Volume 3, Number 1

Concerning Social Statements

by C. Jack Eichhorst*

Do social statements generated by the bureaucracy and then refined by a national Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) truly reflect the convictions of the members of the ELCA?

Consider as a test case, the "ELCA Social Statement on Abortion," passed at the last Assembly meeting in Orlando, My judgment is, 'It was not a pro-life statement but it could have been worse." In fact, it is surprising that it is not worse. 1 was a member of the Task Force that drafted the statement. I could not, however, vote for its approval.

There are several reasons for saying it might have been worse. First, consider the composition of the Task Force. Strong prejudice must have been involved in selecting its members. The bias of selection worked powerfully in this case, and apparently will be a dominant factor in all social statements by the ELCA. That bias reflects a strong leaning to a left wing, liberal point of view in matters of sexual ethics. This is obvious also in the newly published document, "Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith." 77k Lutheran reported how its Task Force agreed grudgingly to admit to its membership at least one conservative, "but only one who can change his mind."

At the first meeting of our TaskForce on abortion it was absolutely clear to me that the so-called "pro-choice" people had the votes. Only four people, three strongly, had an obvious pro-life commitment; all of them were men. We were outnumbered 4 to 1, or at least 3 to 1, depending on how broadly one defines pro-life.

The dynamics of the Task Force were predetermined from the selection bias, and so therefore were the basic results. At points of crisis when there was vociferous disagreement and men were told to shut up so women could speak and be heard, the pro-life voices were silenced. So it was pro-life men against pro-choice women.

In a church fanatically committed to representation and fairness through a legalistic quota system, pro-life women of the ELCA were told they do not count!! They were not present except through the marginized voices of some middle-aged, middle-class, white men, all of whom were pastors.

And like all these situations, no pre-born babies were present. They too were under-represented; they didn't count for much either. All they have at stake is life itself.

Second, there was a bias of consultant At times it was difficult to tell who was on this Task Force because there were so many other staff members sitting in on the meetings. But one thing became clear: except for one person from the Division for Church and Society, none of these people was about to express a pro-life position. When persistent objections were raised about unfairness in representation, a token pro-life woman was brought in to make a presentation. Violating all those other pieces of rhetoric by which people are castigated and whipped into line these days, such as people having aright to choose their own spokesperson, those of us who were pro-life had nothing to say about who would be the token woman to represent our point of view. Isn't it interesting to see the "new open representative1 church" at work?

Third, even had the Task Force produced a strong, pro-life statement it would not have made it through the Board which supervises the Division for Church and Society. This Board, I have been told on good authority, was more pro-choice, i.e.. pro-abortion, than the Task Force itself, hi fact, pro-choice representatives from the Task Force found themselves defending certain pro-life aspects of the statement over against the Board.

What I have stated above is not too strong; it is an accurate representation of some dimensions of the work of the Task Force, There are some things which others might see as even more indicative of bias. Yet I must in fairness say that as time went on those of us who were strongly pro-life were listened to rather well.

But we never had the votes. In fact, I suspect we were sometimes listened to only because we were so obviously and ludicrously outnumbered that the charges of bias that were made had to be acknowledged in this way – by at least listening. According to group dynamics, we earned something of a "minority status." To some degree the bias of selection thus backfired.

By this glimpse into the work of this Task Force, I mean to warn us also about others in the future. We cannot proceed in a spirit of naive trust and good will. As a result of this experience, my life in the church will never be the same. What I saw on the inside scared me. The church that I have come to love, the church into which I was ordained, is not, I am convinced, the same as the church in which I now serve.

How does this church decide which topic to study and on which topics to make statements? In sexual matters, look to the morality of the secular order for the answer. It will tell where we will soon be as a church. As someone said to me, "We tag after Hollywood by a decade."

The ELCA statement on abortion has been acclaimed for not being stridently pro-abortion and pro-choice. If true, it is not because we have suddenly become more convinced about the message of the Bible on these matters, however. It U not because we have become more attuned to the overwhelmingly pro-life position of early Christianity and of the Lutheran Church (until the most recent decades).

Why then? Because society itself has begun to wake up regarding abortion. There has been a rejection of much of the agenda of the radical left Court decisions have changed. Laws restricting abortion have been enacted.

