies of how our church functions. Bishop Ullestad attempts to clarify some of these things in a “pastoral letter” that he sent to the congregations in NE Iowa. The full text is below. Comments and reflections are invited.
December 4, 2009
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
Grace to you and peace in this season of Advent anticipation and hope.
At its November 14, 2009 meeting, the synod council passed two resolutions in response to the actions of the churchwide assembly votes on ministry policies and the social statement on Human Sexuality. These resolutions were passed after thoughtful conversation by a majority vote. The resolution addressing the "bound conscience" clause of the churchwide resolutions was adopted by a vote of 10 in favor, 5 opposed and 1 abstention. The memorial requesting that the ELCA church council repudiate and rescind the actions of the churchwide assembly passed by a vote of 8 in favor, 6 who were opposed and 2 abstentions. Both resolutions have been sent to all rostered persons in our synod.
We have received several responses to the actions of the synod council. There are those who are grateful for the resolutions and others that are experiencing deep pain due to the votes. Some are asking questions about the authority of the synod council to pass such resolutions while many are asking about the implications for local congregations in the call process, the candidacy committee and the decisions that are made by the bishop. The resolutions test the implications of the churchwide decisions for our synod. I have been asked by those who oppose the decisions and by those who support the decisions to "make a ruling" in this regard. I have chosen not to do so for the following reasons.
We are Lutherans. We believe that the Christian faith and the implications of the Gospel have not simply been given to the church through an unbroken chain charted back to St. Peter. We believe that the Gospel and its implications for our daily lives have been given to all who confess Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Consequently, it is the calling of the people of God and not the bishop or Conference of Bishops to determine the ethics of the church. That is why we engage the whole church in the development of social statements and have votes by those who have been elected by the people, the laity and pastors of the churchwide assembly and synod council, in order to determine the policies of the church. An individual bishop, The Conference of Bishops, any unit of the churchwide office and the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA have no legislative authority in this regard. It is the vote of the people that makes this determination.
The people of God, assembled in Minneapolis, determined that local congregations would decide whether or not they wished to recognize, support and hold publicly accountable couples who are in life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships. The church, gathered at the churchwide assembly, also decided to allow for "structured flexibility" in determining whether or not persons in such relationships could be approved for ordination and serve as pastors. The language of the resolutions makes provision for the "bound conscience" of "any congregation, candidacy committee, synod or bishop.”
In the same way that some synods and congregations have voted in the past to be "Reconciling in Christ" synods or congregations, our synod council has voted to continue the traditional standards for ordination and the calling of a pastor. This resolution will be brought to the 2010 Synod Assembly for consideration.
Our synod will now be engaged in conversations about what this means for our life together. What is meant by the churchwide assembly’s action that allows for the bound conscience of a candidacy committee and a synod? Is the action of the synod council and potential action of the synod assembly, a higher authority than the local congregation's authority to call any pastor that it chooses who is on the roster of the ELCA? Is a decision of the synod council or synod assembly a higher authority than the bound conscience of any individual that is serving on the candidacy committee? Standards of discipline for rostered persons are churchwide policies and not synodical. Does the action of the synod council add to, change or challenge those policies, or is it subservient to them?
The resolution passed by the synod council "encourages" the synod bishop to maintain the traditional standards for the roster. If a congregation chooses to call a pastor in a "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same gender relationship", does the bishop have the authority to refuse to sign such a call? If a bishop's signature on a letter of call simply "attests" to an ELCA congregation calling an ELCA pastor and does not indicate an approval or appointment by the bishop, on what basis would a bishop not sign a call? If a bishop’s “bound conscience” would be the basis for such a decision, is that a greater power than a congregation’s call?
My concern continues to be the theology of the church in the midst of this very important conversation. I have asked that we consider a Lutheran understanding of scripture, the manner in which we embrace dialectical tension in our theology and the importance for any consideration to be grounded in scripture and the theology of the church.
I believe that pastors, whether serving in the office of bishop or in congregations, are the "spiritual parents" for the community of faith. As that parent for our synod, it is important for me to allow the family to be engaged in this conversation within certain parameters. I will not solve this problem for our synod or church. I will help to maintain the boundaries of the conversation, reminding us of our theology, the implications for the eighth commandment, and the powerful witness of our oneness in Christ in the midst of difficult and challenging times.
Families have been destroyed because they could not find a way to have a conversation on the topic of homosexuality. This is our opportunity to provide a witness to them about how we can remain one in Christ, share our deep faith convictions and remain together for the sake of Christ's mission in the world.
It is my fervent prayer that we will continue to trust the people of God with making decisions about the ministry of their congregations and our church. We remember together that there is nothing that will separate us from the love of God, that our unity in Christ is greater than any disagreement and that none of us will do anything to injure or weaken the remarkable mission of our church. I have no question, that the depth and breadth of that mission is unmatched. I will be working to continue to strengthen our church even further.
Thank you for joining me in that calling.
Your Partner in Mission,
The Rev. Dr. Steven L. Ullestad
Bishop
Sunday, November 22, 2009
CORE Confusion

I'm confused...and I'm hoping that someone can enlighten me.
In September the Lutheran CORE group met to discuss next steps after the human sexuality vote at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly. The two major decisions to come out of this assembly were to (A) create a free-standing, non-geographic synod and (B) wait one year to make any formal decisions about creating a new denomination.
Less than two months later, the leadership board of Lutheran CORE announced its decision to create a new denomination. What happened to one year for prayer and discernment? I'm perplexed why a group of people who regularly complain about the unhealthy bureaucratic structure in the ELCA would go against the expressed wishes of those gathered in Indianapolis.
I'm also not sure what a "free-standing, non-geographic" synod means. To my understanding, if the ELCA is going to create a new synod, it's up to the churchwide assembly to make this happen. At this point, the 65 ELCA synods are all carry geographic distinction. How will this new synod function within the ELCA if it doesn't play by the rules that govern the denomination?
In the spirit of koinonia, I'm hoping for a healthy conversation in this space about what Lutheran CORE is hoping to accomplish in the days ahead.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
To Save A Life

