March 4, 2005, from Pastor Amandus Derr     

Dear Gregory and colleagues:

The very thing I feared would happen now has: a limited discussion by e-mail. I would love to have this discussion face-to-face. I would love it to include the gay members of Saint Peter's, especially those in committed relationships who would say of themselves:

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

It is they, not only I, who strenuously object to the word "homoerotic." They, not I, are the ones who ought to be asked about this language. That is my pastoral point.

One this same issue your comments about separating the "erotic" from biblical examples of committed relations precisely support my point. Let me say it more clearly, what is true about the marriage between a man and woman is also true about every committed relationship: It is not about eroticism. It is something more. Trust (faith) even love, biblically understood, might be a good word. Eroticism is a small part of what is being discussed here. Yet that is what your use of that word would reduce the discussion to. That's why the gay and lesbian members of this parish and I find the word "Homoerotic" unsatisfactory. This is exactly my point about the use of that word.

I will not budge once iota on my assertion that "Law and Gospel" hermeneutics, rightly divided, is the center of all Lutheran theology. Your comment on Piepkorn's emphasis ("evangelical interpretations of catholic teaching.") precisely makes that point. How do we determine "evangelical interpretations"? With Law-Gospel hermeneutics. That distinction stands within the variations of Lutheran theological thinking which you mention. When it doesn't, that theological thinking, while it may be many things, is not Lutheran. I will heartily agree that not every Lutheran will take Law-Gospel reduction as radically as folks like me do. And you are correct, there's lots of Elert here! Yet I continue to believe that when that hermeneutic is made an "a" rather than a "the," it leads, both to the left and to the right (both sides in this argument, in my opinion, have buried this Lutheran theological gift), to disaster. I am convinced that the failure to be radical (that is, rooted) in the Law-Gospel hermeneutic has brought us to the point that we Lutherans are now unable to speak a common theological language with one another. Our competing "theologies" have side-lined the Lutheran hermeneutic. In turn, they have allowed us either to relativize Scripture and Tradition (I agree with you there!) or treat Scripture and Tradition in a fundamentalist way. This is not only applicable to issues of sexuality, but to every issue that has divided us throughout our recent history.

You are also correct, both with reference to my familial analogy and my preaching that I do preach the law. Our Bishop does also. That why I bristle at the term "antinomianism." I live the law in my personal behavior, my family life, in the administration of parish staff, in wider-church work (my discourse on the function of Reference and Counsel and my distinctions therein are clear examples of that), and I preach the law regularly. Those who hear and read my sermons know that only too well. But I believe I fail as a preacher whenever I fail (and I do fail often, and those who hear me remind me when I do) to proclaim that what pleases God is not my law keeping, but by Promise trusting. There is a great danger here, Gregory! There is far too much being said, again on both sides of this and many other issues, that gives the impression that because someone conforms to a particular behavior (not being racist, for instance, on one side, or not having an abortion on the other) that they are more righteous than those who have failed in that behavior. There is no doubt in my mind and I hope not in yours that many Lutherans believe that they are more righteous in the sight of God because they are not gay or lesbian, just as there are those who believe they are more righteous in the sight of God because they are more inclusive. This is the same use of the law, self-justification, and it must not be proclaimed. Preaching of the law (biblical law and all other law) has one purpose: to drive us to trust the Promise. That's why the Law always accuses. That's why it is, at best, a penultimate (and I believe dangerous) statement to say "the law is the way in which we should walk that we might be living a life pleasing to God." Trust in God's Promise is the only way to live a life pleasing to God. And as I said by citing Bonhoeffer, sometimes that must mean doing what it unlawful and trusting that the Promise will justify. That's what Frank Fry means by "best reverent guess."

Finally, I believe that you and I and all the baptized people of God are, in fact, righteous. I can't understand you comment:

I was led to think about that in my devotions earlier this week when I was reading Psalm 11, particularly verse 3: If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? By "the righteous" I was not thinking of our generation, but of the next generations.

What do you mean by "foundations"? Is it something other than trust in God's Promise? Is it something other than Jesus Christ? Is it what Christ taught us to do, or what Christ did? I too am concerned about the young. I fear they will not ever be comforted, or even hear, the Gospel. I fear that they will hear the Gospel as simply another set of behavior modifications. I fear they will hear the Gospel as Law.

Dear colleagues:

If we can find a way to fully include baptized people of God who are gay or lesbian in these discussions; if we are willing to speak with them instead of about them; if we are willing to hear God's judgment and God's Promise addressed to all of us together, not as experts vs. novices, but as the people of God in Christ, than I will engage in such conversations, and go anywhere for such a frank and faithful exchange. I agree that assemblies are not a good forum for this. In splendid isolation, as this conversation has thus far been, I have serious pastoral problems. I invite your prayers for me, but it is exactly the kind of conversation I intend to avoid. It's not that I don't love and respect all of you, it's just that you are not enough for a faithful discussion these matters. I will not, therefore, engage in written or electronic discussion again. It is unfaithful to the very people, and their Lord and mine, whom I am called to serve every day.

Peace and Joy,

Amandus J. Derr