But what does this say ultimately about the church? It says the most tragic thing of all: The church follows "the world"; the church accommodates itself 10 society. Its own norms, its own most powerful authority – the Bible – is relativized and relegated to the status of "guide" – to use the term I have seen used by Bishop Chilstrom. We have gone from the Bible as "inerrant and infallible" and as the authoritative norm in matters of faith and life, to the Bible as "guide." Excuse my being crass; a guide is someone I hire to take me fishing or hunting; I tell them what I want to do and I tell them how much time I have.

With this, I have put my finger on our major problem. In the ELCA we are in a crisis over the authority of Scripture and over the authority of our normative tradition. We are being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and caught between enormous power struggles in the church. The church assemblies and their resolutions resemble the conventions of the Democratic Party which I used to attend in the 60s and 70sjexcept I think there was more openness and honesty in those. We didn't hide behind the language of religion when we were engaged in struggles for votes.

And what do I think of the contents of the ELCA statement on abortion? There are many sentences, even paragraphs that have a pro-life ring or echo. Importantly, there is no language which is demeaning 10 pro-life people. We are not treated as kooks and fanatical extremists, as so often happens in the press and on TV. At the beginning of the process we who were pro-life felt some of that scorn, but not by the time we were finished.

But on the tough questions, this statement backs off. Abortion is still left as a woman's choice, even though it is seen to be limited from a moral point of view. Abortion is described as an "option only of last resort" But in our social context, this has tittle bite, little standing.

Those sentences and paragraphs that have a pro-life ring to them have been strong enough so the press in a number of instances has interpreted the statement as a turn to a "pro-life" position. Even if this is only mildly the case, the perception of it as pro-life is a positive value.

There is a strong emphasis on the responsibility of men in all matters of sex and in the consequences of sexual union. This is to be applauded. Men have always been the most pro-abortion; they have all too often been the hit-and-run artists in matters of sex. Men have clearly abused and abandoned women, all too often leaving them to face difficult pregnancies all alone.

But when it comes to the crucial moral issue, namely, the issue of legal protection for pre-born children, this statement backs off. This means the status quo , which leaves this decision solely with the woman, is maintained. As it reads, "The position of this church is that in cases where the life of the mother is treated, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women."

Only very narrow limits are allowed to give legal protection to pre-born children. Life that is not worthy of protection by law, however, is life devoid of value. When all the rhetoric is brushed aside, this statement's position on the law says it all: before the law, pre-born babies don't count.

An irony in all this is to compare how some women use every means available to have rules and the law preserve and establish their rights in the church and society. And the supreme irony came when at the same national assembly, the ELCA adopted a statement opposing the death penalty and urged the support of legislation to achieve this goal.

What consummate irony – murderers are to be protected, but pre-born babies can be sentenced to death by those who traditionally have been their protectors, namely, their mothers. They can have their lives snuffed out by those who traditionally have been the very guardians of their lives, namely, medical doctors. THIS IS A BRAVE NEW WORLD INDEED. It is a world in which it is surely hard any longer to trust the church.

* C. Jack Eichhorst, PhD., is Senior Pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church, in Jamestown, ND., and former President of Seattle Lutheran Bible Institute. With Dr. Jean Garton, he was a founder of Lutherans for Life.

Genius At Work!!

F. Scott Fitzgerald said it was a sign of genius to be able to entertain in the mind two mutually contradictory ideas without going insane. If so, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America must be sprouting mental giants. The last Assembly at Orlando was able to adopt a statement decrying capital punishment – and at the same meeting, adopted a statement giving mothers the choice of destroying their unborn children by abortion. Fetus-no; felon-yes. ELCA members who support Planned Parenthood must be prodigies also. In the recent "Casey"Supreme Court decision its ACLU lawyers argued in favor of sex-selection abortion in their briefs – claiming that to abort an unborn child because of her gender is – and should remain – a constitutionally protected right under Roe vs. Wade, And that's being "pro-woman"?

Additional grounds for the cultivation of genius nave been staked out by the ELCA task force on Human Sexuality in the 55 page document it has sent to the conjugations.* It wants responses and reactions to its remarkable feat of being able to pledge allegiance to the Scriptures as the norm for our Lutheran faith and life, and at the same time affirm that we cannot be satisfied with a book that is so long out of date and so unaware of our social problems these days.