I recently had a chance to preview the latest "Christian" movie to attempt mainstream relevance. To Save A Life is the story of an all-American kid who wrestles with typical teenage issues; namely sex, drinking, parents, friendship, and religion. I entered the screening highly skeptical of Christian film making. The last two overtly Christian movies I had seen were awful. The acting was abysmal, the writing was predictable, and the theology was borderline offensive. I had prepared myself for a similar production.
To my surprise, To Save A Life was legit. The writer (a youth pastor) tackles the aforementioned issues honestly and realistically. The high school kids talk to each other like actual teens, curse words and all. The main character's religious conversion was relatively nuanced and believable. Even the theology was rooted in openness, acceptance, and "the unconditional love of God".
This is not to say that Life is flawless. The acting is still on par with most After School Specials. The characters are thinly developed, despite more than enough time spent in the first hour setting up the roles. There are several corny scenes, not the least of which was the protagonist's oceanic baptism. The youth pastor was too prominently involved for my liking. I didn't like how the main character stopped hanging out with his friends once he became a Christian.
These complaints aside, To Save A Life was the best Christian film I've seen. The production value is as good as any in the teen movie genre. It will be worth renting and discussing with senior high students once it comes out on DVD. For more information, check out the official website, Twitter feed, and one of the better movie reviews around.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Show Choir Devotional
As I was ranting against the "evils" of Show Choir a while back, my friend Angie had an idea of creating a devotional booklet that our young showstoppers could take on their weekend road trips. We put together a group of 10 one-page devotions that we thought would speak to people in the performing arts. Our friend Megan designed a funky cover as well. I've posted Word and PDF versions of "LISTEN", the Show Choir Devotional.
Please share and distribute this free resource to people who might find it useful.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Honor Flight

On Tuesday, my grandfather took a flight with about 350 World War II veterans to the WWII Memorial in Washington D.C. They arrived at the airport around 2:00 a.m. and returned home later that night around 11:00 p.m. I drove my grandparents to the check-in site and had a chance to listen to a few stories.
I was most fascinated to hear them speak about "the war to end all wars". For them - and for many in their generation - there seemed to be an altruistic mentality surrounding WWII. This was a war that needed to be fought because it would ultimately result in peace for their children, grandchildren, and so on. Call it naive...call it wishful thinking...call it 1940s USA propaganda -- I think they really believed that their efforts in this war would bring about the end to all future wars.
I'm not a fan of war. I oppose the two wars I've been alive to see. I think Jesus is clear that violence and aggression are not the way to resolve conflict. I also believe that the Honor Flights have been a beautiful gift to the men and women who are seeking closure and respect. I can't imagine what it would be like to fight in a war. I pray I never have to.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Internet Matters

People on Twitter and Facebook have seen me complain lately about the glacial speed of my church's Internet connection. I realize that such gripes make me sound petty and spoiled. Obviously, there are lots of other injustices in the world greater than my inability to download videos or music at my workplace. My point is not that functional Internet is the most important issue in the world...instead, I wish to proclaim that churches should no longer consider Internet to be a luxury.
This gap in understanding can best be summed up in something I read at Harris Interactive the other day. A recent poll indicated that the average U.S. teen spends 10 hours a week on the Internet. (This wasn't terribly surprising.) However, U.S. parents thought teens spent about 4 hours a week on the Internet. There is a 24-hour-a-month discrepancy between how much teens are on-line and how much their parents think they are on-line.
If adults don't have a realistic understanding of how much their children use the Internet, it shouldn't surprise me that adults at church (most of whom don't have teens in their house) don't perceive a need for a church to be technologically adept. It's also not entirely their fault -- many of us in youth ministry haven't demonstrated exactly WHY it's so important for us to have quality Internet access at church. It's much easier for us to use wi-fi at a coffee shop or our home than to plead our case at council meetings for the necessity of Internet.
(Of course, this establishes all kinds of bad work boundaries and passes on a financial burden on the church worker, either in the form of $2-3 cups of coffee or $30+ in monthly Internet charges.)
So why is it so important for a church to have sufficiently fast and strong Internet? Here are a few reasons:
1. Inexpensive resources. When I started working at a church in 2001, the best $200 you could spend was on curriculum and leader guides from Group, Youth Specialties, Youth & Family Institute, etc. Fast-forward 8+ years, and you can make a case that youth workers shouldn't need to spend a dime on materials. A person just needs the technology resources and know-how to unearth the wealth of useful information at their fingertips.
2. Communication. Most teens spend 1-2 hours on-line every day. A majority of parents and adult leaders work in an office where they are constantly connected via email and other networking sites. Name another "place" where a critical mass of parishioners are hanging out on a regular basis. Why not make it as easy as possible for people to engage church members where they are?
3. Efficiency. It's a waste of the church's time and money resources to have staff people waiting for web pages, attachments, messages, video and music files to load.
4. Outreach. A friend of mine recently told me that a church web site is "the first set of doors a visitor walks through." If a church has empowered staff people with leadership in the congregation, why not give them the tools to be as welcoming as possible? The presence of functional Internet allows churches to be more nimble, better communicators, and...
...I could go on, but the coffee shop with wi-fi is closing...

