Sharp Numerical Decline In LCMS

[Steven Tibbetts]

And in the 1960's the ALC and LCA studied and found that the Scriptures (and therefore God) considered no difference between male in female; that God had women prophets (public speakers) in worship; that women were the first to proclaim the good news of the resurrection; and that the prohibitions against women in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy were just like the passages related to length of hair and head coverings; created by the culture of that day and not a universal truth for all times and places.

I really wish, Brian, that when you cite the LCUSA study on the ordination of women to justify our (ELCA) practice, you would use the study's actual conclusions (from which the LCA, ALC, and LCMS acted as they did in 1970) rather than conclusions you and others have made up decades later. 

Pax, Steven+
I know.  If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[readselerttoo]

And in the 1960's the ALC and LCA studied and found that the Scriptures (and therefore God) considered no difference between male in female; that God had women prophets (public speakers) in worship; that women were the first to proclaim the good news of the resurrection; and that the prohibitions against women in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy were just like the passages related to length of hair and head coverings; created by the culture of that day and not a universal truth for all times and places.

I really wish, Brian, that when you cite the LCUSA study on the ordination of women to justify our (ELCA) practice, you would use the study's actual conclusions (from which the LCA, ALC, and LCMS acted as they did in 1970) rather than conclusions you and others have made up decades later. 

Pax, Steven+


I know.  If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Is it possible to find that document online, Pr. Tibbetts?  I'd be curious to read it.  Thanks.

[John_Hannah]

The NALC is not seeking merger with LCMS nor even the LCMS-AALC arrangement.  Not looking for merger with LCMC either.  For most of us my generation (I'm 59, and hence was baptized in the ELC which merged into the ALC in which I was confirmed and ordained, and then merged into the ELCA), we've experienced mergers as dead-ends, with enormous energy, focus, and funds expended on institution with congregations relegated to "funding-sources" while the institution postured as "the church doing ministry."  We also witnessed the capture and control of institutional leadership, especially in the ELCA, by revisionists.   As a traditionalist who endured the "long defeat" of 2000s, I give revisionists their due.  From the start of the ELCA (and before, going back to the Commission on the New Lutheran Church) into the 1990's the revisionists from the ALC, LCA, and AELC came together, organized, and focused their efforts with much greater political adeptness than the traditionalists.  The traditionalists were split on issues of ministry and ecumenism even into the 2000's.  That's still reflected in the separate and distinctly different existences of the NALC and LCMC.  That's part of the history for those of us in the NALC--so no we don't want merger with LCMS.   Most of us who with our congregations left the ELCA post-2009, gave some consideration to going LCMS but chose not to for a variety of reasons--some doctrinal, some cultural, some a mix of both.  Where we can work with LCMS on matters of agreement regarding religious liberty, upholding a shared understanding of God's intention for marriage and sexuality, and the truth and value of the Lutheran Confessions, we will--but we are not interested in any closer organizational arrangement.

Wisdom here. Thanks Ken.

Peace, JOHN (Born and raised in Iowa.)

[Mark Brown]

Rev. Brown,

If the LCMS says that God only entrusts the pastorate to men (and we do), how could we say it is OK for women to continue in the office until they retire?  Do we say to a couple living together outside of marriage that such an arrangement is not God-pleasing but they may remain in that state -- as long as they promise not to move in with anyone else in the future?  I guess what I am getting at is that I do not agree with you that there would be much interest (at least not from those like me in the LCMS and, I would bet, from the WELS/ELS).  Faithfulness is more important than mere numbers.

The NALC is not seeking merger with LCMS nor even the LCMS-AALC arrangement.  Not looking for merger with LCMC either.  For most of us my generation (I'm 59, and hence was baptized in the ELC which merged into the ALC in which I was confirmed and ordained, and then merged into the ELCA), we've experienced mergers as dead-ends, with enormous energy, focus, and funds expended on institution with congregations relegated to "funding-sources" while the institution postured as "the church doing ministry."  We also witnessed the capture and control of institutional leadership, especially in the ELCA, by revisionists.   As a traditionalist who endured the "long defeat" of 2000s, I give revisionists their due.  From the start of the ELCA (and before, going back to the Commission on the New Lutheran Church) into the 1990's the revisionists from the ALC, LCA, and AELC came together, organized, and focused their efforts with much greater political adeptness than the traditionalists.  The traditionalists were split on issues of ministry and ecumenism even into the 2000's.  That's still reflected in the separate and distinctly different existences of the NALC and LCMC.  That's part of the history for those of us in the NALC--so no we don't want merger with LCMS.   Most of us who with our congregations left the ELCA post-2009, gave some consideration to going LCMS but chose not to for a variety of reasons--some doctrinal, some cultural, some a mix of both.  Where we can work with LCMS on matters of agreement regarding religious liberty, upholding a shared understanding of God's intention for marriage and sexuality, and the truth and value of the Lutheran Confessions, we will--but we are not interested in any closer organizational arrangement.   