Invited to respond to this document, the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans convened two open meetings for the Sierra Pacific Synod congregations of the ELCA to discuss its assertions. The results are found on page 3 of this issue. Page 4 gives us the thoughtful reactions of two outside observers to this artifact of genius. Your concurring signature to FOCL's letter to the Task Force (page 3), will allow you to participate with FOCL in its response.

For our church and our nation's future the issues of family integrity are hugely serious. Dare we ignore them, by neglecting to support the traditional family values on which our nation was founded? To the flippant and scornful brush-off of those who have criticized "Murphy Brown," we might call attention to these observations from the Secretary of Health and Human Resources, Dr. Louis W. Sullivan. He points out that 70% of the juveniles in detention are from fatherless families and are five times more likely to grow up in single parent families. Almost incredible is his prediction that 60% of kids growing up now in the U.S. will spend some time in fatherless families.

He says, "I am appearing today to offer testimony on what I consider to be one of the most pressing issues facing our nation – a perilous rise in fatherless families. Though our society is only beginning to recognize it, the greatest family challenge of our era is fatherlessness, i.e., males absent from family life.

"As Secretary, I'm called upon to respond to societal problems ranging from drug abuse to teen pregnancy, from AIDS to child abuse, from health care id violence. And in all of these problems, a common thread emerges: fragile families – families without fathers.

"I see a direct link between the senseless violence on our streets and a generation of young males raised without the love, discipline and guidance of a father."

"Most of our national dialogue on family issues, as well as parenting classes and other family supports, have focused almost exclusively on the mother. However, it is not women who are abandoning or neglecting their children. The vast majority of single parents are women raising their children without the biological father in the home. It is time to shift our attention to the issue of male responsibility, and to the indispensable role that fathers play in our society.

"The adverse consequences of father absence cannot be reduced to only a decline in income. It is one thing to substitute for a missing father's paycheck – however his attention, his guidance, his discipline and his love, are not easily replaced.

"Generally speaking, children missing a parent are more vulnerable. They are five times more likely to be poor and twice as likely to drop out of school as are children who live with both parents. In any given year, nine out of ten children from two parent families avoid poverty, but one out of two children living in female-headed households are poor.

"I see a direct link between the senseless violence on our streets and a generation of young males raised without the love, discipline and guidance of a father. Approximately 70 percent of juveniles in long-term correctional facilities did not live with their father while growing up. We are raising a generation of young males who measure their manhood by the caliber of their gun and the number of children they have fathered – a generation for whom the camaraderie of a gang has replaced the love of a family.

"All of this research points to one conclusion: children need the love, support and guidance of both their mother and their father.

"We must recapture the spirit of family that nurtures, protects and strengthens our children. We must build upon the American tradition of strong, committed marriages, of parents spending significant time with their children, and fathers loving and providing for their children. [Quoted in Men of Action. Spring 1992]."

FOCL agrees, and adds: the undergirding of the father-mother-home may well be the most compelling and immediate task toward which our church ought to direct its social action concerns.

Correction

Attribution for the article in the Spring 1992 issue, "Always to Care – Never to Kill" should have read: "Reprinted with permission of the Wall Street Journal, copyright 1992, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved." The editors regret this inadvertence.

READER RESPONSES

EDITOR'S NOTE: We invite reader responses to FOCL concerns. Letters may be abridged and will be edited for space requirements.

Dear Editor:

Enclosed is my check for $ 15 in support of your work with FOCL. I appreciate your effort very much indeed.

Carl Reuss, Ph.D.

Minneapolis, MN

A Letter of Objection

August 30, 1992

To: ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality

Karen Bloomquist, Director for Studies, and

Rev. Charles Miller, Executive Director, Division for Church in Society,

Ingrid Christiansen, Chair, Board for Church in Society

Rev. Herbert Chilstrom, Bishop, ELCA

ELCA Church Council, c/o Kathy Magnus, Vice President.

ELCA Conference of Bishops

Rev. Lyle Miller, Bishop, Sierra Pacific Synod, ELCA.

Re: Response to "Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith: A Study for the Church's Reflection and Deliberation."

We, the undersigned, while grateful that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is willing to engage in serious study regarding the topic of human sexuality, are anything but pleased with the study document, Hasan Sexuality and the Christian Faith: A Study for the Church's Reflection and Deliberation. Our major objections to this stutty are as follows.

