Letter to the Editor

Regarding the ELCA Sexuality Statement article, published March 12, 2009, I was supremely disappointed with the analysis of PRIDE’s position on the issue. Being the interviewee, representing the student organization, I feel the need to clarify my words for the author and audience of the article. While reading the piece, it became abundantly clear to me that the Chips staff writer, Don Stein, was obviously confused with my statements regarding the theology behind the statement, namely notions of incarnation and relationship that lay at the foundation of the ELCA’s new stance on sexuality.

A theology of incarnation understands the life, suffering, death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ as both symbolic of and present within the life of every human being. Therefore, the Church is called to live in community with and for one another and the world, attempting to broaden our interpretation and experience of the Gospel through relationship, connected by the incarnate Christ in humanity. In this relationship, then, we discover the uniqueness of each individual, understanding their differences as a rich and valuable part of God’s creation.

Here, the ECLA Sexuality Statement argued that in order to fully appreciate each person on an individual level we are called to live in relationship with one another. Regarding sexuality and gender identity and expression, this lays the foundation for a very accepting stance on the issues at hand, opening up doors to ordination and marriage, blessings to folks that were previously denied that opportunity in the Lutheran Church. Which is, as was not made clear in this article, a majority opinion held within the aforementioned Church. However, because of the ELCA’s argument that at this moment synods have the right to declare who is and is not fit for ordination, those living within the borders of a more conservative synod are denied the right to pursue their calling in parish ministry. The decision, therefore, is left to individuals on candidacy committees who have little to no stake in that particular candidate’s future ministry

This is not, as PRIDE representatives were quoted as saying, “a breakthrough,” nor can it be understood as a step forward or upward. Instead, it would behoove Stein to reread his notes of our conversation and work to gain a stronger grasp on the theology of incarnation before writing a clearly biased and uninformed article on the sensitive issues of gender and sexuality, especially in relation to the Church.

-Peter McLellan (‘09)