Well, a couple of thoughts.

First, to Pr. Bohler, it was the church (not our part of it) but a church that encouraged and performed the ordinations.  Unlike your marriage example in which there was no church involvement, we bear some responsibility for that.  The better example might be the couple that is unmarried but finds themselves pregnant.  Do you tell them to abort, or to continue toward marriage and raise the child?  One of those helps toward a greater faithfulness without erasing the fact of the sin.  The other just makes the surface look good.

Second, to Pr. Kimball, thanks for the response.  I get that, and in general I'm all for going it alone. (See the long conversation recently with Pr. Benke over joint endeavors.)  My only consideration is that long history of the traditionalists being riven and usually over things that are of secondary or even lower importance.  Things that I would tend to think fall under Phil 3:15-16.  Riven while revisionists solidified around things like abolishing Matthew 5 or 1 Cor 6:9. But smaller and multiple may actually be a better strategy.  It limits the damage when things go amiss.

[Steven W Bohler]

Rev. Brown,

1. The LCMS, after repeated study, has agreed that women's ordination is contrary to Scripture and therefore not God-pleasing. 
2. How can the LCMS then say that it will countenance the ordination of SOME women (these, that are already ordained wrongly)?  Or the continuance of these women in an office which we believe/teach/confess that God has NOT called them?

If it is wrong (and we say it is), then it cannot be right to allow it to continue.  None of this winking at it, sweeping it under the rug, or pretending that the offense is not there.  And if the Church has responsibility for those ordinations (as you claim), then the Church has the responsibility to correct the error.  As far as your example of aborting a baby conceived out of wedlock goes, well that does not really play since we believe/teach/confess that abortion is sinful.  So, obviously I would not tell them to abort the child. 

[Dave Benke]

Rev. Brown,

If the LCMS says that God only entrusts the pastorate to men (and we do), how could we say it is OK for women to continue in the office until they retire?  Do we say to a couple living together outside of marriage that such an arrangement is not God-pleasing but they may remain in that state -- as long as they promise not to move in with anyone else in the future?  I guess what I am getting at is that I do not agree with you that there would be much interest (at least not from those like me in the LCMS and, I would bet, from the WELS/ELS).  Faithfulness is more important than mere numbers.

The NALC is not seeking merger with LCMS nor even the LCMS-AALC arrangement.  Not looking for merger with LCMC either.  For most of us my generation (I'm 59, and hence was baptized in the ELC which merged into the ALC in which I was confirmed and ordained, and then merged into the ELCA), we've experienced mergers as dead-ends, with enormous energy, focus, and funds expended on institution with congregations relegated to "funding-sources" while the institution postured as "the church doing ministry."  We also witnessed the capture and control of institutional leadership, especially in the ELCA, by revisionists.   As a traditionalist who endured the "long defeat" of 2000s, I give revisionists their due.  From the start of the ELCA (and before, going back to the Commission on the New Lutheran Church) into the 1990's the revisionists from the ALC, LCA, and AELC came together, organized, and focused their efforts with much greater political adeptness than the traditionalists.  The traditionalists were split on issues of ministry and ecumenism even into the 2000's.  That's still reflected in the separate and distinctly different existences of the NALC and LCMC.  That's part of the history for those of us in the NALC--so no we don't want merger with LCMS.   Most of us who with our congregations left the ELCA post-2009, gave some consideration to going LCMS but chose not to for a variety of reasons--some doctrinal, some cultural, some a mix of both.  Where we can work with LCMS on matters of agreement regarding religious liberty, upholding a shared understanding of God's intention for marriage and sexuality, and the truth and value of the Lutheran Confessions, we will--but we are not interested in any closer organizational arrangement.   

Well, a couple of thoughts.

First, to Pr. Bohler, it was the church (not our part of it) but a church that encouraged and performed the ordinations.  Unlike your marriage example in which there was no church involvement, we bear some responsibility for that.  The better example might be the couple that is unmarried but finds themselves pregnant.  Do you tell them to abort, or to continue toward marriage and raise the child?  One of those helps toward a greater faithfulness without erasing the fact of the sin.  The other just makes the surface look good.