1. The Constitution of the ELCA states (2.03}: 'This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith and life." The study document, however, nowhere speaks of inspiration and gives only lip service to the Scripture's authority, actually treating the Bible as a partner in dialogue with other (apparently equal) partners – contemporary experience, scientific research, etc. We find that the second chapter's discussion of the Scriptures is poor scholarship – biased, unbalanced, and lacking in simple logic. We believe that the study contradicts the Constitution of the ELCA, the Confessional stance of the Lutheran church, and the Scriptures themselves.

2. The Augsburg Confession, Article VII, defines the church as "the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. " This study, on the other hand, regards the church as the sum of its members and their changing experiences and opinions. The church (understood as a human construction rather than the Spirit-formed body of Christ) is thus moved off its historic foundation of God's premises and saving acts as revealed in Word and sacraments and is rebuilt upon the shifting sands of human wisdem, experience and knowledge.

3. The Lutheran emphasis on both law and gospel is replaced in this study by a singular appeal to Christ's acceptance and inclusivity. This is, in reality, a non-biblical separation of law and gospel, an invalidation of God's loving directives to humanity, a false opposition of God's compassion to God's law, and an attempt to disqualify the Scriptures as a guide for Christian living, especially in matters of sexual morality. Sin is no longer sin, and the gospel ceases to be either good news or real freedom since forgiveness is replaced by license.

4. The Bible affirms marriage (between husband and wife) as the appropriate context for genital sexual activity. This study sanctifies "comnitted relationships" as a fit setting for such activity. This is a clear shift away from heterosexual marriage toward a host of other possibilities, without Scriptural warrant. Once again, biblical truth is replaced by human wisdom.

We believe this document is seriously flawed in its assumptions and conclusions, and that it raises major questions about the directions in which the Division for Church in Society would seek to lead the church. We do not question the sincerity of the Task Force members or their commitment to the task assigned to them, but we do question the make-up of the group and stand in opposition to the approach, methodology, and conclusions reached. We believe that Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith is advocacy for new ways of thinking about and understanding sexuality which, as the Conference of bishops warned, are "inconsistent and contradictory to comparable statements of the predecessor church bodies, and comparable statements of sister churches around the world," and which are "ideologically skewed and biblically indefensible."

Since Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith is faithful neither to the Scriptures nor the Confessions, we urge the ELCA to put aside this document and seriously to evaluate the guiding principles and assumptions of the Division for Church in Society.

The Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans.

IF YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WTTH THIS RESPONSE BY THE FELLOWSHIP OF CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANS TO THE DOCUMENT OF THE DIVISION FOR CHURCH IN SOCIETY, Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith, we invite you to sign your name below and return this page or its facsimile to the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans, 3707 Chamberlain Way, Carmichael, CA 95603. It will be sent on to the Division for Church in Society as an indication that the members of the ELCA want better theology and confessional faithfulnessfromthose who are appointedto act in their

Signed:___________________________________________________. Date____________

Address:_______________________________ State________ Zip___________

OF SCRIPTURE AND PLAIN REASON

by Paul J. Gravrock*

At the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther said: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason...my conscience is captive to the Word of God. (Roland H Bainton, Here I Stand, Abingdon Press, New York, 1950, p. 185) His words would be a fitting response in our day to the study. Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith sent out for response to the churches of the Evangelical Lu tberan Church in America (ELCA).

In constitution and in practice, the Lutberanchurchhas confessed the inspiration and au thority of Scripture and the folly of building faith and life on any other foundation. The ELCA sexuality study, however, does not reflect such confidence in the reliability and power of the biblical record. The concept of the inspiration of Scripture is not found in the document Instead, the Scriptures are regarded as little more than the best thinking of fallible folk of other times and places.

And while the word "authority" or "authoritative" appears five times in the study, in no case is the Scripture simply declared to be authoritative. On page 1, we are told that "these authoritative bases of our faith [the witness of Scripture and the historic confessions of the church], in dialogue with contemporary experience and knowledge, guide us corpo-rately as we seek to discern what is good, right, or Fitting regarding matters of sexuality." A dialogue is presumably a conversation among equals. Thus the Scripture is apparently no more authoritative than human knowledge of "the cries, fears, arid joys of people" (page 1).

And on page 11, the writers state: "We need to talk with one another, but even more importantly we need to be in conversation with Scripture, the authoritative basis for the church's faith and life. As Lutheran Christians, we cherish Scripture and insist on seeing God's word as a living partner in our deliberations about sexuality."

The statement above begins well, but by the time the second sentence has been added, the Scripture is no longer the authoritative source and norm the ELCA Constitution declares it to be. A "living partner" is merelyone among many voices, and theone can be overruled by the many. This is precisely what has taken place. Contemporary experience, scientific research, and human rationalizing have been given precedence over the clear words of Scripture.

Plain reason is also lacking in the document. The text is replete with phrases like "there is evidence to suggest," "may refer," "could designate," and "if this indeed was the case." On such foundations the major conclusions of the study are built!

We are given a list of six guiding principles on page 12. Five are stated in the negative, setting a tone of mistrust of what the Scripture has been understood to say. On page 13, the text refers to David's adultery with Bathsheba and Ammon s rape of Tamar to demonstrate that just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is to be affirmed. Do the members of the Task Force seriously believe that Christian people have u nderstood these two stories to describe positive behavior which is to be condoned and emulated? And really, is gender hierarchy the primary message of toe Old Testament regarding sexuality? Is Jesus' ministry focused on crossing purity boundaries? Are we vastly different than people of Old or New Testament times? Are our assumptions and understandings superior to those of the biblical writers? All these are declared or implied, but none is convincingly proved.

The task force'sdiscussion of the Greek word malakoi(malakoi)on page 23 further defies plainreason, Thedocumenttellsus that this word may not mean what Christians traditionally have thought it meant. The discussion of this assertion takes place in a footnote (page 27) which refers at length to the writings of John H. Elliott and Robin Scroggs. A list of possible meanings is given to show that malakoi in I Corinthians 6:9 meant "soft" rather than "effeminate." But then, in a moment of scholarly honesty, the footnote states: "Greek usage beyond the New Testament, however, attests the extended connotation of soft as "effeminate." The footnote further suggests that malakoi in I Corinthians could designate frequently abusive situations. But again the writers admit "It should be noted, however, that there is not evidence contemporary to Paul to support this meaning." This is hardly compelling reasoning for changing the church's understanding of either word meanings or moral convictions.

I believe that the whole study stands or falls on the basis of its understanding of the inspiration andauthority of Scripture. ThestudyfindsScripture untrustworthy for moral decision-making in our day. And I? Together with the Constitution of the ELCA, Ifind Scripture to be descriptive of the human condition and absolutely trustworthy for faith and lifejincluding morality and sexual practices.

To ignore Scripture or set it aside is to court personal and corporate disaster. Let us rather set aside this study, for it is neither a true exposition of Scripture nor an example of plain reason.

* TheRev. Dr. Paul Gravrock is the pastor ofGoodShepherd Lutheran Church in Novato, CA, and chair of the Division for Congregational Life, Sierra Pacific Synod of the ELCA.

THE ELCA SEX REPORT

abridged from LUTHERAN COMMENTATOR*

Seven observations on "Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith":

1) The study pits saving faith in Christ against scripture's discerning judgment concerning crucial aspects of human behavior. The purpose of Ihe study is to use Christ to disqualify the Bible as a guide and norm for Christian life concerning matters of sexual behavior.

2) Instead of assuming that the Bible represents divine instruction and good sense [thai] the faithful should obey biblical teachings, the study seeks to confine scripture to a pastepoch and make it irrelevant. It calls into question what the church has always assumed, the conviction that itis the presence of the word of God which alone brings the church into existence and nourishes its daily life.

3) An example of the limited viewpoint of the study is its treatmentof Romans 1:26-28. A common sense reading of ihe passage cannot fail to see that for St. Paul sexual intercourse of women with women and men with men is the first illustration of a world gone mad, lost in sin, and under the wrath of God. The study claims Paul condemns homosexuality because in his age it was common to understand it only in exploitative terms. But as Richard Hays points out [The Journal of Religious Ethics, 1986] Romans 1 identifies homosexual activity "explicitly and without qualification" as evidence of a creation in confused rebellion against ihe righteous God.

[The document is left then] with empirical studies of contemporary social science. But these speak of what "is." The Bible goes beyond to what "ought to be." It is a tricky business to try to derive value judgments based upon such studies in order to overturn biblical claims.