Second, to Pr. Kimball, thanks for the response.  I get that, and in general I'm all for going it alone. (See the long conversation recently with Pr. Benke over joint endeavors.)  My only consideration is that long history of the traditionalists being riven and usually over things that are of secondary or even lower importance.  Things that I would tend to think fall under Phil 3:15-16.  Riven while revisionists solidified around things like abolishing Matthew 5 or 1 Cor 6:9. But smaller and multiple may actually be a better strategy.  It limits the damage when things go amiss.

To your point on ordination, Mark - from the National Catholic Reporter in 2016:  Women's priesthood was first introduced by the Latvian Lutheran Church in 1975 when Latvia was still a part of the Soviet Union. From 1975 until 1993, women were ordained and served as priests, but in 1993, the conservative Janis Vanags, the present archbishop of Riga, was appointed.
Since the appointment, no women have been ordained. The women that already had been ordained were allowed to continue with their ministry.

The Missouri Synod is a partner church with the Lutheran Church in Latvia - partner churches are in altar and pulpit fellowship.

Dave Benke

[Jim Butler]

Rev. Brown,

If the LCMS says that God only entrusts the pastorate to men (and we do), how could we say it is OK for women to continue in the office until they retire?  Do we say to a couple living together outside of marriage that such an arrangement is not God-pleasing but they may remain in that state -- as long as they promise not to move in with anyone else in the future?  I guess what I am getting at is that I do not agree with you that there would be much interest (at least not from those like me in the LCMS and, I would bet, from the WELS/ELS).  Faithfulness is more important than mere numbers.

The NALC is not seeking merger with LCMS nor even the LCMS-AALC arrangement.  Not looking for merger with LCMC either.  For most of us my generation (I'm 59, and hence was baptized in the ELC which merged into the ALC in which I was confirmed and ordained, and then merged into the ELCA), we've experienced mergers as dead-ends, with enormous energy, focus, and funds expended on institution with congregations relegated to "funding-sources" while the institution postured as "the church doing ministry."  We also witnessed the capture and control of institutional leadership, especially in the ELCA, by revisionists.   As a traditionalist who endured the "long defeat" of 2000s, I give revisionists their due.  From the start of the ELCA (and before, going back to the Commission on the New Lutheran Church) into the 1990's the revisionists from the ALC, LCA, and AELC came together, organized, and focused their efforts with much greater political adeptness than the traditionalists.  The traditionalists were split on issues of ministry and ecumenism even into the 2000's.  That's still reflected in the separate and distinctly different existences of the NALC and LCMC.  That's part of the history for those of us in the NALC--so no we don't want merger with LCMS.   Most of us who with our congregations left the ELCA post-2009, gave some consideration to going LCMS but chose not to for a variety of reasons--some doctrinal, some cultural, some a mix of both.  Where we can work with LCMS on matters of agreement regarding religious liberty, upholding a shared understanding of God's intention for marriage and sexuality, and the truth and value of the Lutheran Confessions, we will--but we are not interested in any closer organizational arrangement.   

Well, a couple of thoughts.

First, to Pr. Bohler, it was the church (not our part of it) but a church that encouraged and performed the ordinations.  Unlike your marriage example in which there was no church involvement, we bear some responsibility for that.  The better example might be the couple that is unmarried but finds themselves pregnant.  Do you tell them to abort, or to continue toward marriage and raise the child?  One of those helps toward a greater faithfulness without erasing the fact of the sin.  The other just makes the surface look good.

Second, to Pr. Kimball, thanks for the response.  I get that, and in general I'm all for going it alone. (See the long conversation recently with Pr. Benke over joint endeavors.)  My only consideration is that long history of the traditionalists being riven and usually over things that are of secondary or even lower importance.  Things that I would tend to think fall under Phil 3:15-16.  Riven while revisionists solidified around things like abolishing Matthew 5 or 1 Cor 6:9. But smaller and multiple may actually be a better strategy.  It limits the damage when things go amiss.

To your point on ordination, Mark - from the National Catholic Reporter in 2016:  Women's priesthood was first introduced by the Latvian Lutheran Church in 1975 when Latvia was still a part of the Soviet Union. From 1975 until 1993, women were ordained and served as priests, but in 1993, the conservative Janis Vanags, the present archbishop of Riga, was appointed.
Since the appointment, no women have been ordained. The women that already had been ordained were allowed to continue with their ministry.

The Missouri Synod is a partner church with the Lutheran Church in Latvia - partner churches are in altar and pulpit fellowship.

Dave Benke

None of those women were actually allowed to "continue in their ministry." They couldn't be un-ordained, but they weren't allowed to serve churches as pastors either. The church took care of them, but they didn't really continue in ministry any longer.

[Mark Brown]

Rev. Brown,

1. The LCMS, after repeated study, has agreed that women's ordination is contrary to Scripture and therefore not God-pleasing. 
2. How can the LCMS then say that it will countenance the ordination of SOME women (these, that are already ordained wrongly)?  Or the continuance of these women in an office which we believe/teach/confess that God has NOT called them?

If it is wrong (and we say it is), then it cannot be right to allow it to continue.  None of this winking at it, sweeping it under the rug, or pretending that the offense is not there.  And if the Church has responsibility for those ordinations (as you claim), then the Church has the responsibility to correct the error.  As far as your example of aborting a baby conceived out of wedlock goes, well that does not really play since we believe/teach/confess that abortion is sinful.  So, obviously I would not tell them to abort the child.

Pr. Bohler,

I'm sure that you don't like being put in the role of abortionist, but by demanding "get rid of it completely" before even considering marriage, that is exactly the role.

As far as your point 2, let me float two answers.  You know how we always say to seminarians, "you don't know you have a call until you have one".  These women have call documents.  You can say like Rome with SSPX priests that they are illicit but valid.  They should not have been done, but they were and the role they serve is valid.  The second answer is a reference to Deborah and Barak, but there would be other good Biblical examples.  It is not normal course to have women in the role, but sometimes the men are cowards.  They could be cowards in not fulfilling the role.  They could be cowards, like Adam, in not telling Eve the word.  When God wants something done, it gets done, even if it is by non-standard means.  Like having Deborah fulfill Barak's place.  These women have served faithfully.  In most cases in my experience better than the vast majority of men would have, while getting paid less and disrespected.  Just because they were abused by men being let into a role they weren't fit for, doesn't mean that God doesn't bring good out of it.  Or that you don't acknowledge that.

[Brian Stoffregen]

And in the 1960's the ALC and LCA studied and found that the Scriptures (and therefore God) considered no difference between male in female; that God had women prophets (public speakers) in worship; that women were the first to proclaim the good news of the resurrection; and that the prohibitions against women in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy were just like the passages related to length of hair and head coverings; created by the culture of that day and not a universal truth for all times and places.

I really wish, Brian, that when you cite the LCUSA study on the ordination of women to justify our (ELCA) practice, you would use the study's actual conclusions (from which the LCA, ALC, and LCMS acted as they did in 1970) rather than conclusions you and others have made up decades later. 

I started seminary in 1972 - only two years after the first female ordinations. Women at seminary was still an oddity - and a difficult road for those women during those years. I'm repeating the discussions I was hearing back then (not decades later). These were arguments we were given so that we might take them into congregations where there were many folks who didn't agree with the decision. The last congregation I served had folks who were going to make sure that their congregation would not call a female pastor. Actually a lady in my congregation told me that she doesn't like women pastors - although for a while she went to the Methodist church that had a female pastor: "I like her. She's different," was her response.

[Brian Stoffregen]

And in the 1960's the ALC and LCA studied and found that the Scriptures (and therefore God) considered no difference between male in female; that God had women prophets (public speakers) in worship; that women were the first to proclaim the good news of the resurrection; and that the prohibitions against women in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy were just like the passages related to length of hair and head coverings; created by the culture of that day and not a universal truth for all times and places.

I really wish, Brian, that when you cite the LCUSA study on the ordination of women to justify our (ELCA) practice, you would use the study's actual conclusions (from which the LCA, ALC, and LCMS acted as they did in 1970) rather than conclusions you and others have made up decades later. 

Pax, Steven+


I know.  If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Is it possible to find that document online, Pr. Tibbetts?  I'd be curious to read it.  Thanks.

For a detailed history of the events through the 60's, Gracia Grindal has an article in Lutheran Quarterly. It seems that both the LCA and ALC had separate groups who studied the issue and presented their findings besides the LCUSA study.


http://www.lutheranquarterly.com/uploads/7/4/0/1/7401289/281-306_lut_32.3_grindal.pdf

[Steven Tibbetts]

Is it possible to find that document online, Pr. Tibbetts?  I'd be curious to read it.  Thanks.

Not that I know of.  Look for the booklet The Ordination of Women, by Raymond Tiemeyer.

Pax, Steven+

[Steven Tibbetts]

I really wish, Brian, that when you cite the LCUSA study on the ordination of women to justify our (ELCA) practice, you would use the study's actual conclusions (from which the LCA, ALC, and LCMS acted as they did in 1970) rather than conclusions you and others have made up decades later. 

I started seminary in 1972 - only two years after the first female ordinations. Women at seminary was still an oddity - and a difficult road for those women during those years. I'm repeating the discussions I was hearing back then (not decades later). These were arguments we were given so that we might take them into congregations where there were many folks who didn't agree with the decision.

So even then you ALC seminarians were being taught to ignore what the church had developed to reach its conclusions in order to defend the church's new practice?

[Steven Tibbetts]

For a detailed history of the events through the 60's, Gracia Grindal has an article in Lutheran Quarterly. It seems that both the LCA and ALC had separate groups who studied the issue and presented their findings besides the LCUSA study.

http://www.lutheranquarterly.com/uploads/7/4/0/1/7401289/281-306_lut_32.3_grindal.pdf

Prof. Grindal refers to the experience of women pastors in Finland as being one of the early points of the  North American Lutheran discussion in the '60s.  The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland first ordained women priests in 1988.  I'm left wondering in what Finnish church(es) these women pastors served.

Pax, spt+

[Charles Austin]

In my work with alcoholics, I found hundreds and hundreds of people in AA who,
1) went to five, six or seven 1-hour meetings a week,
2) worked through prayer and meditation to get closer to God,
3) knew they could not live without the help of a "higher power,"
4)helped each other daily to stay close to the program,
5) often went out on "12-step calls" to attempt to rescue people in trouble,
6) regularly confessed, sought forgiveness and pledged to "make amends" to those they had harmed, and
7) tried to take the principles of the program into all areas of their life.
They did this because they knew that without God, each other, and the program their lives would be ruined and they would probably die an early and painful death.
BTW these people speak openly to each other and others about what they were like, what happened, and what they are like now.
We in the churches Often fail to convince people that they need the Gospel and each other in order to have a better life, free from the destruction and burdens of our character defects.
That is one reason we are not growing or keeping the members we already have.
People in AA are convinced there is nowhere else to go for what they need. Too many of our people aren't even sure they need anything.

[Steven W Bohler]

Rev. Brown,

1. The LCMS, after repeated study, has agreed that women's ordination is contrary to Scripture and therefore not God-pleasing. 
2. How can the LCMS then say that it will countenance the ordination of SOME women (these, that are already ordained wrongly)?  Or the continuance of these women in an office which we believe/teach/confess that God has NOT called them?

If it is wrong (and we say it is), then it cannot be right to allow it to continue.  None of this winking at it, sweeping it under the rug, or pretending that the offense is not there.  And if the Church has responsibility for those ordinations (as you claim), then the Church has the responsibility to correct the error.  As far as your example of aborting a baby conceived out of wedlock goes, well that does not really play since we believe/teach/confess that abortion is sinful.  So, obviously I would not tell them to abort the child.

Pr. Bohler,

I'm sure that you don't like being put in the role of abortionist, but by demanding "get rid of it completely" before even considering marriage, that is exactly the role.

As far as your point 2, let me float two answers.  You know how we always say to seminarians, "you don't know you have a call until you have one".  These women have call documents.  You can say like Rome with SSPX priests that they are illicit but valid.  They should not have been done, but they were and the role they serve is valid.  The second answer is a reference to Deborah and Barak, but there would be other good Biblical examples.  It is not normal course to have women in the role, but sometimes the men are cowards.  They could be cowards in not fulfilling the role.  They could be cowards, like Adam, in not telling Eve the word.  When God wants something done, it gets done, even if it is by non-standard means.  Like having Deborah fulfill Barak's place.  These women have served faithfully.  In most cases in my experience better than the vast majority of men would have, while getting paid less and disrespected.  Just because they were abused by men being let into a role they weren't fit for, doesn't mean that God doesn't bring good out of it.  Or that you don't acknowledge that.

To abort a child (unless it is to save the life of a mother) is a sin.  Are you saying that to remove women from an office to which they were not called by God (as our synod teaches/confesses/believes that God has said in His Holy Word) is also a sin?  Ordination does not make one a pastor; the call from God does.  Ordination is the Church's "Amen" to what God has said/done in calling that man to that office.  So, if God did not call these women to the office (which our synod teaches/confesses/believes the Bible says) then there can really be no ordination -- the Church cannot "ordain" what God has forbidden.  On the other hand, the Bible does teach that human life is a precious gift from God -- all human life, even that conceived sinfully.  So, to abort the child conceived out of wedlock -- because the child was conceived out of wedlock -- would be an impossible thing for the Church, as Church (the Body of Christ), to do.


You write: "When God wants something done, it gets done, even if it is by non-standard means."  Such a statement can be used to justify just about anything.  It also presupposes that you know what God wants.  Which I do not think you really want to say.  We DO know what God has said.  And that is what we go by.  Unless someone can verify using the Biblical standards of proof otherwise.