Some contemporary studies claim that sexual preference is a matter of "orientation" and not free choice...ethical duty must give way to genetic makeup. But for Christians, sin is not a matter of choice, but is precisely a matter of our fundamental orientation in the "flesh." And so God acts to save us because we cannot save ourselves. TospeakoforientationisnottoescapedivinejudgmenL To confess orientation is to prepare oneself to receive the mercy of God. Are we ready to go against Paul, the univocal witness of scripture, the tradition of Christian teaching, and our Lutheran theology of grace in order to "unsin" homosexuality?

4) The ELCA study uses four artfully constructed anecdotes to explain the complex phenomenon of homosexuality, designed to draw the sympathy of the reader. But in a world where gay men commonly confess to hundreds of partners and often want no part of conventional one-on-one bliss, it is time for the church to wake up and smell the sweat,

5) By contrast, consider the story in Sojourners (July 1991) of Gary who was dying of Aids, He knew his desires were against divine intention. He also knew the church is a place for sinners. He wrote a final letter: "Since All Saints Day I have feltmyself being transformed. I no longer consider myself homosexual, No I didn* tdo this of my own will. No, He did it for me. I feel a great weight has been lifted off me." This is a true story. It speaks directly of sex, death and religion. [But you would never find it as an anecdote in the ELCA study] for the ELCA is so consumed with being politically correct that it does not care what the Bible says.

6) The study has two paragraphs on "the ending of a commitment," a page on the sexual activity of divorced peoplejone of four pages on "genital sexual relationships outside marriage," [with] virtually nothing on the chief victims of divorce: children. Recentstudies as those of Judith Walierstein have shown that divorce is a trauma that accompanies a child throughout the stages of life. Children never gtt over divorce.

Society is seriously threatened because of the high divorce rate. We are raising a generation of children deeply scarred. That a report on sexuality from the Lutheran Church spends no time on this most serious issue, but would rather agonize over anecdotes like "lim" leaving "Jane" or the two college brats named "Maria" and "Michael" who have decided they want to shack up, is a disgrace.

7) We are hearing from pastors. A prominent pastor in North Dakota told us. 'This could blow the church wide open." We agree

* Reprinted by permission of Lutherans for Religious and Political Freedom, from March/April 1992 issue.

The World’s Substitutes

by James L. Hoefer*

Flying home from a meeting of the Board of the Navajo Evangelical Lutheran Mission in Arizona, I pondered how distressed the Navajo Lutheran pastors and lay leaders often became when they participated in events of our ELCA Commission for Multicultural Ministries.

Since the Navajo churches are recognized as healthy examples of "Native American Outreach," members are invited to attend these events. Yet when they do, they are frequently asked to participate in the very sorts of spiritualistic rituals they forsook in order to become disciples of Jesus Christ.

Every day on the reservation they are surrounded by forms of worship, led by medicine men, that are still followed by the great majority of their tribe. For years they have stood their ground, witnessing at great personal cost to the power of the Gospel. Then they come to our ELCA Multicultural Events gatherings where these old ways are strangely sanctioned and practiced. When something is written to object, it is dubbed "hate mail" by the Commission staff (See their "Quincentennial Materials," 3/31/92). Usually these gentle Navajoleaderssay nothing.Confrontation is not theirway. But they are deeply saddened by it all.

While thinking about their consternation and bewilderment over the Commission's behavior, I began to talk with the young bright-eyed woman sitting beside me. College-age, she had just returned from a "Dream Seminar" in the Bradshaw Mountains. For two weeks she had camped out "Indian style." She had fasted and chanted, meditating upon a cafeteria menu of Metaphysics and Eastern thought, in order to "center" herself. She showed me her Zuni fetishes and her "I Ching."

I told her I too was a "spiritual teacher." Soon I had pulled out my New Testament, and showed her Jesus. She had rejected her parents' Mormonism years before, and she knewnothingabouttheGoodNews. Sbelistfinedgladlyuntiltlieplanelanded;then took the material I had to share with her. Andlthoughttomyself, "When our world is hungry to know Him whom to know isLife Eternal, whyare we in the church still content to offer the world's substitute junk food to those who are starving for the Bread of Life?"

*Hoefer is Co-pastor of Los Altos Lutheran Church, Los Altos, CA., and Vice-President of the Board of Directors of the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans.