ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: mariemeyer on December 13, 2010, 05:50:50 PM

Title: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 13, 2010, 05:50:50 PM
There are two reasons for starting this thread.

The first reason is to respond to those who have asked me to be honest about the ordination of women. The second reason is to test the feasibility of a reasoned Scriptural discussion on the various Biblical principles upon which the LCMS bases a male only pastorate.

Regarding the first, I acknowledge that I am not comfortable with the ordination of women. I have a gut negative reaction to seeing a woman wearing a clerical collar, more so if she is wearing Eucharistic vestments.  My reaction is much the same as I feel about voting for a woman as President of the United States, flying a plane with a woman pilot or undergoing brain surgery at the hands of a woman. Each of these is counter to how I feel about myself as a woman.

But the ordination of women is not about my personal feelings. The question is whether the Bible forbids the ordination of women? To that question my honest answer is “I don’t know.” 

Why can’t I give a yes or no answer?  I will offer one reason which I hope can be the basis of a reasoned discussion.

LCMS theologians claim there are several Scriptural principles that affirm God’s design for a male pastorate.  Among them is the principle that the subordination of the woman/wife to the man/husband is for the sake of unity and order in the home and church God. When men or women disobey the headship/subordination structure, the unity of the home and church is disordered. 

Over the years I have tested this Scriptural principle with the historic liturgy of the Church and traditional Lutheran hymnody. Nowhere have I found either to associate unity or order in the church with an immutable structure where men and women have assigned positions. In fact, I have not read anything in the Confessions about anything remotely resembling the idea that the subordination of woman to man is for the sake of orderliness and unity in the church.  It is for this reason that I question this particular defense of a male pastorate.

  Today, I question whether the LCMS misuses Scripture to falsely bind consciences to the idea that unity and order in the Church requires that men and women acknowledge that their God and Father assigns them non-interchangeable headship/subordination positions and functions.  Note, I do not dismiss anything St. Paul writes about Christ as Head of the Church or the husband as head of his wife. I submit what Paul says is about the organic unity of the head and body, not the head as being in authority over the body.

Marie
 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Cnehring on December 13, 2010, 07:16:54 PM
One of the first things called for from the NALC is to make a study of this issue. I think it would be great if all parties could sit down and actually study this issue from a Biblical and confessional level.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 13, 2010, 08:43:06 PM
Today, I question whether the LCMS misuses Scripture to falsely bind consciences to the idea that unity and order in the Church requires that men and women acknowledge that their God and Father assigns them non-interchangeable headship/subordination positions and functions.  Note, I do not dismiss anything St. Paul writes about Christ as Head of the Church or the husband as head of his wife. I submit what Paul says is about the organic unity of the head and body, not the head as being in authority over the body.

If "the organic unity of the head and body" were all that were in play, imagery such as "arm and leg" or "thigh and chin" could work just as well -- or just staying at the general imagery of a body as a whole with many parts that Paul uses elsewhere.  Yet in Eph. 5 Paul says much more than this and is more precise where such a characterization (of Paul's meaning as only "organic unity of head and body") doesn't do justice to statements like: "22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." (Eph. 5:22-24)

Could you please give an interpretation of Eph. 5, then, that gives an account of the language Paul uses in places like this, where "submission" and "head" are used as complementary ideas?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 13, 2010, 09:05:35 PM
Scott in your text you have husbands, wives, church and Christ.  Now where is pastor in this text?  And can one make distinctions between spiritual and physical submission?  Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 13, 2010, 09:10:01 PM
Scott in your text you have husbands, wives, church and Christ.  Now where is pastor in this text?  And can one make distinctions between spiritual and physical submission?  Harvey Mozolak

Hi Harvey,

Marie was alluding to Eph. 5 as being relevant to her point when she spoke of Paul's writings re: "head" and organic unity, so I'm following her lead.  Pastors are not mentioned in the text.  However, if we go elsewhere as at 1 Tim. 2, we do see the office of authoritative teaching, what we would call the pastor, being clearly in view, but that wasn't specifically alluded to by Marie.

As to spiritual and physical submission, I'm not sure what you're asking as all I can think of with physical submission is the image of somebody beating somebody else (as a forced submission) or somebody kow-towing to another (as a voluntary submission).  So I'm not sure where to go with that distinction.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 13, 2010, 09:12:58 PM
Scott:

I will addess your comment about the head/body image being the same as the organic unity between thigh and chin if you address the essence of what I said about the claim that unity and order in the church has to do with men and women being obedient to a structure God is said to have ordained at creation.  Where in the Confessions, the liturgy or our hynnody is the unity of the one Body associated with an immutable structure that is external to the men and woman who are the One Body of Christ?    

As to the head/body image being similar to the organic unity of the thigh and the chin.  You know the Greek. I do not. I have, however, read that the Greek term for "body," I think it is ""soma," often refers to the whole body.  Hence all who are the One Body in relation to the One Head, Christ, grow up into the fullness of Christ.  How does this take place?  It is because they are all as intimately related to Him as is one husband is intimately joined to one wife.  

Recall also that Ephesians 5 includes verse 21.  Be subject to one another.
Marie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 13, 2010, 09:34:35 PM
Scott:

I will addess your comment about the head/body image being the same as the organic unity between thigh and chin if you address the essence of what I said about the claim that unity and order in the church has to do with men and women being obedient to a structure God is said to have ordained at creation.  Where in the Confessions, the liturgy or our hynnody is the unity of the one Body associated with an immutable structure that is external to the men and woman who are the One Body of Christ?

Oh.  Ok.  Didn't know that responding to that point was a requirement for participation in the discussion.  But alright...

As I've said many times, the language of "order of creation" is problematic on many levels.  What it does preserve, however, is the idea of created difference between the sexes.  Something that Genesis and Paul, among others, affirm.  So I guess that's to "one-up" any other references.

As to the Confessions, they, too, speak of a created difference between men and women and vis-a-vis each other in the Table of Duties.  While this doesn't speak of order in the church (which wasn't at issue in the Reformation), it does address the idea of created differences continuing to pertain in domestic life.  In any case, the Confessions don't address the ordination of women as it simply wasn't an issue at the time.  So I'm not quite sure what the point is, here, except to note that they do acknowledge created differences.

And to be honest, I can't ever remember singing about an all-male pastorate.

Again, not sure what this proves as the Scriptures do deal with the issues in question, but that's my answer to your question in order to allow you to respond to mine.

As to the head/body image being similar to the organic unity of the thigh and the chin.  You know the Greek. I do not. I have, however, read that the Greek term for "body," I think it is ""soma," often refers to the whole body.  Hence all who are the One Body in relation to the One Head, Christ, grow up into the fullness of Christ.  How does this take place?  It is because they are all as intimately related to Him as is one husband is intimately joined to one wife.  

Sure.  That's how the body imagery is deployed in many places in Paul.  Yet Paul also deploys headship language to make a different point (emphasis just so that this doesn't get missed -- Paul doesn't just toot away on one-note here).  I.e., two different things are being discussed -- "organic unity" (to use your term) and male-female relations that revolve around terms like "head," "submission" and "love."

Recall also that Ephesians 5 includes verse 21.  Be subject to one another.

Absolutely.  I know I've posted a sermon on here sometime back when I preached on just this passage.  There, I made the point that there is a mutual submission involved, but that Paul also speaks to each constituency differently.  To women, he briefly speaks of a general submission as he clarifies the mutual submission called for in Eph. 5:21.  I'd imagine he's so brief because here he really isn't challenging many aspects of the status quo.  His address to men, however, is much longer and is more radical for most cultures I know.  The man is to submit to his wife by engaging in self-sacrificial love.  Not the maudlin type of sacrifice saying that: "Oh, I'll sacrifice my life for you by being willing to die for you, my sweetie!"  But rather a type of self-sacrifice that says: "I'll sacrifice my life for you by being willing to live for you, putting your desires and wants ahead of my own."  I preached this sermon in Kenya, and let's just say that it made a few eyes open wider.

To repeat in brief, Paul outlines a dual submission in v. 21.  He then briefly tells the wife to freely and generally submit generally to her husband for he is her head even as Christ is the head of the church (methinks that Christ is in a position of servant leadership to the Church, no?).  He then more expansively addresses the men telling them that their submission to their wives is to be characterized by self-sacrifice on their behalf -- servant leadership, if you will.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: FrPeters on December 13, 2010, 09:40:35 PM
Let me ask a question.  Do you believe that the Church can be wrong over the course of centuries and even millenia and God works to bring correction or change to long settled questions?  I am asking this because if the Church could be so wrong on women's ordination, what about infant baptism which is implied, assumed, even expected, but no where explicitly stated (the claim made against women's ordination).  I guess I am not captive to Scripture in this way that the settled position of the Church must be reproved because of changes in culture and society -- and the truth is there would be no talk of women's ordination without the changes to the fabric of American culture and society (or world wide).

The Church has said "no" not as a rejection of women or their gifts but for a variety of reasons -- presumption of Scripture or expectation of Scripture, practice of Jesus and the earliest Church, and theological underpinings (especially here I think of Rome and the East).  Now either the Church has been wrong about something so vital and central as the ministry or else there is something else at work here.

Once I had a family bring a Church of Christ minister to my office when their daughter got involved with a boy from that congregation and began to doubt her baptism.  They expected us to duke it out and were going to go with whoever was left standing after the argument.  I began by saying that infant baptism was the practice of the Church unquestioned for more than  1500 years and that the exception must be proven not the rule.  So I would say the same applies to those promoting women's ordination -- not only the Scriptural basis but the rationale for why God would put up with such a wrong practice for so long without challenge.

Frankly, one of the biggest problems I have with this discussion is the idea of a God who is forced to put up with a Church that got it so wrong for so long and was powerless to effect any change until the 20th century.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau14 on December 14, 2010, 12:49:24 AM
I am thankful that Scott brought in the Table of Duties into this discussion as it is a forgotten piece of the Small Catechism (as is the Christian Questions and their Answers).  One only needs to look at the structure of the ToD to see that it moves from church (pastor and laity) to the State (government and citizens) to the home (husband and wife/ Parent and child), etc...   

The first time I used the ToD as a basis for a study on vocation at my present call, it was like a whole bunch of light bulbs going off.  The people never heard this stuff before. 

And the ToD presumes the idea that the pastor will be the husband of one wife.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 12:57:59 AM
Today, I question whether the LCMS misuses Scripture to falsely bind consciences to the idea that unity and order in the Church requires that men and women acknowledge that their God and Father assigns them non-interchangeable headship/subordination positions and functions.  

My conscience and the consciences of many other women--and pastors and laymen and even children--that I know is in no way falsely bound due to the misuse of Scripture.  In fact, it is the very application of Scripture to the issue that provides me with a free conscience.  My conscience is free enough for me personally to be OK with women pilots, brain surgeons and possibly even a female president if she shared my conservative values and I felt she was a better pick than a male candidate.  The doctrine of vocation gives me the freedom (and all women) to not only function in but also be supportive of women in the secular realm at all levels.

In the sacred realm, Scripture tells us otherwise.  I take at face value these very verses which are used to support a male pastorate:
1 Tim 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=ESV)
1 Tim 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:8-15&version=ESV)

Marie, if you're not in favor of women's ordination, what exactly are you advocating?  As I see it, in terms of pure real estate, women have it made in the LCMS.  The altar and font take up so little space compared to the remainder of the sanctuary, fellowship hall, school, community, nation, world--all amazing arenas for women to perform challenging, gratifying, God-pleasing tasks.  In terms of positions, women still have it made.  The only positions the LCMS does not advocate women serving in include that of Pastor and Elder-A MERE TWO POSITIONS-very minor in number considering all the joyous opportunities for service within and outside of the church walls.  What else do women need, because I simply don't understand.  I find great comfort that God desires for men to serve solely in these roles as protectors of and advocates for their flocks; in my experience, men are much better gifted with the skills to do this.  God made women very different from men, and this is one area where those differences have an impact.  I believe it's for our protection and benefit as women that He set the men apart for this task.  Why would we want to diminish (or possibly even despise) this most gracious gift of His to the "weaker vessel (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%203:7&version=ESV)"?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 14, 2010, 03:43:52 AM
FWIW: A Roman Catholic friend of mine, loyal and active in her church, supports the church's view that a priest must be a man. "But," she says, "they have not given me what I consider a good reason why this is so."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on December 14, 2010, 06:59:37 AM
Charles, does your loyal and active friend have an alternative for what her church should do?  If she doesn't believe the reason for the male priesthood is a good one, that doesn't mean she's right. 

I think a bi-cameral legislature is a horrible idea.  I think DC should be given home rule or be returned to the state of Maryland.  I think the federal government should take over the corrupt state of Delaware.  Doesn't mean I'm right.

Suggest to your friend that she listen to the reasoning given and then ask questions of her priest(s).  Then tell her to listen to the answers. 

And "Because I said so." is a perfectly fine and valid answer for children of all ages.

Jeremy 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 07:23:09 AM
I'm unaware of any argument made in support of the ordination of women that can not, and has not been, easily used to defend and promote the ordination of actively homosexual persons.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: janielou13 on December 14, 2010, 07:29:03 AM
Is it not the case that in Rome, the issue of the ordination of women to the presbyterate is a matter of canonical discipline, and not dictrinal or dogmatic, in that there has never been a declaration by the whole council of bishops and/or the magisterium against it ?   The current policy is based on accepted tradition, not Tradition, as in 'we always done it this way' to put it into the vernacular.

Even Cardinal Ratzinger's statement of JP2's policy is at the level of canonical discipline.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 07:39:25 AM
If the Word of God does not provide good enough reason for anybody, male or female, then I wonder what the purpose is of even believing much else that's found within it.  I think we have plenty of proof where it has led in other denominations, pointing to what Rev. McCain said.  Have there been any denominations that haven't gone the route of ordaining homosexuals after doing so with women?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: JEdwards on December 14, 2010, 08:29:13 AM
Is it not the case that in Rome, the issue of the ordination of women to the presbyterate is a matter of canonical discipline, and not dictrinal or dogmatic, in that there has never been a declaration by the whole council of bishops and/or the magisterium against it ?   The current policy is based on accepted tradition, not Tradition, as in 'we always done it this way' to put it into the vernacular.

Even Cardinal Ratzinger's statement of JP2's policy is at the level of canonical discipline.
Well... did you mean this statement by Cardinal Ratzinger?

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df95os.htm

True, this specific document is at the level of a declaration of a Vatican congregation, although it seems unlikely it would have been approved by then-pope JP2 if it mis-stated the pope's intentions.  Furthermore, the document invokes the ordinary universal magisterium, which is also said to be infallible.  From a RC perspective, "we've always done it this way" cannot make a doctrine, but "we've always taught and believed this way" most certainly can.

Jon
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 14, 2010, 09:11:05 AM
Jeremy Loesch writes:
Charles, does your loyal and active friend have an alternative for what her church should do?  If she doesn't believe the reason for the male priesthood is a good one, that doesn't mean she's right. 

I correct:
I did not say she does not "believe the reason for the male priesthood is a good idea." She supports the church's teaching because she supports her church. She does not say she supports ordination for women. She just says she doesn't understand the reasons for an all-male priesthood. That is quite different.

The deaconess writes:
I think we have plenty of proof where it has led in other denominations, pointing to what Rev. McCain said.  Have there been any denominations that haven't gone the route of ordaining homosexuals after doing so with women?
I comment:
     And, zip! bang! wham! we are back to The Issue!!!! For heaven's sake! Is there any way in God's (as yet) green earth that a discussion can go on over a topic without The Issue intruding?
But for the record, ptmccain is wrong on two counts. First, some Baptist denominations ordain women and do not ordain partnered gays and lesbians. Ditto for some Pentecostal groups.
     But.... There is no logic in saying "we won't do this (if we think this is the right thing to do) because other people who have done this have done that and we believe that is wrong." If one believes it is the right thing to do, it must be done despite the consequences or the suspicion that some people may take it further than intended.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: JEdwards on December 14, 2010, 09:19:16 AM
I'm unaware of any argument made in support of the ordination of women that can not, and has not been, easily used to defend and promote the ordination of actively homosexual persons.



How about, "Scripture provides examples of women in leadership and teaching roles in the Church"?  I know you may challenge the argument, but at least you are now aware of it.

Jon
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 09:36:49 AM
Jon, where in the New Testament do we read of a woman presbyter, appointed to oversee a flock?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Matt Staneck on December 14, 2010, 09:39:50 AM
This is something I definitely struggled a great deal with while at Valpo.  It was a combination of things between hermeneutical practices by people I did (and still do) respect, and the general interaction with women who were in the pre-seminary program heading for an ELCA school that would eventually ordain them.  

Before I came to the seminary I reconciled that I could not reconcile the ordination of women to the Office of the Holy Ministry.  I'm still not so sure I fully buy into the "orders of creation" argument, at least as it has been argued by the LCMS officially.  But actually reading Bonhoeffer's Creation and Fall, and his emphasis of creation operating within its own "groove," this past quarter helped re-enforce my belief. Perhaps ironically, the evangelical and catholic emphasis at Valpo may have served to work in opposite favor to me with regards to this issue.  And of course, no small influence, my Atlantic District upbringing with its evangelical and catholic emphasis played a large role.  I was never once confused by women reading the lessons, or women in albs as deacons.  There is a clear distinction between who the pastor is and who is serving in other capacities.

So I resolved that the ordination of women to the OHM is not the scriptural position nor is it the confessional one.  Arguments from church history help corroborate the scriptural record which has led me to realize it is simply one thing the Holy Spirit has not ordained for the sake of good order in the church.  I speak with non-Christians and Christians alike who struggle with the issue.  Though I much prefer speaking with Christians who do because they are coming at it theologically, or are at least trying to.  

I hope this discussion can be had in a most edifying way.  I especially pray that is so for the NALC as they struggle with this issue.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: George Erdner on December 14, 2010, 09:41:02 AM
And "Because I said so." is a perfectly fine and valid answer for children of all ages.


"Because I said so" is a cop out used by people who (1) do not know why or (2) lack the skill to articulate the reason or (3) are too self-centered and full of themselves to make the effort to answer.

That is not to say that the fact that the person one asks doesn't know, or can't put it into words, or just doesn't care proves anything. If something is so, then there is an answer to "why?" out there, or at least a better pointing to where the truly authoritative source said so.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 09:41:10 AM
11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2:12-15 (ESV)

What do you people take of the first person singular epitrpo?  Stands out strangely or uniquely to me.  I want to say something of the modeling argument and its weaknesses when I get to a proper keyboard.  But for the moment again in this text we have the odd phrasing which is true only on one level and not on the more pervasive and more omportant one "Adam was not deceived.". Oh?  Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 09:42:31 AM
The finest collection of documents on the ordination of women, from a confessional Lutheran perspective, is contained in Women Pastors: The Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in studying this issue in depth and is not afraid to be challenged to their very core on this issue.

The ordination of women was adopted with very little careful theological reflection. The movement for the ordination of women in the Lutheran Church was a result of societal changes and assumptions, feminism being chief among them.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 09:43:44 AM
As for the North American Lutheran Church and its "study" of the issue. It was clear to me watching the proceedings that the NALC has no intention of studying the issue with a view toward abandoning this unapostolic and anti-catholic practice, but rather to bolster the practice by studies that are more theologically oriented. I think that is a key point to make.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 09:56:42 AM
11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2:12-15 (ESV)

What do you people take of the first person singular epitrpo?  Stands out strangely or uniquely to me.

If that's all we had, then it would be possible to view this as "only" Paul's opinion (though would a church that claims to be apostolic really want to go against apostolic teaching and practice?).  However, he goes on to make a theological argument rooted in the created order.  That takes it from the realm of "opinion" to "doctrine."  Again, only if folks want take seriously what it means to be part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church."

But for the moment again in this text we have the odd phrasing which is true only on one level and not on the more pervasive and more omportant one "Adam was not deceived.". Oh?

Oh?

First, are you saying that Paul gets the Genesis story wrong?  ???

Second, why isn't it a legitimate position to read Gen. 3 as Adam not being deceived, perhaps even knowingly and willfully sinning?  After all, Adam was "with her" throughout the dialog with the serpent, and he didn't correct Eve's misrepresentations of the command that God had given to Adam before Eve was formed (i.e., Eve said that God forbade even touching the tree; not true).  Maybe if he had corrected Eve's mistake in repeating God's command...  Maybe if he had prevented Eve from breaking the command...  Maybe if...

But in any case, the point Paul makes is regarding the order in which humanity was created and links that order to the deception of the woman who, after all, did not hear God's command firsthand.  God apparently decided to speak that command only to the man and have him tell his wife.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 10:02:40 AM
The deaconess writes:
I think we have plenty of proof where it has led in other denominations, pointing to what Rev. McCain said.  Have there been any denominations that haven't gone the route of ordaining homosexuals after doing so with women?
I comment:
     And, zip! bang! wham! we are back to The Issue!!!! For heaven's sake! Is there any way in God's (as yet) green earth that a discussion can go on over a topic without The Issue intruding?
But for the record, ptmccain is wrong on two counts. First, some Baptist denominations ordain women and do not ordain partnered gays and lesbians. Ditto for some Pentecostal groups.
     But.... There is no logic in saying "we won't do this (if we think this is the right thing to do) because other people who have done this have done that and we believe that is wrong." If one believes it is the right thing to do, it must be done despite the consequences or the suspicion that some people may take it further than intended.

To "The Charles" I respond (you seem to have a habit of removing my personhood when you go on the offensive, which is OK by me as long as you don't mind me doing the same in return):

When you remove one part of the teaching/admonishment found within the Holy Scriptures, then everything else is fair game--the proverbial slippery slope.  It's fair game to bring it up for that reason.  And I am not clear what you are saying in your last statement to even respond.  Any way, back to the topic at hand.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: RayToy on December 14, 2010, 10:11:19 AM
If the Word of God does not provide good enough reason for anybody, male or female, then I wonder what the purpose is of even believing much else that's found within it.  I think we have plenty of proof where it has led in other denominations, pointing to what Rev. McCain said.  Have there been any denominations that haven't gone the route of ordaining homosexuals after doing so with women?

Yes.  Among them would include the Church of the Nazarene, the Assemblies of God, and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN).  In the case of the Church of the Nazarene, they ordained women from the onset of their denomination in 1909.  The ordination of gays and lesbians is not on the radar screen for them.

The Assemblies of God and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) have a similar ecclesiology.  They have three levels of pastors (Bishop, Elder, and Exhorter).  All three levels use the title "Pastor" in spoken parlance.  However, women are oradained only to the level of Exhorter.  Normally, they would hold positions such as "Women's pastor" or Pastor for children's ministries."  Again, in both cases, ordination of gays and lesbians is not on the radar screen.

Ray
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 10:19:41 AM
One last thought on the 1 Tim 2 text:  Adam did not sin first… but Eve did… what is that supposed to mean?  Does it give any solace to men, any special guilt to women?  Who would go there today and what would it say to our theology of sin to go there?  And yet it is quite the point that Paul is making.  Weakness is another word used often here, in what way?  Hand to hand combat in the military or in battle with Satan, want to go there?  And if, as St. Paul says, there is no distinction when it comes to grace, why then in the matter of sin?     

The models of ministry, pastoral and otherwise, get used against WO by recalling that there were 12 plus St. Paul men, mostly Jewish but we discount that as a model of course.  And for the centuries since then until most recently the tradition has been only male ordination to the pastoral office.  Of course that does say nothing about Esther or Hannah, Deborah or the BVM teaching our Lord whatever she taught him, like walking, talking, the Torah, Psalms and Prophets, how to pray maybe some of those things….  The women who first witnessed and proclaimed the resurrection are only lay-tellers not apostolic in any manner.  Does not God raise up Judges for times of need?  Well, modeling as theology.

Then there is model of submission.  While the 1 Timothy 2 text does speak of the submission of a wife to a husband only the Wisconsin Synod has the age of boy to man down to a number (I think).  And the models of submission are not given in any sort of Table of Duties in the New Testament; however, we have plenty of models of what submission has meant in households in the past where men were Lords but not sacrificial ones at all. 

I know the writer who felt uncomfortable with seeing a woman in vestments undoubtedly had theological objections before what her eyes could find objectionable but I recall the first time I saw an Almy dummy (headless but breasted) wearing alb and stole at the Springfield Sem on display.  No way!   Or my daughter as child seeing a woman in alb and stole distributing the sacrament at a pan-Lutheran gathering saying she can’t be a pastor, why?  She has earrings… of course, that also predates men with earrings and she hadn’t even seen lay women as communion assistants as yet.  But the model was new, odd and different. 

Can a woman be submissive to her husband (in whatever is the best scriptural sense) and yet be a pastor in a parish where the other men are not under such a relationship of submission with her as a woman, obviously not as a wife?

If a LCMS pastor (sorry to pick on you for this example) is gay and secretly has a relationship with another gay person and he preaches and celebrates HC…  cannot the sermon share Law and Gospel and his hidden life not ruin the communicants reception?  I am saying nothing about whether he is sinning or whether his church body would be sinning if they knew and permitted him to be a pastor.  So what if a Lutheran woman pastor comes and preaches and celebrates HC and an LCMS person listens to the sermon and partakes of the sacrament, can it be a proper sermon, a Holy Communion that shares Christ’s body and blood?  Again I am not saying whether or not that LCMS person should be in that church, listen or partake… but if one did….  We know that an unbelieving preacher and celebrant does not vitiate the means of grace, don’t we?  What of a woman who believes?

Is it possible that God is not wild about ordained women, but will use them in the church?  He may not be wild about pastors who are not good at Greek or who do not find evangelism to be their most important work but will he still use them in the church?


Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 10:23:55 AM
Thanks for the info., Ray.  I'll do some exploring of the issues within those denominations.

I know what the LCMS puts forth about women's ordination, so I thought I'd explore and share language used by other church bodies that do not ordain women here and there as I have the time.  I like this verbiage from the WELS:

We belong to a synod that is often accused of clinging to an outmoded and out-of-touch view of the roles of men and women. While many Christian denominations have changed their doctrine and proudly opened the door to the ordination of women, WELS has not done so. We have, with the help of God, maintained that God in his love and wisdom has clearly reserved the role of pastor and the exercise of authority in the church to men. To be sure, it’s every congregation’s responsibility to give women opportunities to serve in meaningful and important ways. But we do that always maintaining our desire to follow the guidelines that God himself has given us in his Word.

Our beliefs will seldom find approval in the culture in which we live. More often than not, the values that we defend will be challenged, questioned, or ridiculed. In the face of that onslaught from a godless culture, it’s important for us to remember not just what we are against but what we are for. Cherish those values. Defend them. Hold on to them. Not because those values are traditional but because they are biblical.


http://www.wels.org/news-events/forward-in-christ/november-2008/a-synod-that-upholds-biblical-values?page=0,1
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 14, 2010, 10:32:53 AM
Paul: Slippery slop theology masks a lazy way to avoid a reasoned Biblical discussion of the various ways the LCMS defends a male pastorate.

Scott: Forgive me if I am off base, but I note a bit if testiness in the following comments…

“Oh.  Ok.  Didn't know that responding to that point was a requirement for participation in the discussion.  But alright...

 “And to be honest, I can't ever remember singing about an all-male pastorate."

My original post resulted in a rehash of past discussions on this Forum. Rather than continue endlessly in what has proven less than fruitful, I will attempt to clarify the approach I am suggesting in a discussion the ordination of women to the pastoral office. I do so in the context of how the LCMS has and continues to defend a male only pastorate. 

 I submit that the texts chosen as normative, their translation, interpretation and application, are all based on presuppositions about unity, order and authority. The first presupposition I selected for consideration has to do with unity and order in the home and the church. The LCMS begins with the presupposition that unity and order in the home and church are dependent upon a divinely mandated immutable structure. The presupposition is defended with the claim that unity and order in relationships require that someone or some category of persons has to be in authority and someone or some category of persons has to be under authority. IOW, someone has to have the last word. Without the structure there is disorder and a break down of relationship.

I submit that this presupposition must be examined within the context of what  the entire Scripture reveals about unity and order within the Trinity. John 17 is one of several texts that I considerable relative to this discussion. I also think that the work of the Holy Spirit in uniting the One Body of Christ through Word and Sacrament is relevant.

My study of Scripture and the Confession, my participation in the historic liturgy of the Church and my singing of our Lutheran hymnody has led me to ask whether the concept of order and unity being dependent upon an external structure is consistent with natural human reason rather than what Scripture reveals about the nature and character of the God in whose image Man, male and female was created.     

Marie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 10:36:43 AM
Why do some of us feel this need to run out for the weirdest "worst case" scenarios to try to justify a position? If it is a valid position, it stands on its own merits and needs none of this odd "what if..." kind of thinking.

Lutherans are not Donatists, neither are we Enthusiasts.

We confess AC V, XIV and XXVIII in a church that, with the church catholic, of all times and all places [excluding the last forty/fifty years or so] believes, teaches and confesses that the Office of the Holy Ministry is entrusted only to well qualified men, in accord with the Dominical institution of the Office and Apostolic transmission of the same.

This is not an issue we can just "keep talking about" long enough for those who advocate the practice of the ordination of women win the day. It is a "here we stand" issue about which there can be no compromise, no concession and no toleration of the practice.

Those who are dissatisfied and/or disgruntled about this position, a position that is by no means unique to The LCMS, should do the right thing and seek fellowship in a church body where their views and sentiments are welcome and encouraged.

As I've said several times before, part of the problem in The LCMS is that we have "hangers on" from the days of Seminex who should have done the right thing years ago and left the Synod with those who did, during the formation of the AELC. Unfortunately, they did not.

We've got better things to worry about and discuss than this constant, and frankly, obsessional need to keep grinding axes.

To the ordination of women we "just say no."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 10:40:29 AM
One last thought on the 1 Tim 2 text:  Adam did not sin first… but Eve did… what is that supposed to mean?

Not sure since Paul didn't say it...  ;)

Can a woman be submissive to her husband (in whatever is the best scriptural sense) and yet be a pastor in a parish where the other men are not under such a relationship of submission with her as a woman, obviously not as a wife?

I'm not sure if I follow you.  1 Tim. 2 speaks of authoritative teaching -- authority being the opposite of submission in general, methinks, let alone this particular context.  How to conceive of a submissive authority or an authoritative submission...?

If a LCMS pastor (sorry to pick on you for this example) is gay and secretly has a relationship with another gay person and he preaches and celebrates HC…  cannot the sermon share Law and Gospel and his hidden life not ruin the communicants reception?  I am saying nothing about whether he is sinning or whether his church body would be sinning if they knew and permitted him to be a pastor.  So what if a Lutheran woman pastor comes and preaches and celebrates HC and an LCMS person listens to the sermon and partakes of the sacrament, can it be a proper sermon, a Holy Communion that shares Christ’s body and blood?  Again I am not saying whether or not that LCMS person should be in that church, listen or partake… but if one did….  We know that an unbelieving preacher and celebrant does not vitiate the means of grace, don’t we?  What of a woman who believes?

Sure, the Donatists were wrong.  But why would we want to see just how much sin and error we can officially sanction before things go off the tracks?  It is strange to me that rather than delighting in what we are given, we would try to see just how much we can get away with before we finally and completely surrender the kernel of the faith.

I was scanning some canons from ecumenical councils this morning, and it is surprising to see how folks who came from backgrounds such as the Eunomians or Montanists (who had female priests, btw) were "received as heathens" and were to be baptized, their own baptisms being considered invalid.  Something to consider...

Is it possible that God is not wild about ordained women, but will use them in the church?  He may not be wild about pastors who are not good at Greek or who do not find evangelism to be their most important work but will he still use them in the church?

Again, why the urge to see what we can get away with?  God can and certainly does use all sorts of bad situations (I've been spiritually fed by a number of female pastors -- not only my mom, but Erma, for example, in her great sermon at the CORE Theological Conference).  Why try to get in the bad situation, though, just to see if it will still work?  I don't get it.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 10:44:27 AM
Paul: Slippery slop theology masks a lazy way to avoid a reasoned Biblical discussion of the various ways the LCMS defends a male pastorate.

What is lazy is ignoring the point and refusing to engage it, Marie. You can't simply ignore the reality that the ordination of women in all Lutheran Churches has led, inevitably and predictably, to the ordination of actively homosexual persons. Well, I guess *you* can, and will, continue to ignore the point, but it does not make it any less true.

And, Marie, I'm sorry, but I think you still are playing games when you say what matters are not "your personal feelings" about this issue, and then you proceed to say, "You don't know" if Scripture forbids the practice.

I would, respectfully, encourage you to be completely forthcoming, honest and candid, as Matthew Becker has recently, and come right out and put your views, personal feelings, convictions out there for public scrutiny and debate. Matt's even had the honesty to state that he supports the ELCA position on homosexual clergy. I am sure you are not willing to go that far, at this point, but my point in mentioning it is that, as much as I disagree with Becker, I admire the fact that he finally is "coming clean" on precisely where he stands and what he thinks.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Cnehring on December 14, 2010, 10:44:44 AM
As for the North American Lutheran Church and its "study" of the issue. It was clear to me watching the proceedings that the NALC has no intention of studying the issue with a view toward abandoning this unapostolic and anti-catholic practice, but rather to bolster the practice by studies that are more theologically oriented. I think that is a key point to make.

Perhaps this is why it would be helpful for those in LCMS, WELS or TAALC to come to the table and ACTUALLY talk about this.

As for the connection to "the issue," I actually believe that the reason behind this request at the NALC convention, was b/c those advocating for the change today, used women's ordination as an example of the past. What was asked for, was to actually make a case for women's ordination according to Scripture. This is why it would be helpful for those who advocate a Biblical proscription to be at the table and talk with those who believe there is no proscription-both sides would have their say. This is not what has been done in the elca-it has never been an actual conversation, discussion and exegesis.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 10:44:58 AM
And again we have St. Paul’s advice of marriage only for those who might otherwise burn…  women should learn in silence with submission…. And what is silence, oh please not the hymns and the Soprano and Alto sections of the choir… and the woman Sunday School Super who reads part of Luke 2 aloud because a child’s voice falters and memory fails at the key, programmatic moment….  And let them discuss and vote except as to whether communion should be twice or four times a month and whether to call Pastor John or Pastor Bill.  And let’s not argue about head coverings but about gold and pearl jewelry and braids and expensive clothes.  And these together with “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man, she is to keep silent… for Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”  Note the missing Eve to counterpoint the Adam who has a name.   Harvey Mozolak   
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 10:45:31 AM
Dcs. Schave,

That is all good, but do please realize that the WELS see authority as going far beyond the pastoral Office.

I'm simply laying out what other denominations say about the ordination of women.  I have no intent to confirm, deny, poke holes in or take any other action but to put the information on the table for anyone who might be interested in reading it.  The LCMS does not stand alone in their decision to not ordain women.  Thanks.

Here is what the Southern Baptists have to say at http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#9:

9. Can women be pastors or deacons in the SBC?

Southern Baptists have long valued the priceless contribution of women as they have ministered to advance God's Kingdom. The Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) affirms the vital role of women serving in the church.  Yet it recognizes the biblical restriction concerning the office of pastor, saying: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."  The passages that restrict the office of pastor to men do not negate the essential equality of men and women before God, but rather focus on the assignment of roles.  

The Southern Baptist Convention also passed a resolution in the early 1980s recognizing that offices requiring ordination are restricted to men.  However the BF&M and resolutions are not binding upon local churches.  Each church is responsible to prayerfully search the Scriptures and establish its own policy.

We've included links below to the BF&M ("Article VI: The Church" applies), as well as a link to an article that we ran in SBC LIFE several years back addressing this issue. These should prove helpful in studying the topic.

The Southern Baptist Convention has not addressed the issue of all the available avenues through which a woman may serve, only the biblical restrictions concerning pastoral ministry and ministry requiring ordination.  The potential opportunities for women to serve in vocational ministry within the SBC are indeed vast.  

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

http://www.sbclife.net/articles/1998/05/sla5.asp
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 10:47:31 AM
Paul: Slippery slop theology masks a lazy way to avoid a reasoned Biblical discussion of the various ways the LCMS defends a male pastorate.

Scott: Forgive me if I am off base, but I note a bit if testiness in the following comments…

“Oh.  Ok.  Didn't know that responding to that point was a requirement for participation in the discussion.  But alright...

 “And to be honest, I can't ever remember singing about an all-male pastorate."

My original post resulted in a rehash of past discussions on this Forum. Rather than continue endlessly in what has proven less than fruitful, I will attempt to clarify the approach I am suggesting in a discussion the ordination of women to the pastoral office. I do so in the context of how the LCMS has and continues to defend a male only pastorate.  

 I submit that the texts chosen as normative, their translation, interpretation and application, are all based on presuppositions about unity, order and authority. The first presupposition I selected for consideration has to do with unity and order in the home and the church. The LCMS begins with the presupposition that unity and order in the home and church are dependent upon a divinely mandated immutable structure. The presupposition is defended with the claim that unity and order in relationships require that someone or some category of persons has to be in authority and someone or some category of persons has to be under authority. IOW, someone has to have the last word. Without the structure there is disorder and a break down of relationship.

I submit that this presupposition must be examined within the context of what  the entire Scripture reveals about unity and order within the Trinity. John 17 is one of several texts that I considerable relative to this discussion. I also think that the work of the Holy Spirit in uniting the One Body of Christ through Word and Sacrament is relevant.

My study of Scripture and the Confession, my participation in the historic liturgy of the Church and my singing of our Lutheran hymnody has led me to ask whether the concept of order and unity being dependent upon an external structure is consistent with natural human reason rather than what Scripture reveals about the nature and character of the God in whose image Man, male and female was created.    

Marie

Marie,

Not testiness.  Surprise.  I was surprised that I made a point and then was told that I'd only get a response if I responded to a different point.

But now that I've responded, I look forward to your own promised response to the question: "Could you please give an interpretation of Eph. 5, then, that gives an account of the language Paul uses in places like this, where "submission" and "head" are used as complementary ideas?"

To be sure that this question isn't misunderstood with respect to body language, I clarified it when I wrote: "That's how the body imagery is deployed in many places in Paul.  Yet Paul also deploys headship language to make a different point (emphasis just so that this doesn't get missed -- Paul doesn't just toot away on one-note here).  I.e., two different things are being discussed -- "organic unity" (to use your term) and male-female relations that revolve around terms like "head," "submission" and "love.""
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 10:47:57 AM
Well, partly because it was a fact of life for the ELCA at its inception.
This kind of work was done, perhaps some do not like its quantity or quality and perhaps it should be done anew, in the ALC, LCA and my AELC well before the formation of the ELCA.   Harvey Mozolak


[/quote]
This is not what has been done in the elca-it has never been an actual conversation, discussion and exegesis.
[/quote]
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 10:49:27 AM
And again we have St. Paul’s advice of marriage only for those who might otherwise burn…  women should learn in silence with submission…. And what is silence, oh please not the hymns and the Soprano and Alto sections of the choir… and the woman Sunday School Super who reads part of Luke 2 aloud because a child’s voice falters and memory fails at the key, programmatic moment….  And let them discuss and vote except as to whether communion should be twice or four times a month and whether to call Pastor John or Pastor Bill.  And let’s not argue about head coverings but about gold and pearl jewelry and braids and expensive clothes.  And these together with “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man, she is to keep silent… for Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”  Note the missing Eve to counterpoint the Adam who has a name.   Harvey Mozolak   

Harvey, you're starting to wander.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 10:52:05 AM
I should mention that folks here would be surprised by just how many serious-minded ELCA pastors, looking over the landscape of theological devastation across the ELCA, have come to realize that the ordination of women was both symptomatic of, and cause for more, deep theological error that has now brought such horrible consequences to the ELCA and all other Lutheran bodies across the world that has embraced it.

But there is hope.

For instance, most recently, in Latvia, Bishop Vanags who has taken a principled stand against the ordination of women, was reaffirmed strongly in his role as bishop, no doubt much to the chagrin of LWF leadership that has been working hard to see him unseated and removed from office.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 10:56:05 AM
Scott, you asked, "Again, why the urge to see what we can get away with?  God can and certainly does use all sorts of bad situations (I've been spiritually fed by a number of female pastors -- not only my mom, but Erma, for example, in her great sermon at the CORE Theological Conference).  Why try to get in the bad situation, though, just to see if it will still work?  I don't get it."

I don't think that is what most advocates of WO are attempting to do... see how much we can get away with....  You can find other faults but I really don't think that is a serious reason for the practice.  At least it was not mine.  You would not permit the argument that we should see how close to being uninspired some of St. Paul's phrases might be... like "get the cloak I forgot in Troas" type things.  There is a time-bound and cultural conditioning to some of the women/men talk in Paul, like headcoverings and pearls, expensive clothes and all that.... while they ought to dig at our modern way of life (like expensive clothes on both men and women who are Chrsitians and should be caring for the poor) they might not be as precise a code of Church practice as we could make them.  I do think that a church body that does not allow women to do much of anything that remotely touches in chargeness is being literally correct to the texts.  Those of us who step away from that position have trouble finding the line in the sand to defend.   Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 11:04:02 AM
The Roman Catholic Church (excerpt from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html)

For this reason one cannot see how it is possible to propose the admission of women to the priesthood in virtue of the equality of rights of the human person, an equality which holds good also for Christians. To this end, use is sometimes made of the text quoted above, from the Letter to the Galatians (3:28), which says that in Christ there is no longer any distinction between men and women. But this passage does not concern ministries: it only affirms the universal calling to divine filiation, which is the same for all. Moreover, and above all, to consider the ministerial priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge it's nature completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry within the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honour or advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church; it is the object of a specific and totally gratuitous vocation: “You did not choose me, no, I chose you; and I commissioned you...” (Jn.15:16; Heb.5:4).

It is sometimes said and written in books and periodicals that some women feel that they have a vocation to the priesthood. Such an attraction however noble and understandable, still does not suffice for a genuine vocation. In fact a vocation cannot be reduced to a mere personal attraction, which can remain purely subjective. Since the priesthood is a particular ministry of which the Church has received the charge and the control, authentication by the Church is indispensable here and is a constitutive part of the vocation: Christ chose “those he wanted” (Mk.3:13). On the other hand, there is a universal vocation of all the baptized to the exercise of the royal priesthood by offering their lives to God and by giving witness for his praise.

Women who express a desire for the ministerial priesthood are doubtless motivated by the desire to serve Christ and the Church. And it is not surprising that, at a time when they are becoming more aware of the discriminations to which they have been subjected, they should desire the ministerial priesthood itself. But it must not be forgotten that the priesthood does not form part of the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of Christ and the Church. The priestly office cannot become the goal of social advancement: no merely human progress of society or of the individual can of itself give access to it: it is of another order.

It therefore remains for us to meditate more deeply on the nature of the real equality of the baptized which is one of the great affirmations of Christianity; equality is in no way identity, for the Church is a differentiated body, in which each individual has his or her role. The roles are distinct, and must not be confused; they do not favour the superiority of some vis-a-vis the others, nor do they provide an excuse for jealousy; the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (1 Cor 12-13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.

The Church desires that Christian women should become more fully aware of the greatness of their mission; today their role is of capital importance, both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery of believers of the true face of the Church.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 11:04:23 AM
And, as we have seen, St. Paul was also articulating a cultural and time-bound position and bias against homosexuality....and so it goes, and goes, and goes.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 11:08:34 AM
Scott, you asked, "Again, why the urge to see what we can get away with?  God can and certainly does use all sorts of bad situations (I've been spiritually fed by a number of female pastors -- not only my mom, but Erma, for example, in her great sermon at the CORE Theological Conference).  Why try to get in the bad situation, though, just to see if it will still work?  I don't get it."

I don't think that is what most advocates of WO are attempting to do... see how much we can get away with....  You can find other faults but I really don't think that is a serious reason for the practice.  At least it was not mine.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it certainly seems that you were making this type of argument when you wrote:

If a LCMS pastor (sorry to pick on you for this example) is gay and secretly has a relationship with another gay person and he preaches and celebrates HC…  cannot the sermon share Law and Gospel and his hidden life not ruin the communicants reception?  I am saying nothing about whether he is sinning or whether his church body would be sinning if they knew and permitted him to be a pastor.  So what if a Lutheran woman pastor comes and preaches and celebrates HC and an LCMS person listens to the sermon and partakes of the sacrament, can it be a proper sermon, a Holy Communion that shares Christ’s body and blood?  Again I am not saying whether or not that LCMS person should be in that church, listen or partake… but if one did….  We know that an unbelieving preacher and celebrant does not vitiate the means of grace, don’t we?  What of a woman who believes?

Is it possible that God is not wild about ordained women, but will use them in the church?  He may not be wild about pastors who are not good at Greek or who do not find evangelism to be their most important work but will he still use them in the church?

Again, sorry if I misunderstood.  What was the force of your above comments, then?

You would not permit the argument that we should see how close to being uninspired some of St. Paul's phrases might be... like "get the cloak I forgot in Troas" type things.  There is a time-bound and cultural conditioning to some of the women/men talk in Paul, like headcoverings and pearls, expensive clothes and all that.... while they ought to dig at our modern way of life (like expensive clothes on both men and women who are Chrsitians and should be caring for the poor) they might not be as precise a code of Church practice as we could make them.  I do think that a church body that does not allow women to do much of anything that remotely touches in chargeness is being literally correct to the texts.  Those of us who step away from that position have trouble finding the line in the sand to defend.

The phrase we were talking about wasn't regarding cloaks, pearls, headcoverings or other types of clothes (leaving aside the inspiration or lack thereof of these statements).

It was about a doctrinal point: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

It was to the idea that Adam was not deceived that you responded: "Oh?"

And it's not a matter of allowing or disallowing a point, as you haven't yet been clear as to what you're saying (though I do admit that you are quite strongly implying that Paul's theological argumentation in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 is uninspired).  So let me ask again, are you saying that Paul got Gen. 3 wrong?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 11:10:01 AM
Orthodox Church in America
(excerpt from http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=167&SID=3)

While it is only my opinion that the question should never be silenced, I would also propose that its discussion must be conducted within the parameters of the Church's ongoing Tradition and not in post-modern secular or humanist categories which bear little relationship to the Gospel. While Orthodoxy has not accepted the ordination of women, it does laud a woman, the Theotokos, as the one who is "more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim" and holds her up as a model for all of God's People, male and female alike. In this light, salvation, not ordination, is the goal of Christian life.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 11:12:48 AM
And, as we have seen, St. Paul was also articulating a cultural and time-bound position and bias against homosexuality....and so it goes, and goes, and goes.

No, Paul that is not true.  Genesis does not speak about who can or should be Lutheran pastors but does speak about male and female and human marriage.  Maybe for some, I grant you, the two issues can be connected.   For some of us they are not at all.  You may believe it otherwise but please understand that is not my position.  Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 11:17:28 AM
Wow, even Zoroastrianism priests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Zoroastrianism) are required to be male!  (If Wikipedia is to be trusted!  ;D)  We were having a field day with some of the religious services being held at the hospital this past week.  I now count myself educated on what in the world this service in a Cincinnati hospital was all about (along with the Wiccan, Buddhist and Islamic services).
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: janielou13 on December 14, 2010, 11:21:16 AM
Jon.

There has never been in the ordinary universal magisterium a Tradition or consensus that the all male presbyterate is a doctrine,,, it's just a canonical discipline that has developed over time and can be overturned should the Church choose to do so in an Ecumenicql Council.  Should that occur, it would not be considered a novelty, but something new that has grown organicaly out of the Tradition that has been received.  In the first seven councils, there is no Canon against female presbyters. There were Canons over against the various and sundry heretical churches that had female presbyters, but the condemnations were against their heresies, not the issue of their having female presbyters.

It would be nice if there were a Canon Lawyer or two in the house,,,, or a Jesuit, to run through the ins and outs of this.  I first learned of this situation in a Church History class at John Carroll back in the the heady days of the Council when all things were on the table.  
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Steverem on December 14, 2010, 11:25:32 AM
Wow, even Zoroastrianism priests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Zoroastrianism) are required to be male!  (If Wikipedia is to be trusted!  ;D)  We were having a field day with some of the religious services being held at the hospital this past week.  I now count myself educated on what in the world this service in a Cincinnati hospital was all about (along with the Wiccan, Buddhist and Islamic services).

So, I take it your husband wasn't at Jewish Hospital in Kenwood, huh?   ;)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 11:32:42 AM
And, as we have seen, St. Paul was also articulating a cultural and time-bound position and bias against homosexuality....and so it goes, and goes, and goes.

No, Paul that is not true.  Genesis does not speak about who can or should be Lutheran pastors but does speak about male and female and human marriage.  Maybe for some, I grant you, the two issues can be connected.   For some of us they are not at all.  You may believe it otherwise but please understand that is not my position.  Harvey Mozolak

Harvey I definitely know that is not your position, but the point I'm making is that their is a very real "slippery slope" here that can not be avoided, in my opinion, by any Lutheran Church that embraces a hermeneutic that leads it to ordain women.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 11:34:25 AM
Scott, you asked: "So let me ask again, are you saying that Paul got Gen. 3 wrong?"  Well, the Holy Spirit cannot get Gen 3 wrong and I am not going up against an inspired Paul altho I always wonder how Martin could toss whole books, like James, into a separate pile without being accused of denying the inspiration of Scripture and someone putting the cloak of Troas into a hardly preachable text pile might be doing something mightly different... but, the applications we make from Gen and Paul are a different thing.  In Gen 3 God condemns saying that the man will rule over the woman, there take that!  Is that a good thing, the ruling over or is that just one of the pains of the Fall that we might not appreciate seeing manifested much in the Church where the New Adam rules by dying on a tree?    Is that ruling over like the thorns and thistles, also mentioned, but we don't have to eat them necessarily or praise their sharp quality?  What I have difficulty seeing and understanding with any precision is the exact things a woman does in submission, the exact activities one is forbidden to do because they exercise forbidden authority?  I know preaching and celebration at the altar is a limit many like you make but where that limitation begins in the home and how it extends from pulpit and altar in church when words like silence are used and yet not taken literally at all, gives me more than pause.  I am getting to be an old dude but I remember days when the silence was deadening, dooming and not at all what St. Paul in Christ must have meant.    Is the WO part of the ceremonial law and not the 10 Words?  Does it rise to the 10 commandment level?  I know you can tuck it into the sixth and all dove-tail into the first... but....   Ideally, it seems to me that in a Christian marriage, you don't worry about authority and submission, you are too busy serving and sacrificing for each other in Christ.         Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 11:38:16 AM
OK, and maybe my only corresponding response would be that I also have seen and see other slippery slopes and some of them come down from the same precipice, all missuses indeed of text, tradition and taste (oops, also feelings  ;)).  Harvey Mozolak

[/quote]
Harvey I definitely know that is not your position, but the point I'm making is that their is a very real "slippery slope" here that can not be avoided, in my opinion, by any Lutheran Church that embraces a hermeneutic that leads it to ordain women.
[/quote]
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 11:40:57 AM
OK, Mike but how quiet?   If you say, not a word.  I can understand that.  If you say, some sounds are OK, you are going to have to tell me, what, when, where, how, and why?   And least for me to better understand.  Harvey Mozolak

[/quote]
It would be nice if people simply strived to obey "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." instead of trying to make endruns around it.
Mike
[/quote]
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 14, 2010, 11:42:11 AM
My original post resulted in a rehash of past discussions on this Forum. Rather than continue endlessly in what has proven less than fruitful, I will attempt to clarify the approach I am suggesting in a discussion the ordination of women to the pastoral office. I do so in the context of how the LCMS has and continues to defend a male only pastorate. 

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I think it'd be far more helpful if you discussed the ordination of women to the pastoral office on its own merits, starting with Scripture, rather than the very narrow context of how the LCMS has defended a male-only pastorate.

I say this because I, in all truthfulness, have a really hard time figuring out your positions and arguments. This is largely because it's clear that there is a fairly distinct defensive tone to them, that you are presuming specific positions/arguments and taking a position against them. Is it possible to start fresh at the very beginning, rather than addressing this issue in the context of the LCMS's past and present argumentation?

Quote
I submit that the texts chosen as normative, their translation, interpretation and application, are all based on presuppositions about unity, order and authority. The first presupposition I selected for consideration...

This begs a couple of questions: 1. What other presuppositions ARE there in this list? 2. Why did you select this one first?

Quote
The LCMS begins with the presupposition that unity and order in the home and church are dependent upon a divinely mandated immutable structure. The presupposition is defended with the claim that unity and order in relationships require that someone or some category of persons has to be in authority and someone or some category of persons has to be under authority. IOW, someone has to have the last word. Without the structure there is disorder and a break down of relationship.

Again, this seems like a strange place to start. This entire line of argumentation is based upon another set of presuppositions - your own. So, at least in my opinion, we're jumping into this discussion somewhere vaguely in the middle, at a location you alone have determined. I can't get past the sense of there being a trap simply because of the way the discussion is designed.

Addressing your preferred context of the LCMS's presuppositions regarding women's ordination would be far more fruitful if we did so AFTER discussing the issue thoroughly in the broader context.

Quote
My study of Scripture and the Confession, my participation in the historic liturgy of the Church and my singing of our Lutheran hymnody has led me to ask whether the concept of order and unity being dependent upon an external structure is consistent with natural human reason rather than what Scripture reveals about the nature and character of the God in whose image Man, male and female was created.

You use this phrase, "Man, male and female" quite frequently. What do you mean by it? I think that most people here are pretty comfortable with the idea of the word "mankind" encompassing both sexes, despite the political correctness prevalent these days, yourself included. So why is there a need for additional clarification?  Do you believe that God created a generic "Man" and thus maleness and femaleness is additional qualities added to that blank human form?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 11:51:23 AM
Men can't be mothers. Women can't be fathers.

There are simply some things in life, built into Creation, at the beginning, that we have no authority or ability to change.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Karl Hess on December 14, 2010, 11:56:00 AM
One last thought on the 1 Tim 2 text:  Adam did not sin first… but Eve did… what is that supposed to mean?  Does it give any solace to men, any special guilt to women?  Who would go there today and what would it say to our theology of sin to go there?  And yet it is quite the point that Paul is making.  Weakness is another word used often here, in what way?  Hand to hand combat in the military or in battle with Satan, want to go there?  And if, as St. Paul says, there is no distinction when it comes to grace, why then in the matter of sin?     



Harvey Mozolak

I think you bring up an excellent point here.  What does Peter mean when he calls wives "the weaker partner"?  If we are going to take a countercultural position on the ordination of women, we don't do ourselves any favors by not laying out the whole logic of the Biblical position.  It may make people angry to learn that the Bible says women are 'weaker partners," but in the end the explanation for the male pastorate will have more of a rationale than it presently seems to.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 11:58:30 AM
Wow, even Zoroastrianism priests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Zoroastrianism) are required to be male!  (If Wikipedia is to be trusted!  ;D)  We were having a field day with some of the religious services being held at the hospital this past week.  I now count myself educated on what in the world this service in a Cincinnati hospital was all about (along with the Wiccan, Buddhist and Islamic services).

So, I take it your husband wasn't at Jewish Hospital in Kenwood, huh?   ;)

No, that was last year at this time when he and all four of our children were taken to the ER at Jewish after a devastating automobile accident (the other driver's fault) while out visiting and caroling with shut-in's.   ;)  Every Advent and Lent brings some other lovely attack from the evil one, but I can accept it since we maintain a theology of the cross.  Honestly, he probably will not return to Bethesda (started by German Deaconesses!) after this experience.  Just thinking about chants and incantations to who knows what god or entity being done just below you and down the hall from you does not make a happy Christian Lutheran pastor.  I believe he'll choose the Mercy system in Cinci from here out where at least one can see a crucifix at every turn.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: iowakatie1981 on December 14, 2010, 12:01:26 PM
Could somebody who is familiar with/knows right where to look post the relevant sections of LCMS "official" statements on the service/ordination of women, as has been done for Baptists, RCC, and EO?  

I'm only asking because when I read those above, I feel loved and respected for my gifts and the service I might offer, even though that service does include the possibility of ordination, and frequently (not always, but from some people here) I do not feel loved and respected for my gifts, rather I hear, "Sit down, and shut up, woman!  You are not called, that's Satan you're listening to, not God."  That's simply unhelpful to conversation.

I also should note that as a person who is - at the moment - comfortable with the ordination of women, it is absolutely impossible to have any sort of substantive conversation about it within ELCA quarters.  Even as a woman, I am not allowed to question it, and I know other students/interns/pastors who will openly mock (to their colleagues) parishioners who are not 100% sold.  That is just as unhelpful, I feel, as those who run about simply shouting, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man she must be quiet I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man she must be quiet I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man she must be quiet."

So it might be helpful to see the language that LCMS uses, and the biblical/theological justification for such, as compared to these other traditions.  (And also, as Kim has pointed out, those other denominations such as AoG that ordain women but do not appear to be proceeding any further down the slippery slope, as it were.)

Happy Advent - Peace, Love, and Jesus!

~Katie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 12:02:48 PM
I think you bring up an excellent point here.  What does Peter mean when he calls wives "the weaker partner"?  If we are going to take a countercultural position on the ordination of women, we don't do ourselves any favors by not laying out the whole logic of the Biblical position.  It may make people angry to learn that the Bible says women are 'weaker partners," but in the end the explanation for the male pastorate will have more of a rationale than it presently seems to.

I referenced "weaker vessel" earlier and would love for a very smart pastor or someone skilled in the languages to provide a brief exegesis for us (I don't have access to my beloved Libronix Logos tools at the moment).  I like being considered the weaker vessel.  I have to give credit to Sandra for bringing to my attention an analogy that I hadn't previously considered in that it is likened to "fine China" that is exquisite, but may break a little easier.  I find that analogy beautiful.  It is nice to be handled with care, labeled "fragile", etc.  God created me this way.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 12:06:01 PM
Could somebody who is familiar with/knows right where to look post the relevant sections of LCMS "official" statements on the service/ordination of women, as has been done for Baptists, RCC, and EO?  

Here you go, Katie.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=515

Love you girl!  (Just to demonstrate that some of us are able to agree to disagree and do so charitably.)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Karl Hess on December 14, 2010, 12:15:03 PM
Thanks for the info., Ray.  I'll do some exploring of the issues within those denominations.

I know what the LCMS puts forth about women's ordination, so I thought I'd explore and share language used by other church bodies that do not ordain women here and there as I have the time.  I like this verbiage from the WELS:

We belong to a synod that is often accused of clinging to an outmoded and out-of-touch view of the roles of men and women. While many Christian denominations have changed their doctrine and proudly opened the door to the ordination of women, WELS has not done so. We have, with the help of God, maintained that God in his love and wisdom has clearly reserved the role of pastor and the exercise of authority in the church to men. To be sure, it’s every congregation’s responsibility to give women opportunities to serve in meaningful and important ways. But we do that always maintaining our desire to follow the guidelines that God himself has given us in his Word.

Our beliefs will seldom find approval in the culture in which we live. More often than not, the values that we defend will be challenged, questioned, or ridiculed. In the face of that onslaught from a godless culture, it’s important for us to remember not just what we are against but what we are for. Cherish those values. Defend them. Hold on to them. Not because those values are traditional but because they are biblical.


http://www.wels.org/news-events/forward-in-christ/november-2008/a-synod-that-upholds-biblical-values?page=0,1

Dcs. Schave,

That is all good, but do please realize that the WELS see authority as going far beyond the pastoral Office.

The WELS do not ordain women as pastors, but they also will not normally permit women to act as lectors, ushers, or acolytes.

I've even heard although I haven't been able to corroborate it that women cannot even act as treasurers because this would place them in a position of authority.

And, of course, women cannot vote in congregational assemblies in the WELS.

What does the inspired St. Paul mean by authority in 1 Timothy 2. That is the question. Some believe he meant almost everything; some appearently mean he meant virtually nothing or that this text should be disregarded.

Mike

It's not simply 1 timothy 2.  If you look at the various passages where Paul and the apostles exhort Christians concerning their callings, note the sorts of things that are praised in women and wives.  It's submissiveness and modesty.  I think we make more sense if we teachpeople that the proscription of women exercising Christ's authority publicly (that is, by preaching and teaching) is an extension of the created order, where men are given the gifts to lead and women given the gifts to nurture.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Steverem on December 14, 2010, 12:18:13 PM
Wow, even Zoroastrianism priests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Zoroastrianism) are required to be male!  (If Wikipedia is to be trusted!  ;D)  We were having a field day with some of the religious services being held at the hospital this past week.  I now count myself educated on what in the world this service in a Cincinnati hospital was all about (along with the Wiccan, Buddhist and Islamic services).

So, I take it your husband wasn't at Jewish Hospital in Kenwood, huh?   ;)

No, that was last year at this time when he and all four of our children were taken to the ER at Jewish after a devastating automobile accident (the other driver's fault) while out visiting and caroling with shut-in's.   ;)  Every Advent and Lent brings some other lovely attack from the evil one, but I can accept it since we maintain a theology of the cross.  Honestly, he probably will not return to Bethesda (started by German Deaconesses!) after this experience.  Just thinking about chants and incantations to who knows what god or entity being done just below you and down the hall from you does not make a happy Christian Lutheran pastor.  I believe he'll choose the Mercy system in Cinci from here out where at least one can see a crucifix at every turn.

Yikes!  Well, in case future attacks by the evil one require the services of a good physical therapist, I happen to be related to a really good one out in Blue Ash.  (Plus, he's a certifiable Buckeye fanatic, so you guys would have plenty of which to talk.)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Karl Hess on December 14, 2010, 12:21:17 PM
I think you bring up an excellent point here.  What does Peter mean when he calls wives "the weaker partner"?  If we are going to take a countercultural position on the ordination of women, we don't do ourselves any favors by not laying out the whole logic of the Biblical position.  It may make people angry to learn that the Bible says women are 'weaker partners," but in the end the explanation for the male pastorate will have more of a rationale than it presently seems to.

I referenced "weaker vessel" earlier and would love for a very smart pastor or someone skilled in the languages to provide a brief exegesis for us (I don't have access to my beloved Libronix Logos tools at the moment).  I like being considered the weaker vessel.  I have to give credit to Sandra for bringing to my attention an analogy that I hadn't previously considered in that it is likened to "fine China" that is exquisite, but may break a little easier.  I find that analogy beautiful.  It is nice to be handled with care, labeled "fragile", etc.  God created me this way.
Yeah.  And it gives men meaning when they realize that their masculinity is a gift to be used in order to honor, love, protect, and serve the women in their lives, instead of trying to win respect or love by demonstration of power or prowess at the expense of others.  Or, instead of giving up and remaining children and cowards their whole lives, which is the way that I think a lot of us have become.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 12:27:17 PM
1 Peter 3.7
Weaker- asthenes,  sick, weak, delicate, helpless, a lexical aid suggests as meanings
Also used for while we were weak, at the right time, Chrsit died for the ungodly in Rom 5

Now weak in a physical sense, mental sense, spiritual sense, some or all of these… compared I suppose to men, or just their husbands, some men but not 98 pound weakling or sick men….   on the average, weaker???

Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 12:30:03 PM
I dare you to begin a sermon:  My dear strong Chrsitian men and their weaker-vessel, Christian wives, grace, mercy and peaceeeeee.    ;)   Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 14, 2010, 12:34:24 PM
1 Peter 3.7
Weaker- asthenes,  sick, weak, delicate, helpless, a lexical aid suggests as meanings
Also used for while we were weak, at the right time, Chrsit died for the ungodly in Rom 5

Now weak in a physical sense, mental sense, spiritual sense, some or all of these… compared I suppose to men, or just their husbands, some men but not 98 pound weakling or sick men….   on the average, weaker???

God doesn't create things "sick" or flawed. That's a result of sin.

It seems to me that the more weak the person, the more powerful Christ is for (and through) her and the more responsibility given those in earthly power to care for her over and above their own selves.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: iowakatie1981 on December 14, 2010, 12:35:41 PM
I say, "Thank you." 

(And if you're under 8, or my age + cute + no wedding ring, or elderly, you also get an extra-special smile from me  ;) )

I heard someone once say that he thinks the double sets of doors that so often exist now to create an "airlock" or "vestibule" (as it's called at Starbucks, which the first time I'd ever heard that term used outside of church) have much to do with the decline of chivalry.  Because if a man opens that first door for a woman, she proceeds in, and then meets immediately with the next door, which she must then open for him...  It was an interesting perspective, I thought. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 12:36:46 PM
I do also have a bit of trouble with the shaping of 1 Peter 2
v. 1 wives accept authority of husbands, even those who do not obey the Word
v. 3 do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding, wearing gold ornaments and fine clothes

and seems to be not only an example, verse 3, but the example that proves the point, like plain Sarah (v. 5,6)...

OK, so why not inforce braids and jewelry and clothing prohibitions and here much stronger stated that hats on women?

And why are women singled out for fanciness... we men have our chrome wheels and electronic toys?

Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 14, 2010, 12:47:03 PM
I do also have a bit of trouble with the shaping of 1 Peter 2
v. 1 wives accept authority of husbands, even those who do not obey the Word
v. 3 do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding, wearing gold ornaments and fine clothes

and seems to be not only an example, verse 3, but the example that proves the point, like plain Sarah (v. 5,6)...

I don't think the emphasis in v. 5, 6 is on Sarah's plainness, but on the less-visible beauty (yet a uniquely womanly beauty) of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is explained in v. 4 (which you left out for some reason...)

"4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening."

I'm not sure where your difficulty lies. In the broader picture of the surrounding verses to the ones you paraphrase and their context, it's a rather beautiful picture. But if you'd like to throw out the red herring as though of condemning braids, jewelry and fancy clothing is really what the text is talking about - even when they're parenthetical to the sentence - as though THAT creates an immutable inconsistency in the position opposing women's ordination, rather than engage the actual point...go ahead. :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 12:47:38 PM
I dare you to begin a sermon:  My dear strong Chrsitian men and their weaker-vessel, Christian wives, grace, mercy and peaceeeeee.    ;)   Harvey Mozolak

I BEG you all to start your sermon this way . . . then define just what this means so your members are taught the truth about this instead of what the world (and its prince) would have them believe about it.  This goes back to what Pastor Hess said about masculinity . . . I submit this is precisely why it becomes a "dare" to actually speak God's Word to the congregation.  As our counseling professor at the seminary taught, men are like teflon, women are like sponges.  Typically, men let things slide off while women will hold it all in.  So you make someone angry and force them to open their Bibles, then pray and ponder upon such things.  Let it slide off while they're angry, then when they've cooled, take advantage of a teachable moment!  Praise God a Lutheran pastor did that for me when I needed it most and was man enough (if I might use that phrase) to not care about making me angry because he cared MORE about my eternal salvation.  I love that man (and I share a totally different theology than him considering he is ELCA)!  How about we all dare to be Lutheran and not cower from it?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: memiller on December 14, 2010, 12:49:11 PM
Let me ask a question.  Do you believe that the Church can be wrong over the course of centuries and even millenia and God works to bring correction or change to long settled questions?  ...

Frankly, one of the biggest problems I have with this discussion is the idea of a God who is forced to put up with a Church that got it so wrong for so long and was powerless to effect any change until the 20th century.

How about a God who was forced to put up with a Church that got it wrong for centuries (perhaps not millennia) about the 'long settled questions' of married pastors, indulgences, the sacrifice of the Mass, the Laity receiving both kinds, monastic vows, the power and primacy of the Pope, etc., until Luther came along?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Rev. Kevin Scheuller on December 14, 2010, 01:25:07 PM
With all due respect to my LCMS brothers and sisters, as the husband and fellow clergy of a clergywomen with whom I work in a two-point parish, I tend to be more conflict averse (hence, "weaker" in a sense) than she is.  I continue to see that Mary Magdelene, the first person to witness and tell the glorious news of Christ's resurrection, was arguably the first evangelist (after Christ himself).  Also, Paul names both Priscilla(diminutive form of "Prisca" in RSV) and Aquilla as his "fellow workers" and also a Mary in

Romans 16:3 Greet Prisca and Aq'uila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but also all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks; 5 greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epae'netus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you.

I continue to see Mother Theresa of Calcutta as a giant of the Church who has taught me about as much about the love of Christ as any man ever has, in some instances more.  Her work with and among the poor in Calcutta and her unswerving defense of the unborn are Christ-like attributes that all of humanity would do well to emulate.  Anyway, my 2 cents.  

Sincerely in Christian love, +
Rev. Kevin Scheuller
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 14, 2010, 01:32:56 PM
Again, this seems like a strange place to start. This entire line of argumentation is based upon another set of presuppositions - your own. So, at least in my opinion, we're jumping into this discussion somewhere vaguely in the middle, at a location you alone have determined. I can't get past the sense of there being a trap simply because of the way the discussion is designed.

Addressing your preferred context of the LCMS's presuppositions regarding women's ordination would be far more fruitful if we did so AFTER discussing the issue thoroughly in the broader context.

Sandra:

Please note that the presuppositions are not my own.  They are the ones with which the LCMS begins.  Presuppositions determine the larger context. Not the other way around.  I suggest you not begin with the conclusion that I am attempting to set a trap for anyone. 

Marie
 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: FrPeters on December 14, 2010, 01:34:15 PM
It is one thing when an aberration develops and the Church must be reformed or returned to its truth (the Reformation of Luther was such a return and the ample attestation of the fathers in the BoC are to show that the Lutheran position is no novelty) but it is quite another when the position from the very beginning (no ordination of women) suddenly becomes wrong in the later half of the 20th century... Where is the reform here?  It is not reform but innovation -- precisely the thing the Confessions claim Lutherans do NOT do...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 01:34:28 PM
With all due respect to my LCMS brothers and sisters, as the husband and fellow clergy of a clergywomen with whom I work in a two-point parish, I tend to be more conflict averse (hence, "weaker" in a sense) than she is.  I continue to see that Mary Magdelene, the first person to witness and tell the glorious news of Christ's resurrection, was arguably the first evangelist (after Christ himself).  Also, Paul names both Priscilla(diminutive form of "Prisca" in RSV) and Aquilla as his "fellow workers" and also a Mary in

Romans 16:3 Greet Prisca and Aq'uila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but also all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks; 5 greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epae'netus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you.

I continue to see Mother Theresa of Calcutta as a giant of the Church who has taught me about as much about the love of Christ as any man ever has, in some instances more.  Her work with and among the poor in Calcutta and her unswerving defense of the unborn are Christ-like attributes that all of humanity would do well to emulate.  Anyway, my 2 cents.  

Sincerely in Christian love, +
Rev. Kevin Scheuller

Hi Kevin,

I think that Paul's (i.e., the McCain Paul) question stands.  "Leadership" is a rather vague term.  Where do you see a woman presbyter or episkopes in the NT?  Women are of course "fellow workers" and have the courage to "risk their necks" (what translation, btw?) in their hard work.  No one disputes this.  No one disputes that women are Christ-like.  The issue is whether or not God has decided to call men into the office of authoritative teaching -- what we now call the Office of the Holy Ministry.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Again, this seems like a strange place to start. This entire line of argumentation is based upon another set of presuppositions - your own. So, at least in my opinion, we're jumping into this discussion somewhere vaguely in the middle, at a location you alone have determined. I can't get past the sense of there being a trap simply because of the way the discussion is designed.

Addressing your preferred context of the LCMS's presuppositions regarding women's ordination would be far more fruitful if we did so AFTER discussing the issue thoroughly in the broader context.

Sandra:

Please note that the presuppositions are not my own.  They are the ones with which the LCMS begins.  Presuppositions determine the larger context. Not the other way around.  I suggest you not begin with the conclusion that I am attempting to set a trap for anyone. 

Marie
 

Marie,

Glad you're back.

You wrote:

I will addess your comment about the head/body image being the same as the organic unity between thigh and chin if you address the essence of what I said about the claim that unity and order in the church has to do with men and women being obedient to a structure God is said to have ordained at creation.

I'm still waiting for you to reciprocate. [[And if any object that I'm being a bit hard-nose about this, read what I quote above -- Marie wouldn't answer my point until I responded.  I did, now in all fairness, I should get a response.]]

If the question is unclear, here it is again (and I've already repeated it once):

But now that I've responded, I look forward to your own promised response to the question: "Could you please give an interpretation of Eph. 5, then, that gives an account of the language Paul uses in places like this, where "submission" and "head" are used as complementary ideas?"

To be sure that this question isn't misunderstood with respect to body language, I clarified it when I wrote: "That's how the body imagery is deployed in many places in Paul.  Yet Paul also deploys headship language to make a different point (emphasis just so that this doesn't get missed -- Paul doesn't just toot away on one-note here).  I.e., two different things are being discussed -- "organic unity" (to use your term) and male-female relations that revolve around terms like "head," "submission" and "love.""
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 01:42:12 PM
Sandra,  the text here does not tell us whether the weakness is part of holy creation of women or the result of the Fall, does it?
And which is it?  Since there was no weakness it has to be after the Fall, like sickness...  which I am not arguing for as a translation but it does run in the same channel... things that sin caused rather than created order.  Harvey Mozolak
[/quote]

God doesn't create things "sick" or flawed. That's a result of sin.

It seems to me that the more weak the person, the more powerful Christ is for (and through) her and the more responsibility given those in earthly power to care for her over and above their own selves.


[/quote]
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 01:44:46 PM
Thanks for the challenge.  I see it as a difficult passage to deal with absolute perpescuity; however, your challenge is true.  And it is not being taken up by most of us, even those who take your side of the issue, as well as my side.  Harvey Mozolak

I dare you to begin a sermon:  My dear strong Chrsitian men and their weaker-vessel, Christian wives, grace, mercy and peaceeeeee.    ;)   Harvey Mozolak

I BEG you all to start your sermon this way . . . then define just what this means so your members are taught the truth about this instead of what the world (and its prince) would have them believe about it.  This goes back to what Pastor Hess said about masculinity . . . I submit this is precisely why it becomes a "dare" to actually speak God's Word to the congregation.  As our counseling professor at the seminary taught, men are like teflon, women are like sponges.  Typically, men let things slide off while women will hold it all in.  So you make someone angry and force them to open their Bibles, then pray and ponder upon such things.  Let it slide off while they're angry, then when they've cooled, take advantage of a teachable moment!  Praise God a Lutheran pastor did that for me when I needed it most and was man enough (if I might use that phrase) to not care about making me angry because he cared MORE about my eternal salvation.  I love that man (and I share a totally different theology than him considering he is ELCA)!  How about we all dare to be Lutheran and not cower from it?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 01:45:39 PM
With all due respect to my LCMS brothers and sisters, as the husband and fellow clergy of a clergywomen with whom I work in a two-point parish, I tend to be more conflict averse (hence, "weaker" in a sense) than she is.  I continue to see that Mary Magdelene, the first person to witness and tell the glorious news of Christ's resurrection, was arguably the first evangelist (after Christ himself).  Also, Paul names both Priscilla(diminutive form of "Prisca" in RSV) and Aquilla as his "fellow workers" and also a Mary in

Romans 16:3 Greet Prisca and Aq'uila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but also all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks; 5 greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epae'netus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you.

I continue to see Mother Theresa of Calcutta as a giant of the Church who has taught me about as much about the love of Christ as any man ever has, in some instances more.  Her work with and among the poor in Calcutta and her unswerving defense of the unborn are Christ-like attributes that all of humanity would do well to emulate.  Anyway, my 2 cents.  

Sincerely in Christian love, +
Rev. Kevin Scheuller

These are wonderful examples of how much value God places on women in that they are such esteemed participants in His work, but none of these women were serving in the role of "overseer."  I was blessed to sit alongside an African nun in Mother Theresa's order on a recent flight to Kenya.  She was delightful . . . I loved hearing about her work, seeing her rosary within which locks of Mother Theresa's hair was embedded, etc.  I was saddened that I wouldn't be allowed an opportunity for a photo with her until she explained why . . . they refuse to participate in any activities that would draw attention away from Christ and onto themselves.  How refreshing to be in the presence of a faithful servant who desired to only serve in the background without any need to be seen but by God Himself.  I wish I could be so faithful!  I've been waiting for an opportunity to brag about that experience, and here I finally took the opportunity.   :D

I believe very much that God has a place for women to teach within His church, but it doesn't have to be from the altar.  I mean to give no offense to female pastors whose church body welcomes them into service within the Office of Holy Ministry, but I do speak out since I do not wish to see my own church body move away from what I believe is a Biblical mandate for a male-only pastorate.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 14, 2010, 01:46:00 PM
11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2:12-15 (ESV)

What do you people take of the first person singular epitrpo?  Stands out strangely or uniquely to me.

If that's all we had, then it would be possible to view this as "only" Paul's opinion (though would a church that claims to be apostolic really want to go against apostolic teaching and practice?).  However, he goes on to make a theological argument rooted in the created order.  That takes it from the realm of "opinion" to "doctrine."  Again, only if folks want take seriously what it means to be part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church."

But for the moment again in this text we have the odd phrasing which is true only on one level and not on the more pervasive and more omportant one "Adam was not deceived.". Oh?

Oh?

First, are you saying that Paul gets the Genesis story wrong?  ???

Second, why isn't it a legitimate position to read Gen. 3 as Adam not being deceived, perhaps even knowingly and willfully sinning?  After all, Adam was "with her" throughout the dialog with the serpent, and he didn't correct Eve's misrepresentations of the command that God had given to Adam before Eve was formed (i.e., Eve said that God forbade even touching the tree; not true).  Maybe if he had corrected Eve's mistake in repeating God's command...  Maybe if he had prevented Eve from breaking the command...  Maybe if...

But in any case, the point Paul makes is regarding the order in which humanity was created and links that order to the deception of the woman who, after all, did not hear God's command firsthand.  God apparently decided to speak that command only to the man and have him tell his wife.
This is actually Milton's take-- that Adam chose exile with Eve over life in Eden without her. Thus, all the stuff about sin involving love of the creature (and by extension, love of self, since Eve was "one of my bone, and flesh of my flesh") more than the Creator in Romans and other places.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: janielou13 on December 14, 2010, 01:47:21 PM
Mike,,,, women in Islam can be Imans / Prayer leaders.  Mostly in Western countries.

As to the question of the need of Canon Lawyers,,, the Roman position is not based on the Timothy and Corinthian texts, Rome seems to see them as not germane to the issue of female presbyters.  Their position is based not on doctrine, but on canonical discipline.

Women are canonicaly in positions of authoriry over men, Eucharistic ministers and parish administrators are two good examples, seminary and college teachers of theology is another.  And should you risk crossing a Maryknoll nun, you will find out what authority over men really looks like.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 14, 2010, 01:52:26 PM
Sandra,
 
you wrote:
I'm not sure where your difficulty lies. In the broader picture of the surrounding verses to the ones you paraphrase and their context, it's a rather beautiful picture. But if you'd like to throw out the red herring as though of condemning braids, jewelry and fancy clothing is really what the text is talking about - even when they're parenthetical to the sentence - as though THAT creates an immutable inconsistency in the position opposing women's ordination, rather than engage the actual point...go ahead.  

I don't mean to use it as a red herring (IMO) but it is a bone in meat of the text.  How do you do one and not the other?  Wherein lies the use of one in one way and the other in another way?  I can see we both pick and choose, but what is it in the text that allows us to small print one and large print the other?  

Why is St. Paul so strong on women's place while Jesus has very little problem with women?   Did women respond better in the days of Jesus ministry than some of the male disciples who are always having difficulty seeing his mission and person?  Is it only in the early Church where women start to usurp their position, resist authority and refuse submission?   Does Jesus ever touch the subject?      Harvey Mozolak
 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Rev. Kevin Scheuller on December 14, 2010, 01:55:36 PM
With all due respect to my LCMS brothers and sisters, as the husband and fellow clergy of a clergywomen with whom I work in a two-point parish, I tend to be more conflict averse (hence, "weaker" in a sense) than she is.  I continue to see that Mary Magdelene, the first person to witness and tell the glorious news of Christ's resurrection, was arguably the first evangelist (after Christ himself).  Also, Paul names both Priscilla(diminutive form of "Prisca" in RSV) and Aquilla as his "fellow workers" and also a Mary in

Romans 16:3 Greet Prisca and Aq'uila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but also all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks; 5 greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epae'netus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you.

I continue to see Mother Theresa of Calcutta as a giant of the Church who has taught me about as much about the love of Christ as any man ever has, in some instances more.  Her work with and among the poor in Calcutta and her unswerving defense of the unborn are Christ-like attributes that all of humanity would do well to emulate.  Anyway, my 2 cents.  

Sincerely in Christian love, +
Rev. Kevin Scheuller

Hi Kevin,

I think that Paul's (i.e., the McCain Paul) question stands.  "Leadership" is a rather vague term.  Where do you see a woman presbyter or episkopes in the NT?

I don't, and in exegesis I certainly defer to you.  Again, we get to the slippery slope argument which I would possibly make if I were not married to a female pastor.  Any time you point to history or experience alongside the Bible, the Bible should take precedence.  Correct, "leadership" is a vague term.  There are just far too many women who have impacted the world posiitively for Christ IMHO to limit their role in leadership.  
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 02:05:30 PM
I don't, and in exegesis I certainly defer to you.  Again, we get to the slippery slope argument which I would possibly make if I were not married to a female pastor.  Any time you point to history or experience alongside the Bible, the Bible should take precedence.  Correct, "leadership" is a vague term.  There are just far too many women who have impacted the world posiitively for Christ IMHO to limit their role in leadership.  

Oh, Pastor Scheuller, there are PLENTY of leadership opportunities for women within the church.  Women are gifted in so many ways, they SHOULD be leading within the church.  I can't even begin to imagine where the Church would be today if not for such strong, hard-working and faithful servants.  However, I would maintain based on my understanding of Scripture that these leadership roles would simply be in those positions other than the Office of Holy Ministry or such auxilliary offices that exercise authority over or complement this Office.

 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 02:26:27 PM
It is quite an irony that the ELCA which, on paper, has much to say about women in full time ministry positions, has so few in... full time ministry positions.

The LCMS, on the other hand, has more women involved in rostered ministry than perhaps any church in the USA other than the Roman Catholic Church.

 :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 02:27:55 PM
Why is St. Paul so strong on women's place while Jesus has very little problem with women?   Did women respond better in the days of Jesus ministry than some of the male disciples who are always having difficulty seeing his mission and person?  Is it only in the early Church where women start to usurp their position, resist authority and refuse submission?   Does Jesus ever touch the subject?      Harvey Mozolak
 

Didn't Jesus worship at the Synagogue (since there would not have been a Christian church yet) where such issues as women's service would not have even been something that needed to be discussed?  Women started to usurp their position and resist authority (God's!) from the very beginning in Genesis.  Jesus indeed encountered sinful women, as we have many examples laid out for us in the New Testament.  Someone presented an example recently of a piece written about women in Islamic countries who are not seen as a threat and can come and go with ease in war-torn parts, so that same understanding may well have equated to women in Jesus' day.  Perhaps this is why the male apostles' sins are written of in the Word moreso than the women; they faced a very real threat to their lives that the women did not.  Anybody have a link to that from a recent thread?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 14, 2010, 02:30:04 PM
Again, this seems like a strange place to start. This entire line of argumentation is based upon another set of presuppositions - your own. So, at least in my opinion, we're jumping into this discussion somewhere vaguely in the middle, at a location you alone have determined. I can't get past the sense of there being a trap simply because of the way the discussion is designed.

Addressing your preferred context of the LCMS's presuppositions regarding women's ordination would be far more fruitful if we did so AFTER discussing the issue thoroughly in the broader context.

Sandra:

Please note that the presuppositions are not my own.  They are the ones with which the LCMS begins.  Presuppositions determine the larger context. Not the other way around.  I suggest you not begin with the conclusion that I am attempting to set a trap for anyone. 

Marie
 

Marie,

The presuppositions are your own in that you are choosing where to start the discussion. Personally, I don't particularly care how the LCMS frames the argument or where they begin it. If it's not begun in Scripture and the confessions, the LCMS has no business saying anything definitive about women's ordination at all. I'd like to start our discussion with the source materials, not with what "the LCMS" says or the presuppositions or priorities "they" have determined. Does that make sense? Let's figure out what Scripture says, and then we will be equipped to analyze the LCMS position in that light.


Sandra

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: JEdwards on December 14, 2010, 02:32:17 PM
[T]he Roman position is not based on the Timothy and Corinthian texts, Rome seems to see them as not germane to the issue of female presbyters.  Their position is based not on doctrine, but on canonical discipline.
Quite apart from the substance of the argument about women's ordination, your claim is demonstrably false:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.  

Jon
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 02:34:02 PM
Just wondering how those who say they are "evangelical catholics" are so willing to embrace the ordination of women: a thoroughly non/un catholic position?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 14, 2010, 02:38:49 PM
Scott:  If you addressed the issue I raised about unity and order in the home and Church being dependent upon persons having assigned positions in an immutable structure, I missed it.

The LCMS interpretation of Ephesians 5 is based on presuppositions about authority and submission that result in fuzzy conclusions about the marriage relationship and that of men and women in the Church.  On the one hand it is acknowledged that submission is mutual in marriage and among Christians, on the other hand the LCMS concludes there is a distinct submission that is required of the wife (see the Marriage Service in the LBW) and of women in the Church. It is a submission that complements the authority associated distinctly with men and/or their assigned position in the order of creation. Spiritual Authority as Christ entrusts it to His Bride is defined in much the same way as authority in understood in the society.  It becomes a matter of who is in authority and who is under authority.

Let’s begin with Christ, the Head of the Church, His One Holy Body.  When Christ became Incarnate He did not lose the authority that belonged to His nature as God and Lord.  Luther claimed Christ was being true to His nature as the One true God when he entered creation as a helpless infant.  IOW, Christ did not deny His nature as God when He became Man (see Scaer’s Christology in the CPH  Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series).  He did, however, empty himself of any claim to exercise that authority so that he might defeat the authority of sin, death and Satan over fallen Mankind. Had he done so, you and I would still be subject to the authority of sin, death and Satan.

Thus, it was in emptying himself of any natural claim to the authority that was his as True God that He became the conquering Lord over our sin.  He, as the resurrected Lord, was now the Head, the final Adam, from whom a new Body, a final Eve could be created who would share it all that belonged to the final Adam. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Head, who unites Himself to the Church so that all who are His Body can grow into the fullness that is His. He is Lord as only He can be, not by divine right, but by having emptied himself of all that rightly belonged to His divine nature.

I submit that defending a male pastorate on Ephesians five ignores the reality of what our Lord’s Incarnation is all about - His entire Life, what He taught about authority, the nature of His servant hood, His submission to our need for Him to surrender His rightful claim to all authority and the manner in which He exercises authority in and through His Bride the Church.

Might it be more difficult to surrender the claim that headship has to do with the function or role of exercising authority than to be head as Christ is Head of the Church?         
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Richard Johnson on December 14, 2010, 02:46:24 PM
It is quite an irony that the ELCA which, on paper, has much to say about women in full time ministry positions, has so few in... full time ministry positions.

And your source for that comment is . . . .?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 14, 2010, 02:56:40 PM
ptmccain writes:
To the ordination of women we (in the LCMS) "just say no."

I comment:
And then he adds that those who don't like it should just leave. Now that is intellectually lazy and rhetorically inept. The question is: how does one justify the position? Proof-texting doesn't do it, at least not for those seeking a deeper level of support for the position. And if - as has been suggested - the reason is some "order of creation argument," how is that unpacked?

ptmccain writes:
t is quite an irony that the ELCA which, on paper, has much to say about women in full time ministry positions, has so few in... full time ministry positions.
I comment:
Utter nonesense! We have several women bishops, women who are pastors and senior pastors of large congregations, women who are assistants to bishops, women heading departments of our national church, women as presidents of our church colleges and heading our social service agencies. Many are ordained, many are on the roster in other capacities, many are lay people serving the church.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 14, 2010, 03:03:37 PM
Let’s begin with Christ, the Head of the Church, His One Holy Body.  When Christ became Incarnate He did not lose the authority that belonged to His nature as God and Lord.  Luther claimed Christ was being true to His nature as the One true God when he entered creation as a helpless infant.  IOW, Christ did not deny His nature as God when He became Man (see Scaer’s Christology in the CPH  Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series).  He did, however, empty himself of any claim to exercise that authority so that he might defeat the authority of sin, death and Satan over fallen Mankind. Had he done so, you and I would still be subject to the authority of sin, death and Satan.

Thus, it was in emptying himself of any natural claim to the authority that was his as True God that He became the conquering Lord over our sin.  He, as the resurrected Lord, was now the Head, the final Adam, from whom a new Body, a final Eve could be created who would share it all that belonged to the final Adam. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Head, who unites Himself to the Church so that all who are His Body can grow into the fullness that is His. He is Lord as only He can be, not by divine right, but by having emptied himself of all that rightly belonged to His divine nature.
Marie, what Jesus exemplified was that self-emtpying is authority in action. To be in authority is to serve, not to be served. To submit is to be served. The shepherd does not put aside his authority when he lays down his life for the sheep, he exercises it. This is what worldly powers never get. Jesus did not set aside His authority, he exercised it all the time, over demons, over the wind and waves, even His preaching and teaching was done with authority. But He did so always and only for the benefit of those He served, never merely to serve his own desires.

As I read your statement, you seem to use authority to mean what I would use the word "power" to mean. His state of humiliation meant putting aside power, not putting aside authority. But confusion about power and authority goes right back to the postmodernism issue that always bogs down these discussion. Jesus standing before Pilate rejected power, not authoirty.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on December 14, 2010, 03:10:57 PM
Peter, that is a helpful delineation between two words that are often used interchangeably.  Thanks.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 14, 2010, 03:16:12 PM
Sandra writes....

The presuppositions are your own in that you are choosing where to start the discussion. Personally, I don't particularly care how the LCMS frames the argument or where they begin it. If it's not begun in Scripture and the confessions, the LCMS has no business saying anything definitive about women's ordination at all. I'd like to start our discussion with the source materials, not with what "the LCMS" says or the presuppositions or priorities "they" have determined. Does that make sense? Let's figure out what Scripture says, and then we will be equipped to analyze the LCMS position in that light.

Are you suggesting that I do not begin wirh Scripture?

Marie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 03:18:39 PM
ptmccain writes:
To the ordination of women we (in the LCMS) "just say no."

I comment:
And then he adds that those who don't like it should just leave. Now that is intellectually lazy and rhetorically inept.

Not that the good Reverend who I have nicknamed "Gunslinger" needs my back-up, but I'll offer it any way.  To "The Charles", his comments are directed at one particular person who will not respond when questioned by those who oppose the particular view espoused at the inception of this thread, and I'm afraid you have misrepresented them.  My questions go unanswered, as well.  You're making a claim that isn't there, my fuzzy friend.  I've given up on trying to even continue debate on this subject because I simply can't understand what we are debating if it isn't women's ordination.  I hold the same view (big shock) as Gunslinger and ask also why people don't just place themselves within a church body that does uphold the teachings they desire to hear for themselves?  Take the leap if it's so much better over there.  My own leap was in the opposite direction, and I am so thankful for making it.  Others might do well to do the same if it is so bad in the LCMS or whichever denomination you choose to insert here.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: memiller on December 14, 2010, 03:26:52 PM
It is one thing when an aberration develops and the Church must be reformed or returned to its truth (the Reformation of Luther was such a return and the ample attestation of the fathers in the BoC are to show that the Lutheran position is no novelty) but it is quite another when the position from the very beginning (no ordination of women) suddenly becomes wrong in the later half of the 20th century... Where is the reform here?  It is not reform but innovation -- precisely the thing the Confessions claim Lutherans do NOT do...

Yes, these are two different things. No argument there (from me). What I was objecting to was your original argument that you could not believe that God would 'put up with' error in the Church for so long - a weak argument, in light of the fact that one adhering to the BoC must agree that in fact, He did - regardless of whether those errors were innovations themselves, or not.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 03:32:25 PM
Mike,,,, women in Islam can be Imans / Prayer leaders.  Mostly in Western countries.

Thanks for the outstanding example of petitio principii.  The reason that "mostly" (or should we say almost [and I only say "almost" because there's always an exception] entirely?) female imams exist in Western countries is that there isn't a madhab out there that acknowledges that women can lead mixed (meaning, both male and female) prayers.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
Again, we get to the slippery slope argument which I would possibly make if I were not married to a female pastor.  Any time you point to history or experience alongside the Bible, the Bible should take precedence.

And, as you know, personal inhibitions do not a valid reason make.  I recently encountered this when I talked to a pastor who wanted to defer to my comfort / discomfort as a reason to make a theological judgment regarding practice.  I said that managing my comfort level is a bad reason to not do something that is not only acceptable but theologically mandated.  If he wants to agree or disagree with my recommendation of a practice with theological implications, he needs to do so based upon something more than my comfort.

Correct, "leadership" is a vague term.  There are just far too many women who have impacted the world posiitively for Christ IMHO to limit their role in leadership.  

Is impacting the world positively for Christ the biblical qualification for "leadership" (note that you used the term "leadership" again after saying that it's vague without clarifying what you mean by it)?  I hope that the witness of my children does so to their peers, just as I hope that the witness of any Christian does so.  I'm not sure what the Christian life is if it isn't "impact[ing] the world positively for Christ."  I suppose that if that were the qualification for "leadership" (or, more precisely, the prebyterate), then there wouldn't be an office of ministry at all.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 14, 2010, 03:44:29 PM
Sandra writes....

The presuppositions are your own in that you are choosing where to start the discussion. Personally, I don't particularly care how the LCMS frames the argument or where they begin it. If it's not begun in Scripture and the confessions, the LCMS has no business saying anything definitive about women's ordination at all. I'd like to start our discussion with the source materials, not with what "the LCMS" says or the presuppositions or priorities "they" have determined. Does that make sense? Let's figure out what Scripture says, and then we will be equipped to analyze the LCMS position in that light.

Are you suggesting that I do not begin wirh Scripture?

You have said yourself that we are starting this discussion with one (presumably of multiple) presupposition of the LCMS's position on women's ordination. Repeatedly, what the LCMS teaches or has concluded has been brought up, as though it is somehow authoritative on the issue on its own merits. I'd just really like to back the whole truck up and not look at what the LCMS teaches or even the ELCA teaches for that matter, and look at what Scripture and the confessions teach us, and THEN see whether and how the LCMS or ELCA (or whatever denomination) teachings line up with that. Maybe that's just too idealistic a method for this sort of forum.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 03:55:47 PM
Scott:  If you addressed the issue I raised about unity and order in the home and Church being dependent upon persons having assigned positions in an immutable structure, I missed it.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, as what you asked previously was:

"I will addess your comment about the head/body image being the same as the organic unity between thigh and chin if you address the essence of what I said about the claim that unity and order in the church has to do with men and women being obedient to a structure God is said to have ordained at creation.  Where in the Confessions, the liturgy or our hynnody is the unity of the one Body associated with an immutable structure that is external to the men and woman who are the One Body of Christ?"

That question I answered immediately.  It can be found here. (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3537.msg194313#msg194313)

Let me try again.

Unity and order in the church are not the result of any human activity but are dependent upon the activity of the Spirit in uniting us in Christ as children of the heavenly Father.

Women and men being so united will respect what God Himself teaches through His inspired apostles such as Paul.  Paul has much to say not only about unity in Christ in one body but also about an ordering that has to do with "submission," "head," and "love."

The LCMS interpretation of Ephesians 5 is based on presuppositions about authority and submission that result in fuzzy conclusions about the marriage relationship and that of men and women in the Church.  On the one hand it is acknowledged that submission is mutual in marriage and among Christians, on the other hand the LCMS concludes there is a distinct submission that is required of the wife (see the Marriage Service in the LBW) and of women in the Church. It is a submission that complements the authority associated distinctly with men and/or their assigned position in the order of creation. Spiritual Authority as Christ entrusts it to His Bride is defined in much the same way as authority in understood in the society.  It becomes a matter of who is in authority and who is under authority.

Let’s begin with Christ, the Head of the Church, His One Holy Body.  When Christ became Incarnate He did not lose the authority that belonged to His nature as God and Lord.  Luther claimed Christ was being true to His nature as the One true God when he entered creation as a helpless infant.  IOW, Christ did not deny His nature as God when He became Man (see Scaer’s Christology in the CPH  Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series).  He did, however, empty himself of any claim to exercise that authority so that he might defeat the authority of sin, death and Satan over fallen Mankind. Had he done so, you and I would still be subject to the authority of sin, death and Satan.

Thus, it was in emptying himself of any natural claim to the authority that was his as True God that He became the conquering Lord over our sin.  He, as the resurrected Lord, was now the Head, the final Adam, from whom a new Body, a final Eve could be created who would share it all that belonged to the final Adam. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Head, who unites Himself to the Church so that all who are His Body can grow into the fullness that is His. He is Lord as only He can be, not by divine right, but by having emptied himself of all that rightly belonged to His divine nature.

I submit that defending a male pastorate on Ephesians five ignores the reality of what our Lord’s Incarnation is all about - His entire Life, what He taught about authority, the nature of His servant hood, His submission to our need for Him to surrender His rightful claim to all authority and the manner in which He exercises authority in and through His Bride the Church.

Might it be more difficult to surrender the claim that headship has to do with the function or role of exercising authority than to be head as Christ is Head of the Church?        

First of all, you are relating your (and I emphasize, your) understanding of what the LCMS teaches.  I asked how you would interpret Ephesians 5.

Will you or won't you answer my question?  Please give an interpretation of Ephesians 5 such that you answer my question: "Could you please give an interpretation of Eph. 5, then, that gives an account of the language Paul uses in places like this, where "submission" and "head" are used as complementary ideas?"

You speak in such generalities divorced from any treatment of an actual text that it's hard to take what you claim seriously as being in any way connected to biblical interpretation.  Please deal with the terms Paul actually uses in a discrete text like Eph. 5.

I.e., How do you account for Pauline language of "submission," "head," and "love" in Ephesians 5?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 03:58:22 PM
Sandra writes....

The presuppositions are your own in that you are choosing where to start the discussion. Personally, I don't particularly care how the LCMS frames the argument or where they begin it. If it's not begun in Scripture and the confessions, the LCMS has no business saying anything definitive about women's ordination at all. I'd like to start our discussion with the source materials, not with what "the LCMS" says or the presuppositions or priorities "they" have determined. Does that make sense? Let's figure out what Scripture says, and then we will be equipped to analyze the LCMS position in that light.

Are you suggesting that I do not begin wirh Scripture?

Marie

In point of fact, I have no idea how you an claim to begin with Scripture as you can't account for what Paul actually writes in places like Eph. 5.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 14, 2010, 04:43:05 PM
I'd just really like to back the whole truck up and not look at what the LCMS teaches or even the ELCA teaches for that matter, and look at what Scripture and the confessions teach us, and THEN see whether and how the LCMS or ELCA (or whatever denomination) teachings line up with that. Maybe that's just too idealistic a method for this sort of forum.

Sandra:

There isn't a person on this Forum or elsewhere that does not approach what Scripture teaches without presuppositions.  Another way to say it is that we read the text through a given lens.
Still another is the reality that natural reason, the Devil's whore, influences each of us when we engage in the study of Scripture. We are and will always be persons who search the Scriptures to prove that God works among us in the manner we would if we were God.

Yes, it is idealistic to think otherwise.

Marie
 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 14, 2010, 04:45:55 PM

Marie, what Jesus exemplified was that self-emtpying is authority in action. To be in authority is to serve, not to be served. To submit is to be served. The shepherd does not put aside his authority when he lays down his life for the sheep, he exercises it. This is what worldly powers never get. Jesus did not set aside His authority, he exercised it all the time, over demons, over the wind and waves, even His preaching and teaching was done with authority. But He did so always and only for the benefit of those He served, never merely to serve his own desires.

As I read your statement, you seem to use authority to mean what I would use the word "power" to mean. His state of humiliation meant putting aside power, not putting aside authority. But confusion about power and authority goes right back to the postmodernism issue that always bogs down these discussion. Jesus standing before Pilate rejected power, not authoirty.  

Peter: Your post helps me to sharpen my thinking regarding the distinction between authority and power. Give me some time to ponder what you have written.

Marie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 14, 2010, 04:53:33 PM
How incredibly postmodern of you.

A good deal of post-modernism has arisen because it is true. It's how the real world works.

Quote
At least you put a prettier face on it than Pr. Stoffregen.

I continue to try to improve my looks by hiding much of my face behind a beard.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 14, 2010, 04:57:59 PM
Scott writes... "Let me try again.

Unity and order in the church are not the result of any human activity but are dependent upon the activity of the Spirit in uniting us in Christ as children of the heavenly Father.

Women and men being so united will respect what God Himself teaches through His inspired apostles such as Paul.  Paul has much to say not only about unity in Christ in one body but also about an ordering that has to do with "submission," "head," and "love."

Scott, I am not trying to be obtuse, but the above suggests something very different than how the LCMS, beginning with Zerbst, defines the order of creation. How do you understand the Holy Spirit unites us in Christ?  The LCMS claims it has something to do with you and I recognizing that we have been ordered into different positions in the order of creation.

I understand you to suggest that I may be misrepresenting what the LCMS teaches and that what I claim the synod teaches is really my understanding. If you have the CTCR report "Women in the Church," please review it to determine if I am misrepresenting what it says.  It may be diffcult to get copies of the resources the CTCR used.  They would further if I am misrepresenting the synod.


I'm off to an LWML gathering, but will get back to you tomorrow.

Marie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 14, 2010, 05:06:01 PM
How incredibly postmodern of you.

At least you put a prettier face on it than Pr. Stoffregen.

Mike
  

Mike: It may be that I am at the end of a long day, but passing off what I write as "incredibly postmodern" is beginning to get to me.  Give it up.
Marie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: FrPeters on December 14, 2010, 05:20:30 PM
I do not think that the argument is weak that only a weak God would put up with something so wrong for so long from the beginning, such as the lack of women's ordination, in fact it is a strong argument.  Those in favor of WO must believe God began His Church wrong on this issue, that He tolerated such error for nearly 2 millenia, and that only now has His Church finally got it right.  Think of the broad implications of this basic presupposition that women's ordination has either moved from being wrong to right or was always wrong but God could do nothing about it... If we accept this premise, then a whole lot of other issues might suffer from such a weak foundation...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: FrPeters on December 14, 2010, 05:22:07 PM
Surely you can see a parallel here with gay and lesbian acceptance and ordination... I am not sure that they are connected to women's ordination but the parallel in premise and presupposition is unmistakable...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 14, 2010, 05:23:31 PM
Seems to me that applying the "argument from time" as a justification for how or why God does anything is just weird considering God is the one for whom time does not exist. He who was from the beginning, is now, and will be forever has no need of or use for our minutes, hours, days and years.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: George Erdner on December 14, 2010, 06:09:55 PM
Surely you can see a parallel here with gay and lesbian acceptance and ordination... I am not sure that they are connected to women's ordination but the parallel in premise and presupposition is unmistakable...

Sorry Pastor Peters, but I don't see that. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual activity. The Bible does not condemn being a woman. A person chooses to surrender to the urge to engage in sexual relations with an inappropriate partner. A person cannot choose to have two XX chromosomes. I'm not arguing for or against ordaining women, but that issue is one of regarding whether or not a person is unsuitable for ordination because of circumstances of birth over which she has no control. That is not the same as regarding whether or not a person is unsuitable for ordination because he or she lacks the gift of being able to resist their inner urges. Those two issues are not an obvious parallel. Any linking of the two issues is an artificial construction, not an obvious or self-evident truth.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 14, 2010, 06:22:40 PM
There isn't a person on this Forum or elsewhere that does not approach what Scripture teaches without presuppositions.  Another way to say it is that we read the text through a given lens.
Still another is the reality that natural reason, the Devil's whore, influences each of us when we engage in the study of Scripture. We are and will always be persons who search the Scriptures to prove that God works among us in the manner we would if we were God.

Yes, it is idealistic to think otherwise.

I realize it is idealistic (and rather INTP of me), but I would think that it might be worthwhile to at least attempt to distance ourselves from a few layers of the presuppositions at least. Otherwise, any discussion simply becomes a battle of the presuppositions rather than addressing the actual issue. Certainly we can peel off the layer of "what the LCMS teaches about women's ordination" and examine the issue apart from what the LCMS has concluded thus far. rather than shape the entire discussion around that particular presupposition.

And where we do run up against presuppositions, we should be willing to acknowledge and examine them as well, to see if they actually hold water.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 14, 2010, 06:23:32 PM
What is striking, George, is the similarity in how the Scriptures are handled by those who argue for either in contrast to those who argue against both.  It is one of the saddest things for us in the LCMS who firmly believe that that same biblical approach will end up in time yielding the same inevitable fruit among the newer Lutheran Churches that are forming.  We can but raise a fraternal warning, but I fully realize that our voice is not usually credited as being either reasonable or charitable.  In this case, I'd hope it's both and that in due time the matter can be revisited among you all.  
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 06:30:36 PM
Those two issues are not an obvious parallel. Any linking of the two issues is an artificial construction, not an obvious or self-evident truth.

I've watched several ELCA Churchwide Assemblies where the advocates for homosexually "active" pastors and unions gave speech, after speech, after speech, in which they passionately argued that there is an obvious parallel, a clear construction, and an obvious and evident truth.

Those who advocate for the ordination of women, but want to stop there are standing on shaky ground, in fact, no ground at all.

The very same principles of Biblical interpretation and doctrine of Scripture that led to the ordination of women in Lutheran circles in this country led within a matter of only decades to calls for the acceptance of the ordination of actively homosexual persons.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 14, 2010, 06:47:56 PM
I do not think that the argument is weak that only a weak God would put up with something so wrong for so long from the beginning, such as the lack of women's ordination, in fact it is a strong argument.  Those in favor of WO must believe God began His Church wrong on this issue, that He tolerated such error for nearly 2 millenia, and that only now has His Church finally got it right.  Think of the broad implications of this basic presupposition that women's ordination has either moved from being wrong to right or was always wrong but God could do nothing about it... If we accept this premise, then a whole lot of other issues might suffer from such a weak foundation...

It is clear that God had women in leadership positions throughout history: Deborah was a judge, Jael kills the enemy general, Ruth, Esther, and Judith have biblical books named after them. They are presented as ideals of faithful people. Priscilla with her husband, Aquila, teaches Apollos, and a church met at their house. Phoebe was a deacon in the church. Junia may have had the title "apostle".

If the Christian church began with equality between males and females as Paul suggests in Galatians 3:28; then they could have succumbed to the pressure of first century culture and became a male dominated church, contrary to what God had intended from the beginning.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 14, 2010, 06:58:17 PM
Forget leadership; show a woman presbyter or episcopus.  As Pr. McCain has mentioned, we have women serving in all kinds of leadership positions in our Synod and in our Churches.  I have a parishioner who is a deaconess and serves in the women's prisons in Southern Illinois.  What we do not have is women serving in the presbyterate/episcopate, and neither does the NT.  Funny, that. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 07:54:33 PM
Scott writes... "Let me try again.

Unity and order in the church are not the result of any human activity but are dependent upon the activity of the Spirit in uniting us in Christ as children of the heavenly Father.

Women and men being so united will respect what God Himself teaches through His inspired apostles such as Paul.  Paul has much to say not only about unity in Christ in one body but also about an ordering that has to do with "submission," "head," and "love."

Scott, I am not trying to be obtuse, but the above suggests something very different than how the LCMS, beginning with Zerbst, defines the order of creation. How do you understand the Holy Spirit unites us in Christ?  The LCMS claims it has something to do with you and I recognizing that we have been ordered into different positions in the order of creation.

I understand you to suggest that I may be misrepresenting what the LCMS teaches and that what I claim the synod teaches is really my understanding. If you have the CTCR report "Women in the Church," please review it to determine if I am misrepresenting what it says.  It may be diffcult to get copies of the resources the CTCR used.  They would further if I am misrepresenting the synod.


I'm off to an LWML gathering, but will get back to you tomorrow.

Marie

I understand that we are united into the body of Christ.  As members of the same body, we all are equal before God and are redeemed by Him.

When it comes to ordering human-human relations, other imagery than the body per se is introduced.  There, as in Eph. 5, we see the Spirit speaking through Paul saying that in the home, the wife is to simply submit to her husband while the husband's submission is characterized by self-sacrificial love.  In the church, we see a similar ordering with women being able to serve in many ways in the church, just not in the office of authoritative teaching (1 Tim 2).

As to what you say the LCMS says, we've been down this road before.  I can't make heads or tails of how your characterization of The Creator's Tapestry matches with what's actually written in the document, and neither can I understand your other characterizations of "the LCMS'" position.  I.e., I don't buy it.

Now, I've responded to you three times on this issue without you reciprocating as your promised.

To repeat for the fourth time since you promised to answer, will you please answer the question so that we can figure out what the Spirit is teaching in Scripture (not in various accurate or inaccurate characterizations of "the LCMS'" position):

"Could you please give an interpretation of Eph. 5, then, that gives an account of the language Paul uses in places like this, where "submission" and "head" are used as complementary ideas?"

To be sure that this question isn't misunderstood with respect to body language, I clarified it when I wrote: "That's how the body imagery is deployed in many places in Paul.  Yet Paul also deploys headship language to make a different point (emphasis just so that this doesn't get missed -- Paul doesn't just toot away on one-note here).  I.e., two different things are being discussed -- "organic unity" (to use your term) and male-female relations that revolve around terms like "head," "submission" and "love.""
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ddrebes on December 14, 2010, 07:58:01 PM
Those two issues are not an obvious parallel. Any linking of the two issues is an artificial construction, not an obvious or self-evident truth.
I've watched several ELCA Churchwide Assemblies where the advocates for homosexually "active" pastors and unions gave speech, after speech, after speech, in which they passionately argued that there is an obvious parallel, a clear construction, and an obvious and evident truth.
Those who advocate for the ordination of women, but want to stop there are standing on shaky ground, in fact, no ground at all.
The very same principles of Biblical interpretation and doctrine of Scripture that led to the ordination of women in Lutheran circles in this country led within a matter of only decades to calls for the acceptance of the ordination of actively homosexual persons.

If that is your position, then it is those principles of Biblical interpretation and that doctrine of Scripture which should be challenged--not women's ordination.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
Scott, if you have not figured this out yet, this is a monologue, not a dialogue.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 14, 2010, 07:59:16 PM
If that is your position, then it is those principles of Biblical interpretation and that doctrine of Scripture which should be challenged--not women's ordination.

Huh?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 08:24:32 PM
Scott, if you have not figured this out yet, this is a monologue, not a dialogue.

Hope springs ever new that there'll be fairness in responding.  ;)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ddrebes on December 14, 2010, 08:37:19 PM
If that is your position, then it is those principles of Biblical interpretation and that doctrine of Scripture which should be challenged--not women's ordination.
Huh?

My point is that methods of Biblical interpretation and doctrines of Scripture are best challenged on their own merits, rather than on their outcomes.

I'd be happy to demonstrate my point by using some terrible methods of interpretation in order to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. The correct outcome doesn't validate the methods. Neither should a presupposed incorrect outcome necessarily invalidate the methods (though if the outcome looks weird it's a good idea to take a second look). But if the problem is the method, then it is the method that deserves the argument.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Tom Eckstein on December 14, 2010, 08:47:37 PM
If the Word of God does not provide good enough reason for anybody, male or female, then I wonder what the purpose is of even believing much else that's found within it.  I think we have plenty of proof where it has led in other denominations, pointing to what Rev. McCain said.  Have there been any denominations that haven't gone the route of ordaining homosexuals after doing so with women?

Yes.  Among them would include the Church of the Nazarene, the Assemblies of God, and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN).  In the case of the Church of the Nazarene, they ordained women from the onset of their denomination in 1909.  The ordination of gays and lesbians is not on the radar screen for them.

The Assemblies of God and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) have a similar ecclesiology.  They have three levels of pastors (Bishop, Elder, and Exhorter).  All three levels use the title "Pastor" in spoken parlance.  However, women are oradained only to the level of Exhorter.  Normally, they would hold positions such as "Women's pastor" or Pastor for children's ministries."  Again, in both cases, ordination of gays and lesbians is not on the radar screen.

Ray

In the appendix "The Affirmation of Women Pastors and Homosexual Behavior:  Are They Related?" (in my recently published book Bearing Their Burden) begins with a biblical examination of the MINISTRY, that is, the PASTORAL OFFICE.  The reason the AOG, Nazarene, etc. allow female "pastors" but are not even close to affirming homosexual behavior is that the AOG, Nazarene, etc. do not have a bibical understanding of the PASTORAL OFFICE.  For them, "everyone is a minister" and so pastors do full time what any layperson could do full time if they didn't have another job to keep them busy.  This is why WELS is actually closer to ordaining women in certain contexts than the LCMS will ever be!
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Tom Eckstein on December 14, 2010, 09:12:57 PM
Those two issues are not an obvious parallel. Any linking of the two issues is an artificial construction, not an obvious or self-evident truth.

I've watched several ELCA Churchwide Assemblies where the advocates for homosexually "active" pastors and unions gave speech, after speech, after speech, in which they passionately argued that there is an obvious parallel, a clear construction, and an obvious and evident truth.

Those who advocate for the ordination of women, but want to stop there are standing on shaky ground, in fact, no ground at all.

The very same principles of Biblical interpretation and doctrine of Scripture that led to the ordination of women in Lutheran circles in this country led within a matter of only decades to calls for the acceptance of the ordination of actively homosexual persons.



I couldn't agree more!  I have a 35 page appendix in my book Bearing Their Burden that supports this very argument.  If any of you have a chance to read it, I'd love to hear your response.
You can get my book here:  www.lulu.com/spotlight/pastoreck   
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Tom Eckstein on December 14, 2010, 09:15:06 PM
Scott writes... "Let me try again.

Unity and order in the church are not the result of any human activity but are dependent upon the activity of the Spirit in uniting us in Christ as children of the heavenly Father.

Women and men being so united will respect what God Himself teaches through His inspired apostles such as Paul.  Paul has much to say not only about unity in Christ in one body but also about an ordering that has to do with "submission," "head," and "love."

Scott, I am not trying to be obtuse, but the above suggests something very different than how the LCMS, beginning with Zerbst, defines the order of creation. How do you understand the Holy Spirit unites us in Christ?  The LCMS claims it has something to do with you and I recognizing that we have been ordered into different positions in the order of creation.

I understand you to suggest that I may be misrepresenting what the LCMS teaches and that what I claim the synod teaches is really my understanding. If you have the CTCR report "Women in the Church," please review it to determine if I am misrepresenting what it says.  It may be diffcult to get copies of the resources the CTCR used.  They would further if I am misrepresenting the synod.


I'm off to an LWML gathering, but will get back to you tomorrow.

Marie

I understand that we are united into the body of Christ.  As members of the same body, we all are equal before God and are redeemed by Him.

When it comes to ordering human-human relations, other imagery than the body per se is introduced.  There, as in Eph. 5, we see the Spirit speaking through Paul saying that in the home, the wife is to simply submit to her husband while the husband's submission is characterized by self-sacrificial love.  In the church, we see a similar ordering with women being able to serve in many ways in the church, just not in the office of authoritative teaching (1 Tim 2).

As to what you say the LCMS says, we've been down this road before.  I can't make heads or tails of how your characterization of The Creator's Tapestry matches with what's actually written in the document, and neither can I understand your other characterizations of "the LCMS'" position.  I.e., I don't buy it.

Now, I've responded to you three times on this issue without you reciprocating as your promised.

To repeat for the fourth time since you promised to answer, will you please answer the question so that we can figure out what the Spirit is teaching in Scripture (not in various accurate or inaccurate characterizations of "the LCMS'" position):

"Could you please give an interpretation of Eph. 5, then, that gives an account of the language Paul uses in places like this, where "submission" and "head" are used as complementary ideas?"

To be sure that this question isn't misunderstood with respect to body language, I clarified it when I wrote: "That's how the body imagery is deployed in many places in Paul.  Yet Paul also deploys headship language to make a different point (emphasis just so that this doesn't get missed -- Paul doesn't just toot away on one-note here).  I.e., two different things are being discussed -- "organic unity" (to use your term) and male-female relations that revolve around terms like "head," "submission" and "love.""


Do I correctly sense frustration?     ;D
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: George Erdner on December 14, 2010, 09:33:01 PM
What is striking, George, is the similarity in how the Scriptures are handled by those who argue for either in contrast to those who argue against both.  It is one of the saddest things for us in the LCMS who firmly believe that that same biblical approach will end up in time yielding the same inevitable fruit among the newer Lutheran Churches that are forming.  We can but raise a fraternal warning, but I fully realize that our voice is not usually credited as being either reasonable or charitable.  In this case, I'd hope it's both and that in due time the matter can be revisited among you all.  

If one drives in an automobile to go to church, or if one drives in an automobile to go to a tavern, the methods used to drive the car would be the same in either case. Yes, the methods by which Scripture is handled by those who seek to justify ordaining women is similar to the methods by which Scripture is handled by those who seek to justify recognizing pair-bonded relationships founded on homosexual lust as God-pleasing, or to recognize those who succumb to temptations for such relations as qualified candidates for ordination. It is also similar to the way Scripture is handled to justify almost any position where the Word contained in Scripture is at issue. The fact of such similarity is not evidence of equality between any two such uses. One could make a case that the LC-MS position on closed communion is yet another issues which is handled by a similar handling of Scripture. That doesn't make that issue equivalent to anything else. Why should such similarities automatically be applied to comparing any other issues.

Ordaining women is an issue of contention. Acknowledging pair-bonded relationships that are based on homosexual lusts is another issue of contention. Accepting non-chaste homosexuals as candidates for ordination is another issue of contention. Restricting God's table to only those who share a common confession in all details as opposed to restricting God's table to only those who share the basic common confession of the Creeds despite difference of understanding of some details is yet another. Each of those issues, as well as all the other issues that are cause for controversy among us, should be examined on its own merits, and not tied together with knots of confusion.

Also, the fact that some partisans in favor of any issue attempt to link it to other issues in order to gain support for it is no better nor more accurate than the fact that those who oppose one issue attempt to link it to other issues to defeat it. When partisans of one thing falsely claim linkage between issues where there is no real linkage,  that is no better nor worse than when partisans against an issue attempt to make the same linkage to suit their purpose.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 14, 2010, 09:34:35 PM
Fair enough, George.  Just remember our conversation in ten year's time.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: George Erdner on December 14, 2010, 09:38:38 PM
Fair enough, George.  Just remember our conversation in ten year's time.

Assuming I'm still alive in ten years, I shall remember this. Even though the ELCA has committed a grievous error regarding homosexuals, and the predecessor bodies might have made an error regarding ordaining women, I cannot ever see myself acknowledging a bona-fide post hoc, ergo propter hoc relationship between the two actions. The both things are errors, then they are two distinct and separate errors.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 09:45:13 PM
Scott writes... "Let me try again.

Unity and order in the church are not the result of any human activity but are dependent upon the activity of the Spirit in uniting us in Christ as children of the heavenly Father.

Women and men being so united will respect what God Himself teaches through His inspired apostles such as Paul.  Paul has much to say not only about unity in Christ in one body but also about an ordering that has to do with "submission," "head," and "love."

Scott, I am not trying to be obtuse, but the above suggests something very different than how the LCMS, beginning with Zerbst, defines the order of creation. How do you understand the Holy Spirit unites us in Christ?  The LCMS claims it has something to do with you and I recognizing that we have been ordered into different positions in the order of creation.

I understand you to suggest that I may be misrepresenting what the LCMS teaches and that what I claim the synod teaches is really my understanding. If you have the CTCR report "Women in the Church," please review it to determine if I am misrepresenting what it says.  It may be diffcult to get copies of the resources the CTCR used.  They would further if I am misrepresenting the synod.


I'm off to an LWML gathering, but will get back to you tomorrow.

Marie

I understand that we are united into the body of Christ.  As members of the same body, we all are equal before God and are redeemed by Him.

When it comes to ordering human-human relations, other imagery than the body per se is introduced.  There, as in Eph. 5, we see the Spirit speaking through Paul saying that in the home, the wife is to simply submit to her husband while the husband's submission is characterized by self-sacrificial love.  In the church, we see a similar ordering with women being able to serve in many ways in the church, just not in the office of authoritative teaching (1 Tim 2).

As to what you say the LCMS says, we've been down this road before.  I can't make heads or tails of how your characterization of The Creator's Tapestry matches with what's actually written in the document, and neither can I understand your other characterizations of "the LCMS'" position.  I.e., I don't buy it.

Now, I've responded to you three times on this issue without you reciprocating as your promised.

To repeat for the fourth time since you promised to answer, will you please answer the question so that we can figure out what the Spirit is teaching in Scripture (not in various accurate or inaccurate characterizations of "the LCMS'" position):

"Could you please give an interpretation of Eph. 5, then, that gives an account of the language Paul uses in places like this, where "submission" and "head" are used as complementary ideas?"

To be sure that this question isn't misunderstood with respect to body language, I clarified it when I wrote: "That's how the body imagery is deployed in many places in Paul.  Yet Paul also deploys headship language to make a different point (emphasis just so that this doesn't get missed -- Paul doesn't just toot away on one-note here).  I.e., two different things are being discussed -- "organic unity" (to use your term) and male-female relations that revolve around terms like "head," "submission" and "love.""


Do I correctly sense frustration?     ;D

Just a titch.  I've asked this question before (meaning, months ago), and no response has been forthcoming.  Though demands to respond to another point have been made with a promised reward of a response to my question.  I responded to the demanded point immediately, of course, and now for a total 3 response of mine in order to clarify what I am saying.  Yet nothing is reciprocated.

Sigh.  Still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled...  ;D


BTW -- I bought your book yesterday.  For folks who want 40% off before Christmas for any order from Lulu.com, use the code "HOLIDAYREADS" and you'll get the discount.  I look forward to it showing up soon...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 14, 2010, 10:15:41 PM
...
If that is your position, then it is those principles of Biblical interpretation and that doctrine of Scripture which should be challenged--not women's ordination.

I think you might have a point there. But it's a little messier than "they are wrong, this right."

Scott, if you have not figured this out yet, this is a monologue, not a dialogue.

Hope springs ever new that there'll be fairness in responding.  ;)

Scott,

Do have access to Voelz's levels of hermeneutic approach? That may a good place to start?

What I have seen is that there are two common approaches that break down when examined this way. The first is the typical liberal eisegesis, which is seen here by Brian, with a "well it might possibly be interpreted in this way 1 of 8+ possibilities, with a 5% probability, but the only reason I am bothering to decide, is I want decision "this", and so that's the answer. Or that's enough for you to let me use "this" and I don't care what it says, I just need for "this" to be ok a little bit maybe.... because it has to mean "this."
There is a second breakdown from conservative quarters, as well though. If on moving from 1st level to 2nd level, and the answer is less certain, and we are left without the ability to answer our "this" question definitively. The conservative will basicly do what the historical critical exegete does and say, but I want "this" answer and it is at least 75% likely that "this" is what it was meant to say. This is the challenge ACP brought, if I understand his arguments.

The Lutheran hermeneutic is filled with tension. In fact we teach tension as doctrine. Neither answer is allowable if we truly examine this tension matrix.

So if you have Voelz, I'd propose we look at the text with his levels, and recognize the key points where we hit - "It doesn't say that, we can't assume it." And then bring the appropriate matrix to the question as we are able and leave things at tension if they end up there. That will allow discussion of second level meanings and what the appropriate matrices are. I think we're taking a messy question and trying to drive right to "what does this mean" assuming much along the way in 2nd and 3rd levels and matrix?

Perhaps that will help us? Just a thought. If not I can walk it through in posts, clumsily.

TV

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 10:40:25 PM
Do have access to Voelz's levels of hermeneutic approach? That may a good place to start?

As much as I respect Voelz, the approaches being employed here at UVA (and elsewhere, such as Cambridge, Princeton and Duke along with a more general movement of post-liberalism modified by scriptural pragmatism), can both account for Voelz's stated hermeneutic and expand on it in different ways.

Which is to say, yes, I am familiar with Voelz's approach.  I consider it very modernist (he himself claims Saussurian, structuralist roots) and quite liable to "post-modernist" deconstruction.

So, no, I don't consider it a good place to start because it cannot account for a whole range of phenomena.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 14, 2010, 10:51:10 PM
....
Which is to say, yes, I am familiar with Voelz's approach.  I consider it very modernist (he himself claims Saussurian, structuralist roots) and quite liable to "post-modernist" deconstruction.

So, no, I don't consider it a good place to start because it cannot account for a whole range of phenomena.

So if we're aware of the liabilities, and I am assuming we would walk through the technical process very similarly, I would think you could identify one other phenomena that would need to be taken into account for the Ephesians text? (I assume this is matrix related?) Meet me half way, and let's try and identify where we might have issue? Point me at one concern you have in the exegesis, that you have seen along these lines.

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 14, 2010, 11:03:39 PM
....
Which is to say, yes, I am familiar with Voelz's approach.  I consider it very modernist (he himself claims Saussurian, structuralist roots) and quite liable to "post-modernist" deconstruction.

So, no, I don't consider it a good place to start because it cannot account for a whole range of phenomena.

So if we're aware of the liabilities, and I am assuming we would walk through the technical process very similarly, I would think you could identify one other phenomena that would need to be taken into account for the Ephesians text? (I assume this is matrix related?) Meet me half way, and let's try and identify where we might have issue? Point me at one concern you have in the exegesis, that you have seen along these lines.

TV

I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more specific.  You brought up Voelz's published works, but I have no idea how you're deploying them.

Please walk me through what you think is being said and we'll see where it goes.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 14, 2010, 11:43:20 PM
Just a titch.  I've asked this question before (meaning, months ago), and no response has been forthcoming.  Though demands to respond to another point have been made with a promised reward of a response to my question.  I responded to the demanded point immediately, of course, and now for a total 3 response of mine in order to clarify what I am saying.  Yet nothing is reciprocated.

I'm not even clear WHAT we're debating, and repeated attempts by many at having questions answered to clarify the issues at hand are ignored.  I've seen a respected pastor called both whimpy and lazy in recent days by someone arguing for a more prominent role for women within the LCMS (presumably?).  This sort of behavior is not at all conducive to putting forth any valid argument that women are entitled to something more than they're currently receiving.  (In fact it simply proves that God had a valid reason for not permitting women to serve as pastors if we cannot control our tongue.)  If we can't show respect toward others who disagree with our position, the argument is already lost. 

I appreciate the valiant effort several of you have put forth in trying to remain pastoral despite the attacks on our personal beliefs and the teachings of our church body (attacks that still in my mind are not justified or for that matter even explicitly defined).  One simply cannot have an open discussion on an issue when hit and run tactics are employed.  I have more respect for a person that I may completely disagree with but who has enough character and fortitude to be candid and transparent with what they're trying to accomplish.

Honestly, for all the hype about how poorly crafted the existing CTCR documents are about women in the church, I am no closer to believing that is the case.  The evidence is simply not being presented here.  We must always start and end with Scripture, and I am satisfied these documents do just that.

We have a God of order, and wherever there is doubt or confusion, we have His assurance that He shall shed His light on the Truth and bring us all out of the darkness.  I came out of that darkness myself through His Word; it is not of my own accord that I can believe as I do about women's roles within the church.  It goes against all I've ever known growing up in this post-modern world (and outside of the church).  His Word is valid as written.  Nothing about it is complicated.  When our own arguments become complicated or even clouded, I can't help but seriously question whether they are coming from God at all.

1 John 1:5-7 (ESV)
Walking in the Light
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.  If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 15, 2010, 12:03:26 AM
...
Please walk me through what you think is being said and we'll see where it goes.

Ok, as I can bring time and seriously relooking at it, not cut and paste.

At the first level I seek to see what the words are saying plainly. (dictionary and grammar Greek)

22. and the women (we see ahead "your own" so this is plainly wives and speaking to a married couple, and marriage. we'll leave second level extensions for that level.) to your own husbands as [you would] to the Lord.

We are compelled here to return to verse 21 where submit is found, and this cannot be decoupled from submitting each of us, in the order we find ourselves. This may be reaching a little into second level, but I'm not sure we get a good first level if we don't at least note this comes from vs 15 "Look carefully how you walk .. as wise .. making the best .." (I have to come back here for the imperative, all else is descriptive of that) The rest I'll save for second level.

So I will make some comment at the first level. for this first verse, that we are going to be looking at wise behavior for a married couple, and as we glance ahead this has meaning attached to the church.. but that's second level. We can however see that Paul wants us to distinguish this walking in the context of Christ as the loving servant head, of "His" body. I'm not going to dig into 'submit' at this point deeply. But it is subjecting oneself into the arrangement (as soldiers in a platoon, a part of a company, with ordered structure). I do not yet read into this a submission into an authoritative ranking of higher and lesser, but as a point guard to the players who wait his decisions and play calling. But that distinction is really to be looked at, at the second level. So.

Wives also, as we all walk wisely in the order we find ourselves, subject yourself into a special relationship to your husband, that is like the example of Christ, even to Him in this. -

[TBD Points open still - what is submitting each of us to one another, as we find ourselves? vs 21, vis a vis also 6:1-9]

That's first cut at first level vs 22 what the words say. Clearly your skills are better than mine and I wait your statement as to what the words "basically say" - first level.

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 15, 2010, 12:31:24 AM
I should probably add a prejudice and presupposition I am carrying concerning "hupotasso". I need to recognize that, as I go to the second level. I learn it as a Greek military term "to arrange yourself." For me that is my experience training with SEALs and their team approach and as an aircrew member. As Pilot I would be aircraft commander, and with the co-pilot, navigator, and crew chief, boom operator were part of One Crew. Each had training and skill, and attributes fitting to their assignment. We did everything ... As a Crew ... even when the individual had a particular task, to land the plane, or connect to the plane to be refueled, or set a course. SEAL teams similarly are units, one team. There is not a ordering in either of these in the sense of command and surrender to the person as superior by nature, but by arrangement of order.  You submit to your assignment, and obey the orders of the unit. Second level looks will determine whether this prejudice is helpful or a stumbling block for me.

TV

PS for you military types, hupotasso means "Fall In!" The company commander is even by his own command, commanding himself to stand in a small 1ft by 1 ft square, the flag bearer who may be a young lightly trained private, is up front beside him. The Officers then fall in to the specific distance and position behind the Commander. The squad leaders raise their arms to an exact distance established for their squads, the squad members are aranged (in parade by height) behind at set distances. In battle in the Greek Phalanx if the solider 5th back on the third row did not raise his shield at the exact angle besides his mates, the entire phalanx would die. If the commander got ahead or off line the phalanx would die.. etc. etc. "Fall in" has meaning for the unit.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: J.L. Precup on December 15, 2010, 03:31:26 AM
I should probably add a prejudice and presupposition I am carrying concerning "hupotasso". I need to recognize that, as I go to the second level. I learn it as a Greek military term "to arrange yourself." For me that is my experience training with SEALs and their team approach and as an aircrew member. As Pilot I would be aircraft commander, and with the co-pilot, navigator, and crew chief, boom operator were part of One Crew. Each had training and skill, and attributes fitting to their assignment. We did everything ... As a Crew ... even when the individual had a particular task, to land the plane, or connect to the plane to be refueled, or set a course. SEAL teams similarly are units, one team. There is not a ordering in either of these in the sense of command and surrender to the person as superior by nature, but by arrangement of order.  You submit to your assignment, and obey the orders of the unit. Second level looks will determine whether this prejudice is helpful or a stumbling block for me.

TV

PS for you military types, hupotasso means "Fall In!" The company commander is even by his own command, commanding himself to stand in a small 1ft by 1 ft square, the flag bearer who may be a young lightly trained private, is up front beside him. The Officers then fall in to the specific distance and position behind the Commander. The squad leaders raise their arms to an exact distance established for their squads, the squad members are aranged (in parade by height) behind at set distances. In battle in the Greek Phalanx if the solider 5th back on the third row did not raise his shield at the exact angle besides his mates, the entire phalanx would die. If the commander got ahead or off line the phalanx would die.. etc. etc. "Fall in" has meaning for the unit.

Fall in means something a little different in the Navy.  It means hoisting flag Oscar for "man overboard!"   ;D

This discussion is interesting.  I am wondering, however, before arguing about ordination of women, what about the ordination of men?  What's the Greek word for ordination and where do you find it in the New Testament?  Oh, right, it's not there.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 15, 2010, 04:40:16 AM
Deaconess Schave writes (re a reference to a kind of argument):
...by someone arguing for a more prominent role for women within the LCMS (presumably?).  

I comment:
If the reference was to this humble correspondent, let it be clear: I am not, repeat not, "arguing for a more prominent role for women within the LCMS". That is for those within the LCMS to argue. Personally, I believe that the LCMS will ordain women someday, but it is a decision people within the LCMS will have to make.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: olarmy02 on December 15, 2010, 06:49:40 AM
I should probably add a prejudice and presupposition I am carrying concerning "hupotasso". I need to recognize that, as I go to the second level. I learn it as a Greek military term "to arrange yourself." For me that is my experience training with SEALs and their team approach and as an aircrew member. As Pilot I would be aircraft commander, and with the co-pilot, navigator, and crew chief, boom operator were part of One Crew. Each had training and skill, and attributes fitting to their assignment. We did everything ... As a Crew ... even when the individual had a particular task, to land the plane, or connect to the plane to be refueled, or set a course. SEAL teams similarly are units, one team. There is not a ordering in either of these in the sense of command and surrender to the person as superior by nature, but by arrangement of order.  You submit to your assignment, and obey the orders of the unit. Second level looks will determine whether this prejudice is helpful or a stumbling block for me.

TV

PS for you military types, hupotasso means "Fall In!" The company commander is even by his own command, commanding himself to stand in a small 1ft by 1 ft square, the flag bearer who may be a young lightly trained private, is up front beside him. The Officers then fall in to the specific distance and position behind the Commander. The squad leaders raise their arms to an exact distance established for their squads, the squad members are aranged (in parade by height) behind at set distances. In battle in the Greek Phalanx if the solider 5th back on the third row did not raise his shield at the exact angle besides his mates, the entire phalanx would die. If the commander got ahead or off line the phalanx would die.. etc. etc. "Fall in" has meaning for the unit.

Fall in means something a little different in the Navy.  It means hoisting flag Oscar for "man overboard!"   ;D

This discussion is interesting.  I am wondering, however, before arguing about ordination of women, what about the ordination of men?  What's the Greek word for ordination and where do you find it in the New Testament?  Oh, right, it's not there.

Neither is Trinity.  Of course there is mention of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.  There is also mention of deacon, presbyter, and bishop.  Where is the example of a woman holding one of these offices in the NT?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: olarmy02 on December 15, 2010, 06:53:31 AM
I should probably add a prejudice and presupposition I am carrying concerning "hupotasso". I need to recognize that, as I go to the second level. I learn it as a Greek military term "to arrange yourself." For me that is my experience training with SEALs and their team approach and as an aircrew member. As Pilot I would be aircraft commander, and with the co-pilot, navigator, and crew chief, boom operator were part of One Crew. Each had training and skill, and attributes fitting to their assignment. We did everything ... As a Crew ... even when the individual had a particular task, to land the plane, or connect to the plane to be refueled, or set a course. SEAL teams similarly are units, one team. There is not a ordering in either of these in the sense of command and surrender to the person as superior by nature, but by arrangement of order.  You submit to your assignment, and obey the orders of the unit. Second level looks will determine whether this prejudice is helpful or a stumbling block for me.

TV

PS for you military types, hupotasso means "Fall In!" The company commander is even by his own command, commanding himself to stand in a small 1ft by 1 ft square, the flag bearer who may be a young lightly trained private, is up front beside him. The Officers then fall in to the specific distance and position behind the Commander. The squad leaders raise their arms to an exact distance established for their squads, the squad members are aranged (in parade by height) behind at set distances. In battle in the Greek Phalanx if the solider 5th back on the third row did not raise his shield at the exact angle besides his mates, the entire phalanx would die. If the commander got ahead or off line the phalanx would die.. etc. etc. "Fall in" has meaning for the unit.

That might be how the Greeks did it, but I have never been in a formation that wasn't given the command to "Fall In!" by the 1st Sgt or another NCO representing the 1st Sgt.  Once the formation had fallen in at attention, the Commander, if he chose to do so, took the formation over from the 1st Sgt.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: FrPeters on December 15, 2010, 06:57:10 AM
If Scripture supports the ordination of women, then why did the practice not exist within the Church (except heretical fringes) until the mid-20th century.

If Scripture is silent on the ordination of women, then does not the practice of the early Church become pivotal in understanding what the position of the Church is on the ordination of women.

If Scripture passages can be taken both to support or to decline the ordination of women, then does not the practice of the early Church become the word to shift the weight of where the answer on the issue lies.

If Scripture does not seem to preclude now (due to the lens through which we might read it today) the ordination of women, then is the seeming silence or lack of word on this in Scripture mean it is an open question or was it due to the fact that it was an understanding presupposed in the Church at the time and that the passages must be read in light of the practice of that time.

If Scripture does not seem to say decisively yea or nay on the ordination of women, then does not the decision to ordain women represent an understanding of growing or changing revelation that does not fit with how Lutherans understand Scripture.

If God had wanted the ordination of women, would there not be a clear indicator in Scripture or the practice of the early Church -- for He surely did not mince words when it came to such things as the opening to Gentiles, the eating of food offered to idols, and so many more things explicitly argued or laid out in His Word.

These are some of the things which undergird the idea that a change in the mid-20th century on this issue represents a radical shift in the way we see Scripture, the practice of the early Church, tradition, and God's revelation.... going back to my previous points.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 15, 2010, 07:30:48 AM
Deaconess Schave writes (re a reference to a kind of argument):
...by someone arguing for a more prominent role for women within the LCMS (presumably?).  

I comment:
If the reference was to this humble correspondent, let it be clear: I am not, repeat not, "arguing for a more prominent role for women within the LCMS". That is for those within the LCMS to argue. Personally, I believe that the LCMS will ordain women someday, but it is a decision people within the LCMS will have to make.

No, Charles, it is not in reference to you.  You have been behaving so very nicely lately, and I'm trying all I can to reciprocate, believe me.   :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 15, 2010, 07:34:48 AM
These are some of the things which undergird the idea that a change in the mid-20th century on this issue represents a radical shift in the way we see Scripture, the practice of the early Church, tradition, and God's revelation.... going back to my previous points.

I'm appreciating your reasoning . . . please keep it coming if you have more.  I am unclear as to why all of a sudden in recent times we've become so enlightened, but yet look at how our society is crumbling (and the church is following suit).  It's hard not to connect the dots . . .
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Team Hesse on December 15, 2010, 07:42:00 AM
These are some of the things which undergird the idea that a change in the mid-20th century on this issue represents a radical shift in the way we see Scripture, the practice of the early Church, tradition, and God's revelation.... going back to my previous points.

I'm appreciating your reasoning . . . please keep it coming if you have more.  I am unclear as to why all of a sudden in recent times we've become so enlightened, but yet look at how our society is crumbling (and the church is following suit).  It's hard not to connect the dots . . .

Care is in order-- Is one connecting dots?.....Or looking for scapegoats?  I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm just being cautious...

Lou
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 15, 2010, 08:11:45 AM
Just to clarify, while it is true that the NT does not know of any female presbyters or bishops, it is not true that they know of no deaconesses.  Romans 16:1 and the history of the early church show that women did indeed hold that order, which was, of course, a discrete order, distinct from that of presbyter/bishop.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 15, 2010, 08:16:38 AM
That's first cut at first level vs 22 what the words say. Clearly your skills are better than mine and I wait your statement as to what the words "basically say" - first level.

Rather than going through Voelz's levels (which I consider flawed because I don't see words as conveying a mystical "meaning" by means of a one-to-one correspondence between signifiers and signifieds), let me just repeat my (brief) interpretation of Eph. 5:

Absolutely.  I know I've posted a sermon on here sometime back when I preached on just this passage.  There, I made the point that there is a mutual submission involved, but that Paul also speaks to each constituency differently.  To women, he briefly speaks of a general submission as he clarifies the mutual submission called for in Eph. 5:21.  I'd imagine he's so brief because here he really isn't challenging many aspects of the status quo.  His address to men, however, is much longer and is more radical for most cultures I know.  The man is to submit to his wife by engaging in self-sacrificial love.  Not the maudlin type of sacrifice saying that: "Oh, I'll sacrifice my life for you by being willing to die for you, my sweetie!"  But rather a type of self-sacrifice that says: "I'll sacrifice my life for you by being willing to live for you, putting your desires and wants ahead of my own."  I preached this sermon in Kenya, and let's just say that it made a few eyes open wider.

To repeat in brief, Paul outlines a dual submission in v. 21.  He then briefly tells the wife to freely and generally submit generally to her husband for he is her head even as Christ is the head of the church (methinks that Christ is in a position of servant leadership to the Church, no?).  He then more expansively addresses the men telling them that their submission to their wives is to be characterized by self-sacrifice on their behalf -- servant leadership, if you will.

As to how I would preach it, please see the sermon here (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=861.msg27004#msg27004).
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 15, 2010, 08:23:32 AM
These are some of the things which undergird the idea that a change in the mid-20th century on this issue represents a radical shift in the way we see Scripture, the practice of the early Church, tradition, and God's revelation.... going back to my previous points.

I'm appreciating your reasoning . . . please keep it coming if you have more.  I am unclear as to why all of a sudden in recent times we've become so enlightened, but yet look at how our society is crumbling (and the church is following suit).  It's hard not to connect the dots . . .

Care is in order-- Is one connecting dots?.....Or looking for scapegoats?  I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm just being cautious...

Lou

As David mentioned earlier, I think the problem isn't women's ordination per se but rather an approach to Scripture that has been in the works for quite a while.  This doesn't mean that women's ordination shouldn't be addressed as an issue -- it is, and speaking of particulars such as the argument supporting it helps to clarify exactly what is a problematic way of reading the Bible.  But, like with the issue of the ordination of sexually active homosexuals, the problem isn't, in the first place, the ordination of women.  It is the hermeneutic used to validate the practice.

I know I've brought him up many times before, but if folks haven't read Hans Frei's The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, please do.  It traces how what he terms "mediating theology" developed, and we continuously see such a theology displayed on this forum (e.g., Steve S's view of looking at biblical stories and teachings for a value or a principle that can then be applied elsewhere is an example of "mediating theology").
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 15, 2010, 08:51:45 AM
I do not say this in order to say that new stuff is always or necessarily good stuff...  but I would object to the use of your term ENLIGHTENED in the sense that many new things have happened in our life time to and around the church simply because lots of new stuff is happening.  A cathedral (say Crystal ugh you might say) can be built in years not decades or more, the computerization of scripture makes finding stuff easier and word studies rapid and reachable for even those who do not work well in the original languages (like yours truly), music can be boxed and thumbdrived so wonderful perfomances can be heard over and and over again in personal ear canals, and can any add others?     an appreciation possibilty for the world and its needs, wars and variety that is now instantaeous and for all not just the rich and traveled...   not enlightened in a moral sense but certainly a rapidity that boggles the mind and heart...  now how we enlighten the new appearing so rapidly is another issue...  and while I often complain like as you say that society is crumbling... is evil more rampant or rabid?  Probably not.  Foundational stuff is less foundational and more fluid today and that is troubling to those attempting to build a solid future.   Musings not meant to rip apart what you say but to fray it out for pulling threads perhaps.  Harvey Mozolak

I'm appreciating your reasoning . . . please keep it coming if you have more.  I am unclear as to why all of a sudden in recent times we've become so enlightened, but yet look at how our society is crumbling (and the church is following suit).  It's hard not to connect the dots . . .
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Evangel on December 15, 2010, 09:23:11 AM

In the appendix "The Affirmation of Women Pastors and Homosexual Behavior:  Are They Related?" (in my recently published book Bearing Their Burden) begins with a biblical examination of the MINISTRY, that is, the PASTORAL OFFICE.  The reason the AOG, Nazarene, LCMC, etc. allow female "pastors" but are not even close to affirming homosexual behavior is that the AOG, Nazarene, etc. do not have a[n] ontological bibical understanding of the PASTORAL OFFICE.  For them, "everyone is a minister" and so pastors do full time what any layperson could do full time if they didn't have another job to keep them busy.  This is why WELS is actually closer to ordaining women in certain contexts than the LCMS will ever be!

There, I fixed it for you.   ;)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 15, 2010, 09:36:25 AM
This discussion is interesting.  I am wondering, however, before arguing about ordination of women, what about the ordination of men?  What's the Greek word for ordination and where do you find it in the New Testament?  Oh, right, it's not there.

διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν

Though the recognition worked in other ways, as well.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Team Hesse on December 15, 2010, 09:49:54 AM
These are some of the things which undergird the idea that a change in the mid-20th century on this issue represents a radical shift in the way we see Scripture, the practice of the early Church, tradition, and God's revelation.... going back to my previous points.

I'm appreciating your reasoning . . . please keep it coming if you have more.  I am unclear as to why all of a sudden in recent times we've become so enlightened, but yet look at how our society is crumbling (and the church is following suit).  It's hard not to connect the dots . . .

Care is in order-- Is one connecting dots?.....Or looking for scapegoats?  I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm just being cautious...

Lou

As David mentioned earlier, I think the problem isn't women's ordination per se but rather an approach to Scripture that has been in the works for quite a while.  This doesn't mean that women's ordination shouldn't be addressed as an issue -- it is, and speaking of particulars such as the argument supporting it helps to clarify exactly what is a problematic way of reading the Bible.  But, like with the issue of the ordination of sexually active homosexuals, the problem isn't, in the first place, the ordination of women.  It is the hermeneutic used to validate the practice.

I know I've brought him up many times before, but if folks haven't read Hans Frei's The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, please do.  It traces how what he terms "mediating theology" developed, and we continuously see such a theology displayed on this forum (e.g., Steve S's view of looking at biblical stories and teachings for a value or a principle that can then be applied elsewhere is an example of "mediating theology").

Thanks for the recommendation. Been looking into this some as a tangent off of my ILT work. Read a little of Peter Ochs. Am developing an appreciation of narrative and community engagement of the text. Halfway through my first year Greek course under the tutelage of an LCMS pastor. Enjoying it all immensely, if I just had more time. Two final term papers done, one to go. Load out hogs in the morning..... such is vocation.

Lou(back to my paper)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Tom Eckstein on December 15, 2010, 09:50:31 AM
Do have access to Voelz's levels of hermeneutic approach? That may a good place to start?

As much as I respect Voelz, the approaches being employed here at UVA (and elsewhere, such as Cambridge, Princeton and Duke along with a more general movement of post-liberalism modified by scriptural pragmatism), can both account for Voelz's stated hermeneutic and expand on it in different ways.

Which is to say, yes, I am familiar with Voelz's approach.  I consider it very modernist (he himself claims Saussurian, structuralist roots) and quite liable to "post-modernist" deconstruction.

So, no, I don't consider it a good place to start because it cannot account for a whole range of phenomena.

Scott, educate me (and others who may be intersted) - in what ways does Voelz's approach to hermeneutics not "account for a whole range of phenomena."  I have not kept up with reading on hermeneutics lately and I'd love to read your insights on this.

Tom
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 15, 2010, 11:37:17 AM
Now that Paul McCain, Scott, Kim and Sandra have had their say about my being dishonest, not answering questions and being a woman who, at the expense of disregarding Scripture, wants to falsely expand what the “role” of women in the Church I’ll carry on with meeting their expectations.

Paul: I would begin by asking you not to comment about me on other web sites. Use of the internet as a bully pulpit is not consistent with your call to the pastoral office.

As to my being honest: I do not think there is anything is the Scripture that commands the ordination of women. 

I am persuaded, however, that there has to be an LCMS discussion of whether God has ordained a distinctly male form of Christian servant hood and a distinctly female form of Christian servant hood. IOW, is servant hood in the Church mutual? 

I have in a very small wall relief that depicts a woman whose tears are washing the feet of Jesus. I also have a wood carving from Palestine where Jesus is washing the feet of Jesus.  John 14 begins the story of Jesus washing the feet of His disciples, “Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power.”  He then began to wash the feet of his disciples. Peter objected.  “You shall never wash my feet.” He had a problem with the idea that Jesus was a master and teacher who washed feet.  He also had a problem with his need to have his grimy dirty feel to be washed.  Peter did not get what the servant hood of Jesus was all about.  He did not get that servant hood includes surrendering the right to determine who gets to wash our feet.

Jesus did not have a problem with a woman washing his feet with her tears. In all honesty, I think how the LCMS defends a male pastorate prohibits you from thinking God may allow a woman to wash you feet. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master.”

During Advent Mary’s “fiat mihi” is the response of every Christian to Christ’s call to servant hood. Jesus let a woman wash his feet, but what is perhaps an even greater mystery is that God allowed a woman to be His servant in receiving the power of the Holy Spirit so that the Son of God must take on the form of the son of man. Mary, according to Piepkorn and other orthodox theologians is the “Archetype of the Church.”  IOW, you and I are to see ourselves as Mary. Together you and I are, like Mary, weak vessels that receive the power of the Word. By His grace we are, like Mary, servants of God who in pain and suffering birth and nurture children of God.   

Piepkorn writes, “In offering her own self and her own future to God at the Annunciation and her Son to Him at the time of the Presentation, she was performing acts that are of the every essence of Christian sacrifice, the yielding up of body and mind, of will and intellect and affections to Him from whom we have everything that is needful for this life and profitable for our salvation.  Herein the Blessed Virgin stands as symbol of the church.

Clearly the power is in the Word.  What about authority to exercise the power of the Word?  To whom has that been give????   

If and how this relates to Scott’s question of Ephesians 5 is an important question.  In the Church is there a form of male sacrificial love and a female form of sacrificial love?  Is foot washing in the church mutual or is it a symbol of servant hood unique to the pastoral office?



To be continued….
Marie Meyer

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 15, 2010, 11:47:35 AM
Care is in order-- Is one connecting dots?.....Or looking for scapegoats?  I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm just being cautious...

I need look no further than myself in connecting those dots.  I'm a product of the culture in which I was raised (it wasn't in the church).  I have no need for scapegoats.  Have you read the marriage threads on here lately . . . the deterioration of the family is indeed a tragic consequence of the "everything goes" mentality of today's world.

I do have a dog in this fight, and I'll throw caution to the wind to stand up for what I believe.  I will also respond to ridiculous accusations about how women are being mistreated within my church body simply because they are told they are not permitted to do something that Scripture makes very clear for the sake of good order.  I appreciate the opportunity to provide clarification on my point.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 15, 2010, 11:49:48 AM
Do have access to Voelz's levels of hermeneutic approach? That may a good place to start?

As much as I respect Voelz, the approaches being employed here at UVA (and elsewhere, such as Cambridge, Princeton and Duke along with a more general movement of post-liberalism modified by scriptural pragmatism), can both account for Voelz's stated hermeneutic and expand on it in different ways.

Which is to say, yes, I am familiar with Voelz's approach.  I consider it very modernist (he himself claims Saussurian, structuralist roots) and quite liable to "post-modernist" deconstruction.

So, no, I don't consider it a good place to start because it cannot account for a whole range of phenomena.

Scott, educate me (and others who may be intersted) - in what ways does Voelz's approach to hermeneutics not "account for a whole range of phenomena."  I have not kept up with reading on hermeneutics lately and I'd love to read your insights on this.

Tom

The growth of ideas, the possibility of multiple valid interpretations and communication between particular communities of discourse immediately come to mind.

Why that's the case is a longer discussion...  ;)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 15, 2010, 11:51:44 AM
Marie,

I look forward to your promised response re: Eph 5.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 15, 2010, 12:26:14 PM
Scott:  I begin this thread….

“LCMS theologians claim there are several Scriptural principles that affirm God’s design for a male pastorate.  Among them is the principle that the subordination of the woman/wife to the man/husband is for the sake of unity and order in the home and church God. When men or women disobey the headship/subordination structure, the unity of the home and church is disordered.”

My question was simply whether or not unity and order in the church is based on a structure the LCMS refers to as the order of creation and the headship structure/principle.  In LCMS literature the two are the same. The headship structure is the order of creation. Violating the order of creation is violating the headship structure.

I have carefully reread your posts. In them you express reservations about the order of creation and then ask me to interpret Ephesians 5. How Ephesians 5 is interpreted is based on whether or not one agrees with the LCMS conclusion that the order of creation and being head in relation to the body refer to a headship function defined in terms of authority.

By bringing in Ephesians 5 before addressing whether the idea of an immutable divinely mandated structure is God’s design for the order of human relationships, I think you are trying to “soften” the order of creation in much the same way “The Creator’s Tapestry” tries to make the order sound more loving.

Either God’s design for the marriage relationship and for relationships in the Church is an immutable structure or not. Either submission is mutual or it is not. The order of creation by its very nature can’t be a mutual relationship. The assigned positions are as you say, complementary. The position and submission function of the wife complements the position and headship function of the husband.

Thus, the question, “Did Christ in becoming flesh and taking our place under the power of the Law, under the power of sin, under the power of death and und the power of Satan violate the order of creation and the headship structure?” 

Marie

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 15, 2010, 12:30:20 PM
 I will also respond to ridiculous accusations about how women are being mistreated within my church body simply because they are told they are not permitted to do something that Scripture makes very clear for the sake of good order.  

Kim:

I am so weary of you making this claim.  Please provide the names of women or men who say that women are being mistreated in the LCMS.  You are errecting a straw man. 

Unless you are able to provide names, please cease making this charge.

Marie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 15, 2010, 12:50:21 PM
Apparently we will not be exegeting the text. But Scott does bring the liabilities to the table without considering the mitigation against those liabilities. I'm pretty sure we do not consider Voelz and I hope not myself, a "Higher Critic." I thought I saw, but I'm not sure any more, that I heard the question you were asking Marie. Looking for substantive distinctions to discuss.

Scott,

I recognize your concern for "the possibility of multiple valid interpretations and communication between particular communities of discourse immediately come to mind." but I think you underrate those who bring attention to those matters. I will listen with the following observation. "Multiple valid," is often a diversion from the clear presentation of "real tension," which is not only intended, but may well be the message itself. We can interpret the Lord's Supper elements, as bread alone, or body alone, and make argument that seems each equally valid, but that is only because it is the tension that is being taught that we would call "doctrine." It does not of necessity open the door to "two valid interpretations," and higher critical response.

Since we're dispensing with doing the exegesis, I will comment with focus on how I read Ephesians 5. And that starts with reading Ephesians 1-4, and 6. There is a mystery in the Unity in Christ among believers. We all are imitators of God as we walk in love, anchored in Christ's love giving himself up for us a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. In this we all are to "Look carefully" as we walk wisely in the world we live, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. We have an example and a very specific example in marriage. That arrangement is specifically between two of God's children, one woman, and one man. We see there a mystery of the relationship of Christ as the servant head to the church.

What it does not say. I am not a surrogate husband to your wife, nor you to mine. It does not provide such descriptions, except the general and overall counsel to arrange yourself as you find yourself in the world, child or parent, master or slave. This distinction of "arranging oneself,' is active joining in to one team, whether the one flesh of husband and wife, or one body as the Church. It is a mutual arrangement of the unit.

And so my wife does, and did !!!! She has been joined in one flesh arranging herself beside me. She cared for "our" home, with me. She was a stay at home mom, and stay at home grandma. She raised the children and grandchildren by her hand. Did? Has yours? She defers to her pastor and teachers as such arrangement sets up. But she has never been anything other than a full partner in all we do. We have for nearly 40 years functioned as one team, one body, without an ordering of ontology. She is my wife. I am her husband.

In matters of her engagement with the church, and the world, and to you as another man, the text does not speak "ontologically"  beyond that which it teaches for all people wherever they find themselves in the arrangement of living in the world, and in the Unity of Christ.

We can speak to forced readings of submission and head, but that will not find meaning in this text, concerning a prevailing ontological order, but only an order arrangement of circumstance to the common focus of the relationship unit.

What is your question Scott?

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: J.L. Precup on December 15, 2010, 12:51:25 PM
I should probably add a prejudice and presupposition I am carrying concerning "hupotasso". I need to recognize that, as I go to the second level. I learn it as a Greek military term "to arrange yourself." For me that is my experience training with SEALs and their team approach and as an aircrew member. As Pilot I would be aircraft commander, and with the co-pilot, navigator, and crew chief, boom operator were part of One Crew. Each had training and skill, and attributes fitting to their assignment. We did everything ... As a Crew ... even when the individual had a particular task, to land the plane, or connect to the plane to be refueled, or set a course. SEAL teams similarly are units, one team. There is not a ordering in either of these in the sense of command and surrender to the person as superior by nature, but by arrangement of order.  You submit to your assignment, and obey the orders of the unit. Second level looks will determine whether this prejudice is helpful or a stumbling block for me.

TV

PS for you military types, hupotasso means "Fall In!" The company commander is even by his own command, commanding himself to stand in a small 1ft by 1 ft square, the flag bearer who may be a young lightly trained private, is up front beside him. The Officers then fall in to the specific distance and position behind the Commander. The squad leaders raise their arms to an exact distance established for their squads, the squad members are aranged (in parade by height) behind at set distances. In battle in the Greek Phalanx if the solider 5th back on the third row did not raise his shield at the exact angle besides his mates, the entire phalanx would die. If the commander got ahead or off line the phalanx would die.. etc. etc. "Fall in" has meaning for the unit.

Fall in means something a little different in the Navy.  It means hoisting flag Oscar for "man overboard!"   ;D

This discussion is interesting.  I am wondering, however, before arguing about ordination of women, what about the ordination of men?  What's the Greek word for ordination and where do you find it in the New Testament?  Oh, right, it's not there.

Neither is Trinity.  Of course there is mention of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.  There is also mention of deacon, presbyter, and bishop.  Where is the example of a woman holding one of these offices in the NT?

Trinitarian formulations ended up in the creeds to which we subscribe.  Ordination did not.  
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 15, 2010, 01:01:01 PM
I will also respond to ridiculous accusations about how women are being mistreated within my church body simply because they are told they are not permitted to do something that Scripture makes very clear for the sake of good order.  

Kim:

I am so weary of you making this claim.  Please provide the names of women or men who say that women are being mistreated in the LCMS.  You are errecting a straw man. 

Unless you are able to provide names, please cease making this charge.

Marie

Today, I question whether the LCMS misuses Scripture to falsely bind consciences to the idea that unity and order in the Church requires that men and women acknowledge that their God and Father assigns them non-interchangeable headship/subordination positions and functions. 
Frankly, I am weary of whimpy men who can't deal with women theologians who are as orthodox as the men claim to be. 
Mike: It may be that I am at the end of a long day, but passing off what I write as "incredibly postmodern" is beginning to get to me.  Give it up.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: olarmy02 on December 15, 2010, 01:05:39 PM
I should probably add a prejudice and presupposition I am carrying concerning "hupotasso". I need to recognize that, as I go to the second level. I learn it as a Greek military term "to arrange yourself." For me that is my experience training with SEALs and their team approach and as an aircrew member. As Pilot I would be aircraft commander, and with the co-pilot, navigator, and crew chief, boom operator were part of One Crew. Each had training and skill, and attributes fitting to their assignment. We did everything ... As a Crew ... even when the individual had a particular task, to land the plane, or connect to the plane to be refueled, or set a course. SEAL teams similarly are units, one team. There is not a ordering in either of these in the sense of command and surrender to the person as superior by nature, but by arrangement of order.  You submit to your assignment, and obey the orders of the unit. Second level looks will determine whether this prejudice is helpful or a stumbling block for me.

TV

PS for you military types, hupotasso means "Fall In!" The company commander is even by his own command, commanding himself to stand in a small 1ft by 1 ft square, the flag bearer who may be a young lightly trained private, is up front beside him. The Officers then fall in to the specific distance and position behind the Commander. The squad leaders raise their arms to an exact distance established for their squads, the squad members are aranged (in parade by height) behind at set distances. In battle in the Greek Phalanx if the solider 5th back on the third row did not raise his shield at the exact angle besides his mates, the entire phalanx would die. If the commander got ahead or off line the phalanx would die.. etc. etc. "Fall in" has meaning for the unit.

Fall in means something a little different in the Navy.  It means hoisting flag Oscar for "man overboard!"   ;D

This discussion is interesting.  I am wondering, however, before arguing about ordination of women, what about the ordination of men?  What's the Greek word for ordination and where do you find it in the New Testament?  Oh, right, it's not there.

Neither is Trinity.  Of course there is mention of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.  There is also mention of deacon, presbyter, and bishop.  Where is the example of a woman holding one of these offices in the NT?

Trinitarian formulations ended up in the creeds to which we subscribe.  Ordination did not.  

My apologies, Sir.  I must have missed the part where you mentioned the Creeds.  ::)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 15, 2010, 01:20:00 PM
Ok.  So you won't give a reading of Eph. 5 though you said you would.  Fine

Either God’s design for the marriage relationship and for relationships in the Church is an immutable structure or not. Either submission is mutual or it is not. The order of creation by its very nature can’t be a mutual relationship. The assigned positions are as you say, complementary. The position and submission function of the wife complements the position and headship function of the husband.

Nope.  "Structure" is not the only conceptuality out there, and there's no a priori reason submission can't have different characters.  You've made these absolutist claims before, and they're not getting any more persuasive.

I think I'm done here.  For whatever reason, Marie, our discussions go absolutely nowhere, and I'm no longer interested in continuing them.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 15, 2010, 01:21:26 PM
What is your question Scott?

I'm not sure.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 15, 2010, 01:57:04 PM
Eph. 5 begins with the call to imitate God as dearly beloved children. We imitate God by walking in Love because God is Love. We only know God and know Love in Jesus Christ, so imitating God always means following Jesus, especially His self-sacrificial, self-emptying servanthood. This servanthood took two forms-- sacrifice and submission. Christians, therefore, in any given situation are called to the Christ-like servanthood of self-sacrifice (which entails having authority/accountability, serving, and coming last) or to the Christ-like servanthood of submission (which entails being under authority and being served and being put first). Nobody questions that all Christians in various circumstances are called to both forms of servanthood, sacrifice and submission. Even in marriage this isn't an issue or a stumbling-block until the point is made that within this relationship, the husband is called to sacrifice and the wife to submit, that, in fact, a marriage is not a partnership of two spouses but an organic union of two distinct things, a husband and a wife, and furthermore, that the role of wife is intrinsically female and the role of husband intrinsically male. In short, I think the only controversy is whether any of this applies to anyone because of their sex. It would be fine if sacrifice and submission were based on abilities or some mutual arrangement, but the minute any role is more or less "assigned" it becomes a stumbling-block.

But the fact that it is not roles per se, but roles assigned by gender that is the stumbling-block, show the link between this issue and the homosexuality issue and the idolatry issue in Romans 1. We're all fine with sacrifice and submission as Christians-- we just don't want our gender being a factor in which is called for in any circumstance. The resulting idea that submission in marriage is entirely mutual-- that spouse/spouse is the same thing as husband/wife-- eliminates the organic union of sacrifice and submission (which form one thing like a lock and key form one mechanism) and makes same-sex marriage possible, as though two husbands could be a married couple, or two wives. Idolatry comes in because this modern way of thinking depends upon self-determination, as though our roles and the nature of marriage were ours to create.   
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 15, 2010, 02:06:20 PM
Now that Paul McCain, Scott, Kim and Sandra have had their say about my being dishonest,

I have not accused you of being dishonest. If that is how my words were understood, that was not my intention and I apologize for being so unclear.

You have been very up front about some of the presuppositions you are operating under - namely, the LCMS's present and past teachings surrounding the issue of women's ordination. I merely disagree with this approach to the issue.

I don't think you are trying to be dishonest in this. Unfortunately, the narrow approach to discussing the issue seems artificial in my mind and raises all sorts of red flags. That caution may be unfounded, but I was trying to be up front with my take on the discussion's construction. As a solution I asked that the discussion be broadened first, and then narrowed. I did not intend to accuse you of being dishonest. I'm sorry that my statements could've been read that way.


Sandra
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 15, 2010, 02:13:07 PM
Thus, the question, “Did Christ in becoming flesh and taking our place under the power of the Law, under the power of sin, under the power of death and und the power of Satan violate the order of creation and the headship structure?” 

How would this violate the order of creation as you understand it? Wouldn't this be an example of the sacrificial love of a Bridegroom for His Bride?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 15, 2010, 04:21:27 PM
? and Peter what do these words mean in marriage:

 the husband is called to sacrifice and the wife to submit

gotta know that to know whether or how they become a stumbling block.

Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 15, 2010, 04:24:38 PM
a new wrinkle:

I know it is a frequently deleted term today from the marriage vow of the wife, but wherein the OBEY... and what is the relationship of submission to obey... are they different words or concepts?  Obey conveys something a man does, issue orders and submission seems to be something a woman could do without orders.  Was it right to have OBEY in the vows, wrong to take it out?    Hmmm.  Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 15, 2010, 04:39:08 PM
In 1962 the promise to obey was in my marriage vow.   It was also the time of reel to reel tape recording.  The best man was to turn the reel so that the entire service could be recorded.  For some reason he was asleep at the switch just at the moment I promised to obey Bill, hence there is no record of my promise. For the past 48 years I have tried to convince Bill that I did not pay the best man off.  It's been a standing joke in our house.

Several years later I was suprised to learn that what I had been taught was a Biblically based marriage vow was in fact not in Scripture.  Children are commanded to obey their parents, but there is nothing about the wife being obedient to her husband. 

Marie

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 15, 2010, 04:53:41 PM
What continues to baffle me is how unwilling some are to recognize that in the Lutheran Church in America the ordination of women was part-and-parcel of the systematic dismantling of nearly every single historic doctrine of the confessing Lutheran Church, and the result is what we see today in the ELCA. They seem willing to cover their eyes, and their ears, and mouths, and play the "see, hear, speak no evil" routine.

The link between Seminex, AELC, and the August 2009 decisions in the ELCA is painfully direct and clear to anyone who would but honestly assess the situation. Some choose to remain oblivious to this fact.

The poisonous seeds sewn during the late fifties, and sixties, in many Lutheran churches, in The LCMS, by the Seminex movement, has produced a very bitter  and deadly fruit.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 15, 2010, 05:06:50 PM
Ok.  So you won't give a reading of Eph. 5 though you said you would.  Fine

Either God’s design for the marriage relationship and for relationships in the Church is an immutable structure or not. Either submission is mutual or it is not. The order of creation by its very nature can’t be a mutual relationship. The assigned positions are as you say, complementary. The position and submission function of the wife complements the position and headship function of the husband.

Nope.  "Structure" is not the only conceptuality out there, and there's no a priori reason submission can't have different characters.  You've made these absolutist claims before, and they're not getting any more persuasive.


Scott,

First I do think you need to recognize that I (and I think Marie) respect your scholarship considerably. That is why we care what you think and discern.

To the questions inferred above. While structure is not the only concept out there, we see this as structure, arrangement, vocational submission, and similar concepts, strongly present in the simple reading of the words, (first level).
 
One liability to Voelz's approach is that it is resistant to intentional divergence from the normal. Indeed the attention Paul brings to this one example (marriage-church) ought to put us on alert for such a possibility. That's what we look for at the second level. But I am hard pressed to set aside what the words say plainly at the first level, even if the meaning is not clear there. We have to start at listening, and then secondarily asking, "I heard this being said. Is that what it means?"

I don't have my The LSB study bible with me, but I think it agrees that this section in Ephesians is heavily vocationally focused, noting that God would have us continue arranging our day to day vocation such as to "see to it that we walk wisely," which is the controlling imperative here.

I also continue to ask you and others to please consider that Marie and I have been richly blessed in our marriages for many decades as confessional Lutherans, subject to these very scriptures. If we are clumsy at making our point, do not lightly discard that example. A great many marriages are not so blessed in this struggle. Patience at discerning the message effects more than a theoretical conversation, it is rewarded in lives, as we have been blessed. God's Word does work in lives that we live. There are promises there that are real.

"Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. "

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 15, 2010, 07:20:21 PM
Paul. While I disagree let me allow you the line.  But there were other not so nice line being drawn from the opposite corner that at best were unloving and maybe for othernreasons too.  And they lead some where also.  Some of us were from Springfield and saw a differen side of things.  Harvey Mozolak

What continues to baffle me is how unwilling some are to recognize that in the Lutheran Church in America the ordination of women was part-and-parcel of the systematic dismantling of nearly every single historic doctrine of the confessing Lutheran Church, and the result is what we see today in the ELCA. They seem willing to cover their eyes, and their ears, and mouths, and play the "see, hear, speak no evil" routine.

The link between Seminex, AELC, and the August 2009 decisions in the ELCA is painfully direct and clear to anyone who would but honestly assess the situation. Some choose to remain oblivious to this fact.

The poisonous seeds sewn during the late fifties, and sixties, in many Lutheran churches, in The LCMS, by the Seminex movement, has produced a very bitter  and deadly fruit.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 15, 2010, 07:31:38 PM
ristian faith.I also continue to ask you and others to please consider that Marie and I have been richly blessed in our marriages for many decades as confessional Lutherans, subject to these very scriptures. If we are clumsy at making our point, do not lightly discard that example. A great many marriages are not so blessed in this struggle. Patience at discerning the message effects more than a theoretical conversation, it is rewarded in lives, as we have been blessed. God's Word does work in lives that we live. There are promises there that are real.

Amen.  Prior to our engagement Bill and I had a very unromantic discussion about whether or not our marriage, representing as it did the joining of a man and a woman from two openly opposing LCMS tradtions, was wise. He came from the tradition of the ALPB and the "44" while I came from the tradition of the Confessional Lutheran and Christian News. In 1962 we did not have a clue as to what the future would bring.  If we did I suspsct we may not have married.  The Seminix years were a rocky time in our marriage. My loyalities were divided. The initial vote of the church council where my husband was pastor was to join the AELC. Long story short, the congregation remained in the LCMS.  At home we clung to the belief that God had  joined us in a marriage relationship would keep us close to Him and to each other.   We also stuck with the promise we made to each other before we became enagaged that we would never question that both of us were committed to serving our Lord, he as a pastor and I as his helpmate.

Marie Otten Meyer    
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 15, 2010, 07:36:58 PM
Sandra:  I am the one who owes you an apology.  You did not say that I was being dishonest.

It's no excuse, but I nterpreted one of your posts as to say I was not answering your questions. From my perspect, I was looking ans the big picture and the entirely of what Scripture teaches.  From yours I was unwilling to accept what Scripture teaches at face value.

Again, I ask forgiveness for what I wrote about you.

Marie

 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 15, 2010, 07:40:36 PM
But the fact that it is not roles per se, but roles assigned by gender that is the stumbling-block, show the link between this issue and the homosexuality issue and the idolatry issue in Romans 1. We're all fine with sacrifice and submission as Christians-- we just don't want our gender being a factor in which is called for in any circumstance. The resulting idea that submission in marriage is entirely mutual-- that spouse/spouse is the same thing as husband/wife-- eliminates the organic union of sacrifice and submission (which form one thing like a lock and key form one mechanism) and makes same-sex marriage possible, as though two husbands could be a married couple, or two wives. Idolatry comes in because this modern way of thinking depends upon self-determination, as though our roles and the nature of marriage were ours to create.   

Peter: Once again there is much food for thought here.  Bill had knee surgery today so I am playing nurse. Earlier today I did address the issue you raised about power and authority.  More tomorrow about the above.

marie
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 15, 2010, 08:42:03 PM
It's no excuse, but I nterpreted one of your posts as to say I was not answering your questions. From my perspect, I was looking ans the big picture and the entirely of what Scripture teaches.  From yours I was unwilling to accept what Scripture teaches at face value.

Actually, Marie, I do think that you are willing to accept what Scripture says. We just haven't come to agreement on what it says on this issue yet. But I have a feeling that we agree on more than either of us realizes (or are probably comfortable with right now), it's just going to take time and effort to figure out how to communicate our different perspectives and get to that point. :)

And of course, I forgive you. Amen.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 16, 2010, 01:47:14 AM
a new wrinkle:

I know it is a frequently deleted term today from the marriage vow of the wife, but wherein the OBEY... and what is the relationship of submission to obey... are they different words or concepts?  Obey conveys something a man does, issue orders and submission seems to be something a woman could do without orders.  Was it right to have OBEY in the vows, wrong to take it out?    Hmmm.  Harvey Mozolak

Can someone smarter than me in the Biblical languages put into context this definition of the Greek word for "submit" as found in Eph. 5:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%205:22&version=ESV)?  I see the word "obey" in there a couple of times and presume that is how the word made its way into the marriage vows.  Seems reasonable to me that it did.

5293 ὑποτάσσω [hupotasso /hoop·ot·as·so/] v. From 5259 and 5021; TDNT 8:39; TDNTA 1156; GK 5718; 40 occurrences; AV translates as “put under” six times, “be subject unto” six times, “be subject to” five times, “submit (one’s) self unto” five times, “submit (one’s) self to” three times, “be in subjection unto” twice, “put in subjection under” once, and translated miscellaneously 12 times.  1 to arrange under, to subordinate. 2 to subject, put in subjection. 3 to subject one’s self, obey. 4 to submit to one’s control. 5 to yield to one’s admonition or advice. 6 to obey, be subject. Additional Information: A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a miliary fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.

Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible  : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. G5293
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 16, 2010, 02:01:45 AM
a new wrinkle:

I know it is a frequently deleted term today from the marriage vow of the wife, but wherein the OBEY... and what is the relationship of submission to obey... are they different words or concepts?  Obey conveys something a man does, issue orders and submission seems to be something a woman could do without orders.  Was it right to have OBEY in the vows, wrong to take it out?    Hmmm.  Harvey Mozolak

Can someone smarter than me in the Biblical languages put into context this definition of the Greek word for "submit" as found in Eph. 5:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%205:22&version=ESV)?  I see the word "obey" in there a couple of times and presume that is how the word made its way into the marriage vows.  Seems reasonable to me that it did.

5293 ὑποτάσσω [hupotasso /hoop·ot·as·so/] v. From 5259 and 5021; TDNT 8:39; TDNTA 1156; GK 5718; 40 occurrences; AV translates as “put under” six times, “be subject unto” six times, “be subject to” five times, “submit (one’s) self unto” five times, “submit (one’s) self to” three times, “be in subjection unto” twice, “put in subjection under” once, and translated miscellaneously 12 times.  1 to arrange under, to subordinate. 2 to subject, put in subjection. 3 to subject one’s self, obey. 4 to submit to one’s control. 5 to yield to one’s admonition or advice. 6 to obey, be subject. Additional Information: A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a miliary fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.

Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible  : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. G5293

I was hoping for Scott to review my comments but that got detoured. I will state briefly and succinctly what I said before.

1. It isn't in verse 22. That is carried forth from verse 21, so we have to take the meaning of verse 21 into verse 22. Each submitting to one another.

I lean both at the plain basic dictionary grammar level, but also especially at the second level of context to "a subjecting oneself into an arrangement of mutual submission to vocational responsibilities for the effective unity of the body (ie. Church, Marriage etc.)"

The attitude of giving in, to a working arrangement for cooperation is also good.

The imperative (IE. The "do this" command) is back at verse 15, not at submit. "Submitting" is descriptive of the command "See to it that you walk wisely (together) in a world with evil in it."

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 16, 2010, 02:15:47 AM
While I am at it, I might as well throw out a thrid level statement (applying matrices- ie. doctrinal truths, or sometimes called rule of faith in some instances)

Marie noted-
I also continue to ask you and others to please consider that Marie and I have been richly blessed in our marriages for many decades as confessional Lutherans, subject to these very scriptures. ...

Amen.  Prior to our engagement Bill and I had a very unromantic discussion about whether or not our marriage, representing as it did the joining of a man and a woman from two openly opposing LCMS tradtions, was wise. ... At home we clung to the belief that God had  joined us in a marriage relationship would keep us close to Him and to each other.   We also stuck with the promise we made to each other before we became enagaged that we would never question that both of us were committed to serving our Lord, he as a pastor and I as his helpmate.

Marie Otten Meyer   

You mention  rocky times and those are times when understanding of this scripture is tested in a simple yes or no fashion.

It really does fall out quite starkly in those times. Whenever I was struggling, and I would ask Kathy, "are you still here?" She would reply, "I'm following Jesus, where  else would I be?" That assurance was far more valuable than any other. I knew she was following Him, and that was where she would be, good times or bad. When she would wonder, "How can you love me?" I would reply, "All the people who love you are standing over here with God, and I not standing in a place where He's not." My love was God's love or it was no love at all. She could trust His love. All the blessings we ever received were when both our eyes were on Him, standing where He told us to stand. We know nothing of this Calvinist "order of creation," nor would it have carried us through the rapids of life. Our marriage would have broken more than once, if only because one of us wasn't living up to our responsibilities. As it was she was following Jesus, where else would she be? My love was always slave to God's love, and He has never failed her.

"At home we clung to the belief that God had  joined us in a marriage relationship would keep us close to Him and to each other. "

You ask how to read Ephesians 5, that's it. The mystery Paul speaks of is not anchored in right heirarcial discernment and behavior. You try your system of what's right and what's wrong. I'll stick with a mystery that has shown itself true and faithful, over and over and over again.

"32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. "

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 16, 2010, 02:18:51 AM
I was hoping for Scott to review my comments but that got detoured. I will state briefly and succinctly what I said before.

1. It isn't in verse 22. That is carried forth from verse 21, so we have to take the meaning of verse 21 into verse 22. Each submitting to one another.

I lean both at the plain basic dictionary grammar level, but also especially at the second level of context to "a subjecting oneself into an arrangement of mutual submission to vocational responsibilities for the effective unity of the body (ie. Church, Marriage etc.)"

The attitude of giving in, to a working arrangement for cooperation is also good.

The imperative (IE. The "do this" command) is back at verse 15, not at submit. "Submitting" is descriptive of the command "See to it that you walk wisely (together) in a world with evil in it."

TV

You are certainly welcome to take that approach, I do not.  Submit is a command in and of itself in each instance that it is used in these Ephesians verses as best I can tell.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 16, 2010, 02:31:09 AM
I was hoping for Scott to review my comments but that got detoured. I will state briefly and succinctly what I said before.

1. It isn't in verse 22. That is carried forth from verse 21, so we have to take the meaning of verse 21 into verse 22. Each submitting to one another.

I lean both at the plain basic dictionary grammar level, but also especially at the second level of context to "a subjecting oneself into an arrangement of mutual submission to vocational responsibilities for the effective unity of the body (ie. Church, Marriage etc.)"

The attitude of giving in, to a working arrangement for cooperation is also good.

The imperative (IE. The "do this" command) is back at verse 15, not at submit. "Submitting" is descriptive of the command "See to it that you walk wisely (together) in a world with evil in it."

TV

You are certainly welcome to take that approach, I do not.  Submit is a command in and of itself in each instance that it is used in these Ephesians verses as best I can tell.

Certainly the descriptions following carry the original command. (I'm avoiding grammatical 'participle' type language here) It is like "As you go, Make disciples..[ok how do I do that?] by baptizing, and teaching. The command remains "make" It is the same here.

Tonight I was teaching a woman I baptized Sunday. That is doing what Jesus commanded me to do. But His command was "make a disciple." That He does through me as He wills it. The baptizing and teaching are the means of obeying the command. We have the same grammatical relationship here with hupotasso

I welcome Scott or others to jump in and comment.

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 16, 2010, 02:53:27 AM
You ask how to read Ephesians 5, that's it. The mystery Paul speaks of is not anchored in right heirarcial discernment and behavior. You try your system of what's right and what's wrong. I'll stick with a mystery that has shown itself true and faithful, over and over and over again.

Sir, I'm up at 2:30 in the morning because I've spent the last week tossing and turning all night without my husband being in bed next to me (he was hospitalized with what could have been a life-threatening illness) and my sleep pattern is completely off kilter as a result.  We have been married now for over 19 years, were separated for a time by war, buried two children together, have worked side by side within the church, endured each other's hospitalizations, those of our children, and countless other events that I couldn't possibly even recount here.  My "system of right and wrong" as you call it is a system rooted in Scripture, the very thing that keeps our marriage together despite all the trials that come along.  The mystery you so arrogantly claim you will stick with as if you have the market cornered on experiencing it is by no means elusive to me.  If we want to start a thread on such mysteries, I'll go to town over there on all the amazing accounts I've experienced of God working in our marriage and in those of others.  This one is on women's ordination and how Biblical submission is defined where women are concerned.  You seem to have a habit of reading far too deeply into comments of people who don't share the same opinion as you, to the point of getting defensive even.  You are welcome to subscribe to and put forth whatever view of Scriptures you wish, as am I. 

Biblical submission is a wonderful, freeing experience that I couldn't have ever believed would be possible for me to do prior to becoming a Christian.  Lord knows I can't submit on my own account, its through the gift of faith that He has given me that allows it to occur. I have an amazing husband who loves me and puts up with me (most days), which makes it such an easy thing to do.  If others want to deny themselves this benefit and privilege, they are truly missing out on a lovely gift from God. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 16, 2010, 03:07:13 AM
You ask how to read Ephesians 5, that's it. The mystery Paul speaks of is not anchored in right heirarcial discernment and behavior. You try your system of what's right and what's wrong. I'll stick with a mystery that has shown itself true and faithful, over and over and over again.

Sir, I'm up at 2:30 in the morning because I've spent the last week tossing and turning all night without my husband being in bed next to me (he was hospitalized with what could have been a life-threatening illness) and my sleep pattern is completely off kilter as a result.  We have been married now for over 19 years, were separated for a time by war, buried two children together, have worked side by side within the church, endured each other's hospitalizations, those of our children, and countless other events that I couldn't possibly even recount here.  My "system of right and wrong" as you call it is a system rooted in Scripture, the very thing that keeps our marriage together despite all the trials that come along.  The mystery you so arrogantly claim you will stick with as if you have the market cornered on experiencing it is by no means elusive to me.  If we want to start a thread on such mysteries, I'll go to town over there on all the amazing accounts I've experienced of God working in our marriage and in those of others.  This one is on women's ordination and how Biblical submission is defined where women are concerned.  You seem to have a habit of reading far too deeply into comments of people who don't share the same opinion as you, to the point of getting defensive even.  You are welcome to subscribe to and put forth whatever view of Scriptures you wish, as am I. 

Biblical submission is a wonderful, freeing experience that I couldn't have ever believed would be possible for me to do prior to becoming a Christian.  Lord knows I can't submit on my own account, its through the gift of faith that He has given me that allows it to occur. I have an amazing husband who loves me and puts up with me (most days), which makes it such an easy thing to do.  If others want to deny themselves this benefit and privilege, they are truly missing out on a lovely gift from God. 

It is late, and you and your family have remained in our prayers. I apologize that I expressed those thoughts as a personal 'you.' That was out of line. The thought was in making a distinction that I have no doubt you know well, however much we may talk past each other on the subject.

It's late, His blessings,
TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 16, 2010, 08:04:24 AM
let me try to add some clarity to a distinction between obey and submission...

obey indicates there must be some kind of command or demand on the part of a man toward a woman (or his wife depending on how narrowly or broadly you interpret)

submission is more on the part of the woman, a relationship not dependent on a command given, a willingness rather than a response to another’s will or act

not so?

Another thing about the old fashioned vow on the part of a wife to obey her husband was that while it makes some sense not to put parameters on a promise to love someone…. to promise to obey without speaking about what that might mean with some practical guidelines… it does open up abuse with ease.  Get  my dinner ready by 6:30 PM and we are having steak again today with a pound of salt on it.  Is that, well drop the salt, merely a froward husband that ought to be submitted to in love or someone who needs something short of obedience?

Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 16, 2010, 08:11:26 AM
do younse really think that the average, most, Lutheran wives (NALC, LCMC, LCMS, ELCA, WS et al) will fit into the 1940's mold of submissive marriage?  Because that is what I think we are talking about, not Sarah and Abraham's thing or what was happening to the folks in St. Paul's churches or even in Europe or Africa before coming to the States.  And when you talk to people like my 95 year old Dad, retired SELC pastor, he will tell you that beyond the edge that you saw attending parish functions and worship in the 1940's and 50's, there was a great deal of division and pain in marriages that somehow held together on paper and in the split-level but in reality were no better or worse than the fractured mess we have before us today.    Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 16, 2010, 08:44:04 AM
do younse really think that the average, most, Lutheran wives (NALC, LCMC, LCMS, ELCA, WS et al) will fit into the 1940's mold of submissive marriage?  Because that is what I think we are talking about, not Sarah and Abraham's thing or what was happening to the folks in St. Paul's churches or even in Europe or Africa before coming to the States.  And when you talk to people like my 95 year old Dad, retired SELC pastor, he will tell you that beyond the edge that you saw attending parish functions and worship in the 1940's and 50's, there was a great deal of division and pain in marriages that somehow held together on paper and in the split-level but in reality were no better or worse than the fractured mess we have before us today.    Harvey Mozolak
I think you are precisely wrong on this Harvey. What I go way out of my way to explain in premarital counseling is that, yes, this way of understanding marriage is out of step with the modern view, but it is also not simply the old-fashioned view. Every age tends to get it wrong in different ways. It seems old fashioned, but in fact, the Archie and Edith Bunker understanding was just as off-kilter, and is not at all what we're talking about when we bring in Ephesians and the organic unity of sacrifice and submission.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 16, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
Good comment, Harvey, and as I read it several living examples came to mind.
A previous generation of wives was expected to fit into certain "molds" and either did so or lived in misery or bore the brunt of community opprobrium for ruining a marriage. This was especially true of parsonage families.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 16, 2010, 08:57:17 AM
I'm going to side with Peter on this (probably no surprise) - to advocate the Biblical picture from Ephesians is not to advocate an Edith/Archie stereotype.  But it is to suggest that joy in marriage is found in sacrifice, and that this is something husband and wife learn to grow into under the gracious pardon of God. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 16, 2010, 09:14:06 AM
Peter,  OK but no one, IMO, seems to give adequate definition to these terms and also in the way you combine them in a nice statement: “ the organic unity of sacrifice and submission.”  I guess I can understand SACRIFICE better (is that because I am a man?)....  But what are these terms beyond the FEELING level?   If you appropriate them into a discussion of the inner workings of the Trinity (which I think sounds neat, but is not really defensible, methinks) you still have difficulty understanding because the opera ad intra are not comprehensible to the human mind.  I understand SACRIFICE in Christ’s life toward the world and church (opera ad extra) and even submission in terms of his Incarnation but what does that mean directly in the marriage relationship and other relationships between men and women; I don’t know or can’t see.  And there too is a thorn that doesn’t go away.  Those of you who are most or more conservative on this issue can’t seem to agree not only whether a woman lector is presuming upon a pastor’s role but also and more importantly whether the submission (and obedience in some peoples’ view) goes beyond marriage and church and into society.  And I think, if you are going to take the conservative position on this you have to go there and say that serving in the military is not only not chivalrous but wrong and that being the president or a judge or whatever is not what women should do in their God created nature and people who are males in those positions should expect women to respond (albeit obey God’s law rather than human law) in some form of submission, certainly more so than males.   Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 16, 2010, 09:14:59 AM
St. Paul makes it clear that Christian marriage is to be an icon of the relationship of Christ and the Church. The more we ponder that reality the more we understand the terms and ideas latent in such a declaration.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 16, 2010, 09:26:00 AM
Pr. Mozolak,

I have long appreciated this insight from Schmemann on sacrifice:

In its essence sacrifice is linked not with sin and evil but with love:  it is the self-revelation and self-realization of love.  There is no love without sacrifice, for love, being the giving of one’s self to another, the placing of one’s life in another, the perfect obedience to another, is sacrifice.  If in “this world” sacrifice is actually and inevitably linked to suffering, it is not in accordance with its own essence but in accordance with the essence of “this world,” which lies in evil, whose essence lies in the falling away from love. (The Eucharist, pp. 207, 208)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 16, 2010, 09:29:48 AM
Will and Peter, I will side with you also..  to advocate the biblical view of marriage is not to advocate Bunkerdom.  But Bunkerdom was and is the sinful reality. And give Archie a opportunity to bludgeon Edith and he will take it…. cry later in the episode, but take it he will; my word of theology: the devil pushes us over the closest edge.    And on the other side, I think many modern, good, lasting, Christian marriages have much more reciprocity in them than submission today, compared to their counterparts in the olden days (whatever dates you want to assign to them within reason).   Maybe we should, in many cases, compare our wonderful wives with our equally  wonderful mothers.  Does she play the organ was a question that could in good conscience be asked of a pastor in the 1940’s and expect to get a respectful yes or no and today, dare not ask that of me or my wife and get anything but a smile or a why in the world would you expect that?   I know that this is testy, but to hang onto Thee and Thine today is less than quaint, I think it is obstructive (at least in most cases, even my 90 year olds use a computer where Thee and Thine are not texted).    I take thee…   Ouch.     Sorry friends.  I will fight against planing and neutering God language but there is a world in which we ought to attempt the all things to all people to save some.   Why did I get into that, some bad eggnog perhaps?    Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 16, 2010, 09:43:52 AM
Oh, I think you overestimate the death of the Elizabethan pronouns.  Do your people truly struggle with "Thine the Amen, Thine the praise" or with praying the traditional Lord's Prayer?  We had Lessons and Carols last evening (during which the ice set in - grr) at our neighboring parish, and I noted that when we came to the readings for Luke 1 and John 1, Pr. Curtis (a man who MAY be 30) opted for the KJV.  It was a delight for me to read John 1 in the language I grew up hearing it in.  I don't think anyone was really confused at all.  But we definitely are wandering astray of the topic...but into such a joyous bypath.  Discussing language with a poet is surely one of the special joys of life - even when you end up (perhaps foolishly) disagreeing with him.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau14 on December 16, 2010, 09:46:09 AM
It is interesting that Archie has come into this as I use that image to describe how culture depicted marriage.  At the same time, I also point to modern sitcoms where the wife is made to be the "boss", that is, the strong one, while the husband is made to be the "fool"--see "Everybody Loves Raymond", or "The King of Queens", or any CBS sitcom of the late 90s into the early 2000s.  Worst of all is how the show "Married With Children" depicted the relationship.

All to often, our people are influenced by what they see on t.v. so when they actually sit down and look at what the Bible actually says concerning the relationship between husband and wife during premarital catechesis, they begin to see a wonderful picture of sacrifice, submission, and service.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 16, 2010, 10:10:14 AM
Quickly on Eph. 5:21-33...

21 Ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ, 22 αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ, 23 ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος· 24 ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί.

25 Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, 26 ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, 27 ἵνα παραστήσῃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥυτίδα ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλʼ ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος. 28 οὕτως ὀφείλουσιν [καὶ] οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ. 29 Οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐμίσησεν ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει καὶ θάλπει αὐτήν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, 30 ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. 31 ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος [τὸν] πατέρα καὶ [τὴν] μητέρα καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. 32 τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν· ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 33 πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθʼ ἕνα, ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα.

1. This pericope can be considered a unit since vs. 21 & 33 form an inclusio, most obviously through the use of the term "fear" or "respect" (φόβῳ / φοβῆται).

2. Vs. 21 begins the unit, not vs. 22, because vs. 22 lacks a verb and is reliant upon the participle in vs. 21 for its sense.

3. It occurs in the broader context of Pauline paraenesis, or moral exhortation, describing the Christian life.  It is, most obviously, a set of instructions for Christian marriage.

4. The verb "to submit" is a participle (Ὑποτασσόμενοι) rather than an imperative.  As such, it's a simple description of who Christians are in the context of marriage -- those who submit to each other "in fear of Christ" (or "out of respect for Christ").  Lexically, it doesn't make sense to say that this is connected back to the imperative "see" in vs. 15 which is too far away with many intervening verbs.  Rather, it is the last in a series of participles that go back to the imperative "be filled" (πληροῦσθε) of vs. 18.  If you prioritize this connection, then this pericope would be read as a description of what it means to be filled with the Spirit in the context of marriage, something that Paul then expands on at length.

5. Both vs. 22 and vs. 25 start with the nominative case of wives and husbands, respectively, indicating to whom the following instructions are addressed.  This suggests that vs. 21 is taken as a type of heading for the section which is then expanded upon in the following two sections of unequal length.  This view is further buttressed by vs. 21 being the last in a series of participles going back to vs. 18, thereby indicating, again, that what we have here is an expansion of a general thought -- what it means to be filled by the Spirit in the context of a marriage relationship characterized by mutual submission in the fear of Christ.  Vs. 21 should, then, be read as a type of "thesis statement" whose explication is dependent upon what follows.

6. In vss. 22-24, Paul explicitly connects the relation of Christ to his Church as the model for the wife's submission to her husband.  That is, marriage is not a model for how Christ's relation to the Church; rather, Christ's relation to the Church is the model for Christian marriage.  [[To use the language of "icon," like an icon, marriage pictures Christ's relation to his Church but is, at the same time, dependent upon that relation for its ability to indicate or picture that relation.  Christ's relation to the Church is the archetype for what a Christian marriage should look like.]]  Therefore, howsoever Christ is to be understood in relation to the Church is how Paul wants the woman (Church) to understand herself in relation to her husband (Christ) and the husband (Christ) in relation to his wife (Church).  It is in this connection that the idea of "head" is introduced, no other.  As Christ is the "head" of the Church, so the husband is the "head" of his wife.  This is certainly organic unity but not an undifferentiated unity.

7. Paul does not use any other verb that "to submit" throughout his address to wives in vss. 22-24.  He even qualifies this by the prepositional phrase "in everything" (ἐν παντί) in vs. 24 and describes the submission by making the analogy that she is to do so "as to the Lord" (ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ) in vs. 22.  The only other verb used relative to wives is "to fear" or "to respect" in vs. 33 with the object of fear / respect being her husband.

8. Paul uses a number of verbs in his much longer address to husbands (the major ones of which I have bolded).  However, the dominant verb is "to love," and it occurs in some form 7 times by my count and is implied as the opposite of "to hate" in vs. 28.  The verb "to submit" is never used relative to the husband when Paul is addressing husbands alone; it is only used relative to the husband in the opening statement in vs. 21 of which vss. 22-33 are explanations.

9. Paul is explicit as to what form this love should take.  The model for the husband is not that of the Church as it is for the wife but Christ.  More specifically, it is Christ's sacrificial act of love for his Church which is purposive -- it is to present the Church as holy and without blemish or spot.  The husband's love for his wife is to be of the same kind of love as that for his own body, just as the Church is the body of Christ.  In this way, Paul commands the husband to sacrifice for his wife in order to care for her and nurture her so that she, his own body, might be spotless and without blemish.  This is what submission means for him -- to sacrifice (or to submit) his own wants and desires in favor of his wife's well-being.  The husband's submission is to his wife's well-being / holiness.

10. It is the so-called "mystical union" of Christ and the Church that Paul calls "a mystery" in vs. 32.  He is explicit about this as he saw fit to clarify himself at the end of vs. 32.  While the union itself is a mystery for Paul, he has already had much to say about the relation of wives to husbands and husbands to wives in the preceding verses.  That part wasn't mysterious.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 16, 2010, 10:35:21 AM
Here's the key thought when trying to figure out what St. Paul means by submission, etc.

καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς,
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 16, 2010, 10:53:36 AM
Here's the key thought when trying to figure out what St. Paul means by submission, etc.

καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς,

Yup, relative to husbands.  And for those w/o Greek, "Just as also Christ loved the church and gave himself up on her behalf."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 16, 2010, 10:59:55 AM
Here's the key thought when trying to figure out what St. Paul means by submission, etc.

καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς,

Yup, relative to husbands.  And for those w/o Greek, "Just as also Christ loved the church and gave himself up on her behalf."

Thanks Pastors Smarty Pants!  Of course I kid.  How helpful it is to have the knowledge of those languages.  Thanks for taking the time to clarify.  I know how busy life must be for you both.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 16, 2010, 11:29:40 AM
yes, we do both OUR FATHERS.... and our rule is mostly traditional, contemp for Eve worship and Festival type days
yes, we sing Thine the Amen...
mea gulp-a
would that we could change them both...
of course you know as well as I do that Yours the Amen would be written in the key of failure
but my measured guess is that if Brokering could be asked, he would love to be able to achieve the successful writing of that hymn using a word other than Thine
Would you (I ask rhetorically) have people like him and Vajda write with Old English phrases or with the Now and the Then-ness of modern phrases and lines
Something like rhymes... 
well done in past ages, very difficult to achieve today (though a couple of years ago I bought and read a book of modern rhymed verse that was outstanding) but why go through that constraint always or mostly when there are wonderful achievements without rhyme chaining verse... I like a painted still life but a couple in a gallery is all I need...  once I know you can achieve success with it, I want more expression beyond fruit...
hymns are a special problem like dated poetry in that permission has to gained from the owner of they hymn to make changes and even when given we do tend to louse up other things besides Elizabethinorthickenations
1. I really do think many of our kids have difficulty with the Thee and Thou and other verbiage of the KJV and don't feel it is worth the work to teach them to think with them
2. I do not pray, privately when using my own words and thoughts in Thee and Thou and I don't think most people, as is said "think in Elizabethan English."
and if we do not preach in Thee and Thou language why should we create anything anew in it, like new hymnody and prayers and liturgy, even liturgy re-writes?
Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 16, 2010, 11:54:39 AM
Scott, so what does EVERYTHING, _en panti_ mean?  Is that what is modeled in most, many, all, any, some Christian marriages? 
Can a wife get away with saying, I disobey you, I disobey you, I disobey you when asked either the ridiculus or something short of sin but entirely unspiritually related?   What of disagreement and discussion on the part of a wife and how is that not a rejection of being a proper subject?  What does a Christian husband do who is married to a non-Christian wife or is that of less concern than the vice versa?    Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 16, 2010, 12:06:38 PM
Scott, so what does EVERYTHING, _en panti_ mean?  Is that what is modeled in most, many, all, any, some Christian marriages? 
Can a wife get away with saying, I disobey you, I disobey you, I disobey you when asked either the ridiculus or something short of sin but entirely unspiritually related?   What of disagreement and discussion on the part of a wife and how is that not a rejection of being a proper subject?  What does a Christian husband do who is married to a non-Christian wife or is that of less concern than the vice versa?    Harvey Mozolak

I think first we need to realize that Paul is here speaking of the ideal relationship and doesn't have in mind a situation where the husband would be acting inappropriately toward his wife or asking something wrong of her or for her to do something wrong.  Rather, Paul is interested in providing a vision of what the ideal relationship would look like, with the wife submitting to her husband "in everything" even as his will is to do whatever it takes, sacrificing his own interests, for the sake of his wife's well-being and development.  In such an ideal situation, it would be hard to see why she wouldn't want to submit to him "in everything," if "everything" meant those things that were beneficial to her.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 16, 2010, 12:24:25 PM
But Pr. Mozolak, as long as they still teach Shakespeare, Milton, Donne, the language will be used in schools and taught to children.  I grant, most of us don't pray like that in our private prayers (though I do know people who continue to), but I suspect that it's not nearly the problem of understanding when it is HEARD as opposed to when it is READ.  I think of how Shakespeare is rather a bear to just read, but a sheer delight to listen to.  The difficulties are overcome largely by the actors' intonations and movements clarifying the words.  I think a similar thing happens when one hears the AV.  Would King's College service be the same without it?  It's not hard to understand when read like that.  Or said another way, I think such language is archaic, not obsolete (in general - I mean the AV "prevent" IS obsolete).

Of course, I'm an ardent user of the ESV for all its foibles and just read from the lectionary in my parish, and if I need another reading, I'll print it out from ESV too. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 16, 2010, 12:43:31 PM
St. Paul makes it clear that Christian marriage is to be an icon of the relationship of Christ and the Church. The more we ponder that reality the more we understand the terms and ideas latent in such a declaration. Paul McCain
In vss. 22-24, Paul explicitly connects the relation of Christ to his Church as the model for the wife's submission to her husband.  That is, marriage is not a model for how Christ's relation to the Church; rather, Christ's relation to the Church is the model for Christian marriage.

Therefore, howsoever Christ is to be understood in relation to the Church is how Paul wants the woman (Church) to understand herself in relation to her husband (Christ) and the husband (Christ) in relation to his wife (Church).  It is in this connection that the idea of "head" is introduced, no other.  As Christ is the "head" of the Church, so the husband is the "head" of his wife.  This is certainly organic unity but not an undifferentiated unity. Scott

Here I agree with Paul McCain and Scott (I’m glad you have not given up on this thread.)

The following causes me great concern because I believe it gives Christian men a flawed message, one that blurs the critical distinction between Christ as Lord, Savior and the Head of the entire Church and that of human husbands. I think one treads on dangerous ground to link the husband’s sacrificial love with the holiness of his wife.


"9. Paul is explicit as to what form this love should take.  The model for the husband is not that of the Church as it is for the wife but Christ.  More specifically, it is Christ's sacrificial act of love for his Church which is purposive -- it is to present the Church as holy and without blemish or spot.  The husband's love for his wife is to be of the same kind of love as that for his own body, just as the Church is the body of Christ.  In this way, Paul commands the husband to sacrifice for his wife in order to care for her and nurture her so that she, his own body, might be spotless and without blemish.  This is what submission means for him -- to sacrifice (or to submit) his own wants and desires in favor of his wife's well-being.  The husband's submission is to his wife's well-being / holiness."



Just as God is Father in way that no human man is father, so also Christ is Head and Husband as no man is head and husband.  God as our Father is always more than all positive experiences of fathers and measures all negative experiences of fathers by the criterion of God’s fatherhood, so also is Christ as Head and Husband of the Church in ways that go beyond the most loving husband. I submit that understanding this text must be made within the context of the critical distinction of Christ as Head of the entire Church and the husband as head of his wife. Christ’s unique ordering of self under the power of sin in each man and woman and His unique sacrificial love for the Church is the ongoing source of the holiness of the Church.

The mystery of Christ as Head and Husband of the Church is that He then gives Her the power and authority which the Father has bestowed on Him. He then receives from Her what His unique sacrificial love alone can bring forth from Her. That the God and Lord who is Head of the Church, His one Holy Bride, is so united to Her that they all, male and female, grow up into the fullness of their one Head is a mystery.

To understand how the relationship of the human husband to his wife is to be like that of Christ to the Church, I submit one must begin with the reality that both husband and wife are, without distinction the one Body of Christ. The men are the Church and are loved by Christ just as Christ loves the women. Both are the object of His unique sacrificial love.

Does this text teach that husband and wife are to love as they have been loved, or does the sexual distinction of male and female include a distinction in how husbands and wives are to love and be loved?     

Marie
         




Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 16, 2010, 12:47:26 PM
Scott, so what does EVERYTHING, _en panti_ mean?  Is that what is modeled in most, many, all, any, some Christian marriages? 
Can a wife get away with saying, I disobey you, I disobey you, I disobey you when asked either the ridiculus or something short of sin but entirely unspiritually related?   What of disagreement and discussion on the part of a wife and how is that not a rejection of being a proper subject?  What does a Christian husband do who is married to a non-Christian wife or is that of less concern than the vice versa?    Harvey Mozolak
Harvey, do you really picture those of us putting forward this view (Scott, Will, myself, et al) ordering our wives around all day? Commanding the person to do something against their will is among the last things that a person called to self-sacrifice for that person would ever do. And deliberately going against the husband's will is among the last things a Christian wife would ever do, and even then only in obedience to the higher authority of God.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 16, 2010, 01:02:52 PM
Does this text teach that husband and wife are to love as they have been loved, or does the sexual distinction of male and female include a distinction in how husbands and wives are to love and be loved?     
False dichotomy. The catechism answers the question of what motivated Christ by pointing to "His great love for His Father and for me." God is Love and Jesus is God, but His love for His Father took the form of submission and His love for me took the form of sacrifice, both of which meet on the cross. Both are godly, Christ-like forms of love, and we are called to both when we follow Jesus. All of us are called to both in different situations. All of us submit out of reverence for Christ. All of us give ourselves up out of reverence for Christ. There is no controversy merely with that. Christian parents have authority over Christian children with no confusion as to whether the parents, too, are children of God. And Christian bridegrooms have authority over Christian brides with no confusion as to whether bridegrooms, too, are the bride of Christ.

Again, the stumbling-block seems to be with sexual distinction. If marriage were presented as an arrangement of sacrifice and submission in which the couple decided for themselves which spouse would fulfill which role, I doubt anyone would see any conflict at all. It is having the role assigned based on gender that grates.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Tom Eckstein on December 16, 2010, 01:25:35 PM
Eph. 5 begins with the call to imitate God as dearly beloved children. We imitate God by walking in Love because God is Love. We only know God and know Love in Jesus Christ, so imitating God always means following Jesus, especially His self-sacrificial, self-emptying servanthood. This servanthood took two forms-- sacrifice and submission. Christians, therefore, in any given situation are called to the Christ-like servanthood of self-sacrifice (which entails having authority/accountability, serving, and coming last) or to the Christ-like servanthood of submission (which entails being under authority and being served and being put first). Nobody questions that all Christians in various circumstances are called to both forms of servanthood, sacrifice and submission. Even in marriage this isn't an issue or a stumbling-block until the point is made that within this relationship, the husband is called to sacrifice and the wife to submit, that, in fact, a marriage is not a partnership of two spouses but an organic union of two distinct things, a husband and a wife, and furthermore, that the role of wife is intrinsically female and the role of husband intrinsically male. In short, I think the only controversy is whether any of this applies to anyone because of their sex. It would be fine if sacrifice and submission were based on abilities or some mutual arrangement, but the minute any role is more or less "assigned" it becomes a stumbling-block.

But the fact that it is not roles per se, but roles assigned by gender that is the stumbling-block, show the link between this issue and the homosexuality issue and the idolatry issue in Romans 1. We're all fine with sacrifice and submission as Christians-- we just don't want our gender being a factor in which is called for in any circumstance. The resulting idea that submission in marriage is entirely mutual-- that spouse/spouse is the same thing as husband/wife-- eliminates the organic union of sacrifice and submission (which form one thing like a lock and key form one mechanism) and makes same-sex marriage possible, as though two husbands could be a married couple, or two wives. Idolatry comes in because this modern way of thinking depends upon self-determination, as though our roles and the nature of marriage were ours to create.   

Amen and Amen!
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 16, 2010, 01:37:47 PM
4. The verb "to submit" is a participle (Ὑποτασσόμενοι) rather than an imperative.  As such, it's a simple description of who Christians are in the context of marriage -- those who submit to each other "in fear of Christ" (or "out of respect for Christ").  Lexically, it doesn't make sense to say that this is connected back to the imperative "see" in vs. 15 which is too far away with many intervening verbs.  Rather, it is the last in a series of participles that go back to the imperative "be filled" (πληροῦσθε) of vs. 18.  If you prioritize this connection, then this pericope would be read as a description of what it means to be filled with the Spirit in the context of marriage, something that Paul then expands on at length.

There is a series of participles that I believe relate to the main verb, πληροῦσθε


ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι,
19   λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς,
   ᾄδοντες
   καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ,
20   εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί,
21   ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ.

In this sense v. 21 is connected to what goes before it -- our ability to submit to one another comes from having been filled with the Spirit; and, as you said, it begins the section 21-33. While it might be stretching the exegesis, the only way that folks can sing or make music together is by listening to one another and to one's self. One has to be mindful of what others are doing if there is to be harmony (rather than dissonance) in the singing.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 16, 2010, 01:46:34 PM
Quickly on Eph. 5:21-33...

....

Scott, Thank you for jumping back in, especially pointing to vs 18, and not reaching back to 15. While I'm not sure there is not is unity to 15-18, (Look carefully, do not be foolish, but be filled) I do see the grammatical point, and the connection to "be filled" is with meaning. This is a good example of why we appreciate your work.  ;D

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 16, 2010, 01:54:56 PM
Here I agree with Paul McCain and Scott (I’m glad you have not given up on this thread.)

I never said I was giving up on this thread.  Just that I don't see my interactions with you as going anywhere such that I'm no longer interested in pursuing them.

But once more into the breach to see if it goes anywhere...

Just as God is Father in way that no human man is father, so also Christ is Head and Husband as no man is head and husband.  God as our Father is always more than all positive experiences of fathers and measures all negative experiences of fathers by the criterion of God’s fatherhood, so also is Christ as Head and Husband of the Church in ways that go beyond the most loving husband. I submit that understanding this text must be made within the context of the critical distinction of Christ as Head of the entire Church and the husband as head of his wife. Christ’s unique ordering of self under the power of sin in each man and woman and His unique sacrificial love for the Church is the ongoing source of the holiness of the Church.

It is obviously true that men are not equal to Christ and also obviously true that it is Christ's sacrificial love for the Church that is the ongoing source of the Church's holiness.  But even so, it is precisely the analogy of Christ / husband / head and wife / Church / body that Paul uses.  Paul explicitly says that husbands are the head of the wife as (ὡς) or just as (καθὼς) Christ is the head of the Church.  In what way?  Well, Paul is clear there, too: "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her."

If you disapprove of the analogy as you say, your quarrel is not with me.  It is with Paul.

To understand how the relationship of the human husband to his wife is to be like that of Christ to the Church, I submit one must begin with the reality that both husband and wife are, without distinction the one Body of Christ. The men are the Church and are loved by Christ just as Christ loves the women. Both are the object of His unique sacrificial love.

The language of "head" certainly presupposes language of "body."  And before Christ, we are all certainly equal in the one body of Christ and are the recipients of his sacrificial love.

Based on this vertical reality and assuming it, Paul has more to say about horizontal relationships though.  Here, Paul himself makes a distinction between the way a wife is to relate to her husband and a husband to his wife.

And that distinction relative to husbands is most simply stated in the words of Paul: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way (οὕτως) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies."

While the husband's sacrifice is certainly not the cause of the wife's salvation or of her holiness, Paul (not me!) here explicitly links Christ's sacrificial love as the model for the husband's sacrificial love which is, in the same way as Christ's, linked to the well-being (without blemish) and even the holiness of his wife.

This is a black-letter contradiction to your claim that "I think one treads on dangerous ground to link the husband’s sacrificial love with the holiness of his wife."  Paul doesn't consider it dangerous at all.

The husband serves the holiness of his wife as both he and her grow in their relationship to Christ -- that is, it's a holiness of sanctification and not of justification.  We can certainly support and encourage the growth of the mind of Christ in others; it's one of the great things of the consolation of the brethren (or the communion of saints, to use Luther's language in the Large Catechism; though in this case, it's the marriage relationship that's in view).  And sanctification (based on "sanctify" meaning "make holy," btw), unlike justification, is something in which we actively do participate as the Word spoken and lived in this relationship causes our sanctification "daily to grow and become strong in the faith and in the fruits of the Spirit." (LC II:53)  Cf. 1 Cor. 7:14 as another example of "holiness" in the context of the marital relationships.

Does this text teach that husband and wife are to love as they have been loved, or does the sexual distinction of male and female include a distinction in how husbands and wives are to love and be loved?

In general, I don't think this question works as the two positions are not mutually exclusive.  But in the context of Eph. 5 and husband-wife relations, I think the latter is where the focus is more than the former.

That is, Paul here makes a distinction between the way a husband relates to his wife and the way a wife relates to her husband.

It's really as simple as that.

Elsewhere and relative to the vertical relationship, Paul makes no distinction (cf. Gal. 3:28).  Here (Eph. 5:21-33) and relative to the horizontal relationship of husbands and wives, sorry, but Paul makes an explicit distinction.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 16, 2010, 02:43:33 PM
Peter, No, (not really knowing most of you personally but assuming the best) I do not picture you thus but Christianity at the average level (and here I do not mean to say that you people or I because we are clergy or more committed lay people are better) is heard differently than it is at a more examined theological level (or something like that).  For example, I would dare say that most Luth clergy (let's leave lay people out and set up a prejudicial dichotomy for the moment) know better than to assert racism as a part of the Christian teaching and lifestyle ... they know how to keep their act clean in this regard (not all of em but most)...  but get into many average parishes and raise some racial issue for discussion and wow you will be taken back by what good, average, every Sunday attending, active members might say about black people, Jews and the enemy de jour, Moslems--  that is certainly not modeled biblically.  I think the same is true when one speaks about obedience, submission and probably sacrifice in marriage.  That is a reality.  Harvey Mozolak

[/quote]
Harvey, do you really picture those of us putting forward this view (Scott, Will, myself, et al) ordering our wives around all day? Commanding the person to do something against their will is among the last things that a person called to self-sacrifice for that person would ever do. And deliberately going against the husband's will is among the last things a Christian wife would ever do, and even then only in obedience to the higher authority of God.
[/quote]
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 16, 2010, 02:45:23 PM
Well, Paul is clear there, too: "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her."

If you disapprove of the analogy as you say, your quarrel is not with me.  It is with Paul.

In practical terms help me to understand what Paul means for a husband to "give himself up for her that he might sanctify her."   Within the context of our marriage, I think it would be accurate to say that God worked through Bill and through me as each of us grew in Christian discipleship and holy living.  This happened as a result of what each of us received as the One Body of Christ nurtured in and through Word and Sacrament.

 I understand  "mutual consolution" to apply in marriage just as it does to all Christians within the Church. I understand you to conclude that in the horizontal marriage relationship Paul states that the husband plays a different part in the sanctificatin of his wife than she does in his. Certainly marriage is where"sanctification" and Christian living are most likly to take place or to fumble. Is this the shared responsibility of husband and wife, or is it primarily that of the husband?  

By extension, do men in the church play a different role in the horizontal relationship of men and women than do the women? IOW, what does mutual consolation mean in the church?  I ask this because as the years progressed in our marriage mutually and reciprocity took on a greater meaning.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 16, 2010, 02:56:03 PM
And Christian bridegrooms have authority over Christian brides with no confusion as to whether bridegrooms, too, are the bride of Christ.  

Peter:

I am not trying to be an irritant, but where is this written? What does this mean?  What is the authority that a Christian bridegroom has over a Christian bride? 

The authority as to which house to buy? The authority to forgive? The authority as to when to have sex?  The authority of having the last word in an argument?  I honestly do not know what it meant by saying the Christian husband has authority over the Christian wife.  What about non-Christian marriages? Who has authority there?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 16, 2010, 03:13:13 PM
...
False dichotomy. ....
Again, the stumbling-block seems to be with sexual distinction. If marriage were presented as an arrangement of sacrifice and submission in which the couple decided for themselves which spouse would fulfill which role, I doubt anyone would see any conflict at all. It is having the role assigned based on gender that grates.

Certainly in today's world we have difficulty in sexual distinction, that is self evident on many levels. But I'm not sure I would be presenting this in a dichotomy form. Maybe this is a bad analogy, but perhaps the point will be taken. My navigator from long ago, did not have 20/20 vision. He wore glasses. It was a part of his identity. He may have wanted (indeed did) to be a pilot, but tangentially more than casually he was brought into the crew as a navigator, not as a man who wore glasses, but as path to his place on the crew. Marriage is established by God as a man and woman that takes the identity he created (not an accident of vision) and makes of it "a crew," something new. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

I would ask us to consider here whether there is a new identity. When a woman becomes a wife, her identity is in the marriage just as the man's is when he becomes a husband. They are part of one flesh. The two become. Now Paul speaks to the wife and then the husband as to this relationship. But to attach a dichotomy back to identity as in my navigator, at least to this text I think, is to reach back "out of the airplane' if you will, to bring something into the identity of the crew, that is at best tangential.

I ask then if the distinction Paul makes is not connected to the couple in the unit of marriage, how they behave vocationally in crew, and it is the crew, the wedded couple, that Paul connects to Christ. "29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body." ... "Wives, ... as you do to the Lord." ... "Husbands, .. just as Christ" Distinctions that connect ought not be made to divide. Sexual distinction connects the two as God intended, and identity is changed.- One flesh.

It is more than this, as to how this happens. In submitting to Christ, the wife finds herself also subject to the arrangement with her husband. In Christ's love the husband loves his own body, which also is his wife. The imperative remains, "be filled." and I would at least consider that is the fuller "Look carefully ... do not be fooled, .. be filled." If we are not careful here we end up imagining the wife "cannot sacrificially love," and the husband cannot "subject himself to the marriage." The body is differentiated to the point of dividing what is made one. Verse 21, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ has meaning. Love one another also has meaning.

Or by rule of faith - Christ loved also by getting on his knees, and washing feet as a servant. (John 13) .. and in connection especially 13:38 ... Peter subjected himself also by loving. (John 21) "I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." After this he said "Follow me."

I ask whether we cannot distinguish to the point of dividing.

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 16, 2010, 03:36:56 PM
Marie, my point precisely... how does all of this work out with some degree of specificity... I can understand someone saying yes, a woman can read the lessons or no they cannot but when you start talking about authority in the marriage without any hints as to what it might mean in the kitchen, bedroom, chapel...  headship as I teach it in premarital counseling also has something to do with which head is the best... when the man is an MD and the woman not medically schooled it seems to me that headship in medical stuff leans more toward him, if the woman is a very pious Christian and the husband is very nominal, seems to me the headship leans toward her in spiritual matters.... Harvey Mozolak


Peter:

I am not trying to be an irritant, but where is this written? What does this mean?  What is the authority that a Christian bridegroom has over a Christian bride? 

The authority as to which house to buy? The authority to forgive? The authority as to when to have sex?  The authority of having the last word in an argument?  I honestly do not know what it meant by saying the Christian husband has authority over the Christian wife.  What about non-Christian marriages? Who has authority there?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 16, 2010, 03:46:29 PM
Marie, my point precisely... how does all of this work out with some degree of specificity... I can understand someone saying yes, a woman can read the lessons or no they cannot but when you start talking about authority in the marriage without any hints as to what it might mean in the kitchen, bedroom, chapel...  headship as I teach it in premarital counseling also has something to do with which head is the best... when the man is an MD and the woman not medically schooled it seems to me that headship in medical stuff leans more toward him, if the woman is a very pious Christian and the husband is very nominal, seems to me the headship leans toward her in spiritual matters.... Harvey Mozolak


Peter:

I am not trying to be an irritant, but where is this written? What does this mean?  What is the authority that a Christian bridegroom has over a Christian bride?  

The authority as to which house to buy? The authority to forgive? The authority as to when to have sex?  The authority of having the last word in an argument?  I honestly do not know what it meant by saying the Christian husband has authority over the Christian wife.  What about non-Christian marriages? Who has authority there?

Hey, how about we start a new thread on how Biblical submission in marriage plays out in day-to-day living?  To discuss it in the practical terms rather than just theological terms may shed a good deal of light on the gift that God has given us through this practice (and of course it will include the husband's responsibility to love his bride).  I'm willing to bet we'll gain a little better understanding of each other by so doing that discussing these hypotheticals simply do not allow for.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 16, 2010, 03:53:00 PM

Hey, how about we start a new thread on how Biblical submission in marriage plays out in day-to-day living?  ...

Actually my thoughts were this is another thread, and to refocus on the question of ordination, but folks wanted to use Eph 5, so we've tried to answer. Scott what did you want to bring to the ordination question in Ephesians 5? (notice I didn't try to read any ulterior motive here  ;D )

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: John Theiss on December 16, 2010, 05:23:56 PM
I will once again invite all participants to read "What Paul Really Said About Women" by John Temple Bristow, Harper Collins, 1988.  While you may disagree with his conclusions he does present arguments based on grammatical, exegetical and historical items which require one to deal with the original text rather then with translations.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 16, 2010, 05:28:49 PM
This would be the book written by a man with no credentials? Advancing a "conspiracy theory" about the entire history of the Church? In only 129 pages?

Ah, no thanks.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 17, 2010, 11:08:46 AM
In practical terms help me to understand what Paul means for a husband to "give himself up for her that he might sanctify her."

It may be as simple as deciding to spend more time with the family and not with his friends, refraining from getting angry in response to his wife's anger or challenging his wife to dig deeper into her understanding of the Christian faith.

I understand  "mutual consolution" to apply in marriage just as it does to all Christians within the Church. I understand you to conclude that in the horizontal marriage relationship Paul states that the husband plays a different part in the sanctificatin of his wife than she does in his. Certainly marriage is where"sanctification" and Christian living are most likly to take place or to fumble. Is this the shared responsibility of husband and wife, or is it primarily that of the husband?  

Paul speaks of dual responsibilities of submission and sacrifice, so it is the responsibility of both, though the part each plays differs.

By extension, do men in the church play a different role in the horizontal relationship of men and women than do the women? IOW, what does mutual consolation mean in the church?  I ask this because as the years progressed in our marriage mutually and reciprocity took on a greater meaning.

Paul here is speaking of marriage, though yes, men and women do relate to each other differently even in church.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 17, 2010, 11:16:23 AM

Hey, how about we start a new thread on how Biblical submission in marriage plays out in day-to-day living?  ...

Actually my thoughts were this is another thread, and to refocus on the question of ordination, but folks wanted to use Eph 5, so we've tried to answer. Scott what did you want to bring to the ordination question in Ephesians 5? (notice I didn't try to read any ulterior motive here  ;D )

TV

I brought Eph. 5 up to deal with Marie's initial claim:

Today, I question whether the LCMS misuses Scripture to falsely bind consciences to the idea that unity and order in the Church requires that men and women acknowledge that their God and Father assigns them non-interchangeable headship/subordination positions and functions.  Note, I do not dismiss anything St. Paul writes about Christ as Head of the Church or the husband as head of his wife. I submit what Paul says is about the organic unity of the head and body, not the head as being in authority over the body.

Eph. 5 clearly makes a distinction between men and women in the context of marriage such that their roles are not interchangeable.  Further, while it is based upon an organic unity, it is an ordered unity just like a body is an ordered thing as well.  That is, Paul distinguishes between men and women in Eph. 5 such that what we have is not a bland uniformity but actual diversity.

This is relevant to the discussion of women's ordination because it helps to put claims based solely upon Gal. 3:28 into perspective.  Paul is capable of speaking of absolute equality before God, but he is also capable of speaking of diversity of roles in horizontal relations.

This provides the necessary warrant for claims that Paul does make distinctions between the sexes -- he does so in the home, so there's no a priori reason based on Gal. 3:28 that he might not do so in the church.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 17, 2010, 12:42:26 PM
Paul is capable of speaking of absolute equality before God, but he is also capable of speaking of diversity of roles in horizontal relations.

This provides the necessary warrant for claims that Paul does make distinctions between the sexes -- he does so in the home, so there's no a priori reason based on Gal. 3:28 that he might not do so in the church.

Scott:  What you have written above is an accurate summary of what the CTCR refers to as the four Scriptural principles upon which the conclusion is based that the critical distinction between the sexes  necessary for a procreative heterosexual marriage is also a spiritual distinction applicable to men and women in the Church.  This spiritual distinction is the basis for different male/female roles in the Church.

I still do not fully understand what God reveals is the basis for a spiritual distinction that leads to different roles in the Church.  There is a missng link there that I honestly do not get.  If Christ, in his person as the Son of God who became incarnate as a human male, exemplifies what sacrifical love and submissive love is all about,  how do sacrifice and submission become male and female functions?  Ephesians 5 refers to the sacrificial love of Christ and that of husband for wife.  In this text the love of a wife is in terms of submission.  Are there no texts where submissive love belongs to all who are recreated in the image of Christ.  Is sacrificial love a male love and not a female love? 




Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 17, 2010, 12:48:03 PM
This would be the book written by a man with no credentials? Advancing a "conspiracy theory" about the entire history of the Church? In only 129 pages?

So there's no objective truth that can be found by anyone through the study of the grammar and words and historical items of the original text; that one's "credentials" pre-determine the truth that one finds in the text.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: swbohler on December 17, 2010, 01:01:15 PM
"The catechism answers the question of what motivated Christ by pointing to "His great love for His Father and for me." God is Love and Jesus is God, but His love for His Father took the form of submission and His love for me took the form of sacrifice, both of which meet on the cross. Both are godly, Christ-like forms of love, and we are called to both when we follow Jesus. All of us are called to both in different situations. All of us submit out of reverence for Christ. All of us give ourselves up out of reverence for Christ. There is no controversy merely with that. Christian parents have authority over Christian children with no confusion as to whether the parents, too, are children of God. And Christian bridegrooms have authority over Christian brides with no confusion as to whether bridegrooms, too, are the bride of Christ."


Rev. Speckhard, you are brilliant!  Your ability to cut through the layers and make pithy, understandable points is a great gift. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 17, 2010, 01:42:08 PM


I brought Eph. 5 up to deal with Marie's initial claim:

Today, I question whether the LCMS misuses Scripture to falsely bind consciences to the idea that unity and order in the Church requires that men and women acknowledge that their God and Father assigns them non-interchangeable headship/subordination positions and functions.  Note, I do not dismiss anything St. Paul writes about Christ as Head of the Church or the husband as head of his wife. I submit what Paul says is about the organic unity of the head and body, not the head as being in authority over the body.

Eph. 5 clearly makes a distinction between men and women in the context of marriage such that their roles are not interchangeable.  ... it is an ordered unity just like a body is an ordered thing as well.  That is, Paul distinguishes between men and women in Eph. 5 such that what we have is not a bland uniformity but actual diversity.

This is relevant to the discussion of women's ordination because it helps to put claims based solely upon Gal. 3:28 into perspective.  ...This provides the necessary warrant for claims that Paul does make distinctions between the sexes -- he does so in the home, so there's no a priori reason based on Gal. 3:28 that he might not do so in the church.

Thank you.  I'm sure we will look at other scripture, so that gives me some idea as to how you see this. I'll not really argue the conclusions you bring, but will bring some thoughts and questions on those conclusions.

Clearly there is distinction, and diversity in an ontological sense. I know of no confessional Lutheran that does not affirm this. How this is applied takes many different forms throughout scripture. The question I raise is one of accidental or causal. (by accidental I do not reject that God intended the distinction or that it is within the purpose of His will.) How we see "such that their roles" bears some consideration. That is why I say vocation becomes important. (Luther's Table of Duties etc.) I would propose that we are not seeing here, that the accidental being put into vocation, can of necessity, reverse the distinction back into the source identity in different circumstance.

My previous examples are note worthy.
Christ loved also by getting on his knees, and washing feet as a servant. (John 13) .. and in connection especially 13:38 ... Peter subjected himself also by sacrificial loving. (John 21) "I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." After this he said "Follow me." (in sacrifice?)

It is a case, among other things, of bringing the specific to the general, in a tangential way. There is a path to your logic here. Take the specific in accident to a general, and inserting it back into a different accident. I think we have to look at what we can say from the text with assurance.

1. It is rooted in verse 21, and I would say also in verses 15-18.
2. God created this distinction and diversity to a purpose "... just as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body. 31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  ... I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. " (male and female).

We end up with two things.
?Interchangeability? The relationship of head and body is focused on and seen in the unity. (verse 21) Christ did not deny His distinction as Master, by going to His knees, to serve. (John 13) Peter did not deny His subjection by asserting his sacrificial love. (John 21 especially verse 19(This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) Each of these still showed the relationship of the one body.

The practical expression of these things, can be as diverse as the descriptive we see in these examples. I'm not sure I can reject the command of my Lord, "15For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." even kneeling before the woman who is accidentally my wife. Nor can I dismiss His appeal to Peter, "... do you love (agapE) me?" as the church subject to her head, as not encouraging my wife to the same sacrificial love, to one who is accidentally her husband. This "mystery" is not lightly dismissed as "roles" that blend in the unity of the body. What are we talking about when we speak of interchanging responses of role? The answer it seems to me, has to be vocationally focused (Christ is still the head, the church still subject) and not causally attached to the description of role.

Secondly, to the issue of God's intent to create them man and woman, we have some scripture in addition to this, and that includes Galations. To this text, there is certainly some indication that the mystery of Christ and the Church is a part of this, and that the unity of one body is a part. "there's no a priori reason .. that he might not do so in the church." does sort of beg the question.  This is what I ask, when I say, "Can we take the specific to the general, and then push that back into a different specific?" What concerns me is that given the vocational anchor, that we do that against a different vocation, ie. not wife but women in the church.

I confess that we only ordain "some" men, to the pastoral office on vocational scripture. (1 Tim Titus etc.) I am not guided directly as to what my relationship with your wife ought to be in either this text, nor in the vocational descriptions in those texts. As a Lutheran, when faced with the question "Is there a reason?" I do not a priori set aside that the tension itself may be the doctrine. (bread and body, saint and sinner etc.) I simply keep reading for the things scripture says plainly.

At least at this point, I do not see in the Ephesians text, clear guidance as to my relationship with your wife or Marie, beyond the texts that do speak of all of us as Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. I wonder about its applicability to those questions on the basis of accidental identity. I have to look elsewhere? I am called clearly to a relationship with your wife. That is the question, not the one I have with my wife. Might I color it with your relationship with her ... maybe, but how is that done, and what of the single mother, estranged from her family, father and brothers in my congregation? Do I assign an Elder and deal through him?

Do these questions make no sense?

TV

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 17, 2010, 02:30:20 PM
"The catechism answers the question ....
Rev. Speckhard, you are brilliant!  Your ability to cut through the layers and make pithy, understandable points is a great gift. 

This post may be funny following my previous "pithy" post.  ;D

However, do not assume that lengthy discussion cannot be expressed in pithy assertion.

I would say we see this simply in vocation. I look for a wife, and scripture is clear as to where I look. I look for a woman. This does not mean the woman is a wife or wifelike, a priori. She comes to the vocation qualified, in part by identity as a woman. I need a pastor. I look for him among some men that scripture plainly defines. His identity as a man does not make him a pastor or pastorlike. He fills a vocation. That's pithy and understandable.

It doesn't mean we will not argue at great length, but it is scriptural, concise and I suppose I could say "deal with it, No further discussion needed."

The problem here is not necessarily as to conclusion in practice. It is the construct of a Calvinist philosophy among Lutherans and its impact on other practices, strained in how that is determined.

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 17, 2010, 02:34:44 PM
Most of the longish comments posted on this forum could, in my professional opinion, stand a good editing. Take what you have written, run it through your word processor's word count, then challenge yourself to cut it to half, and you will find you have a much better post on your hands. Not many, but much.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 17, 2010, 02:35:38 PM
Let me demonstrate:

My last comment could have been simply:

Many comments here are too long to be clear. Cut them in half. That would be best.

 :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Evangel on December 17, 2010, 02:44:16 PM
You took two posts to say that?   ;)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 17, 2010, 02:44:56 PM
Comment WIN!!

 ;D
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 17, 2010, 04:00:36 PM
At least at this point, I do not see in the Ephesians text, clear guidance as to my relationship with your wife or Marie, beyond the texts that do speak of all of us as Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. I wonder about its applicability to those questions on the basis of accidental identity. I have to look elsewhere? I am called clearly to a relationship with your wife. That is the question, not the one I have with my wife. Might I color it with your relationship with her ... maybe, but how is that done, and what of the single mother, estranged from her family, father and brothers in my congregation? Do I assign an Elder and deal through him?

The Ephesians text is clear that we all get to submit to one another, husbands and wives get to do so in a unique way for one another.

Although divorced, in the church I consider myself more like a "widow" in that I do not have a husband to speak for me, and my family is multiple states away. So I, for the most part, expect the elders and pastor to consider my opinions on church matters, more so than I would if I were married.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 17, 2010, 04:02:36 PM
Paul here is speaking of marriage, though yes, men and women do relate to each other differently even in church.

In what way do men and women relate to each other differently in church?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: John Theiss on December 17, 2010, 05:02:27 PM
I am saddened, but not surprised, by your response to "What Paul Really Said About Women", Pr. McCain.  It is the practice of those who will not or cannot face what may challenge their assumptions to demonize those who present the challenge.  By the way, most of us would benefit from noting that church history does start before 1517 (or 1847 for that matter).  And the first 300+ years prior to "the great conversion" are some of the most challenging.  For what it is worth, I happen to accept both the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 17, 2010, 05:12:47 PM
John, the man is a Disciples of Christ minister who has no credentials, standing, or any other reason why we should regard his musings as serious and scholarly. And, to add insult to injury, we are supposed to regard this man's leftist musings on the text of Scripture, claiming to have found the "real" meaning of St. Paul, in only 129 pages, to be any sort of helpful document in this conversation.

Again, no thanks.

The history of the church catholic from the Dominical institution of the Apostolic ministry is instructive on this issue and when added to the normative authority of the Sacred Scripture makes it very clear that the ordination of women is both contrary to the Lord's will for the church and the Apostolic witness.

You can spare me the patronizing remarks about church history.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: John Theiss on December 17, 2010, 05:21:42 PM
They are not intended to be patronizing comments (although I repent of the snarky aspect of them).  And how do you decide that someone does not have enough credentials for you to consider what he writes?  Your unwillingness to address the content while so easily rejecting the messenger is what makes me sad.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 17, 2010, 05:25:03 PM
John, I'm sorry, but simply because somebody puts out a book claiming to have the "real" knowledge of what St. Paul "really" meant, places no obligation on me to take him and his theories seriously, nor to respond to them. The burden of proof when advocating an overturn of the doctrine of our Lord and His Apostles rests entirely on those who choose to do so, not on us who say, "No."

There are times when the only response possible is: "No."

The ordination of women is one of those issues. Those who advocate it want to keep the issue in play and talk it to death in order to advance their agenda. This is how the ELCA adopted the homosexual agenda, via death by a thousand cuts.



Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: John Theiss on December 17, 2010, 05:34:35 PM
And the point here is that he is claiming to give the "proof" - but to refuse to look at it is reject your own argument.  The fact that you wish to argue that "the history of the church catholic" rejects women in the public ministry does not make it so - especially if that history has been selectively applied by following generations.  You have the chance to show how his position is wrong; your claim that it is without being willing to show how it is wrong is no stronger an argument than his.  If indeed the church has held a position for 1700 years (but not one held for the first 250 years) that position is no more valid because it is longer than was the position of the church against which the Reformation was waged.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 17, 2010, 05:37:41 PM
And the point here is that he is claiming to give the "proof" - but to refuse to look at it is reject your own argument.  The fact that you wish to argue that "the history of the church catholic" rejects women in the public ministry does not make it so - especially if that history has been selectively applied by following generations.  You have the chance to show how his position is wrong; your claim that it is without being willing to show how it is wrong is no stronger an argument than his.  If indeed the church has held a position for 1700 years (but not one held for the first 250 years) that position is no more valid because it is longer than was the position of the church against which the Reformation was waged.

If you like, perhaps you could share his principal arguments and we could see where they lead...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 18, 2010, 11:32:58 AM
The ordination of women is one of those issues. Those who advocate it want to keep the issue in play and talk it to death in order to advance their agenda. This is how the ELCA adopted the homosexual agenda, via death by a thousand cuts.

The above comment surfaced my street smart NYC personality. 

Then my kind tolerant patient maternal nature took over, so I deleted what the street smart kid wrote.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 18, 2010, 11:43:52 AM
And the point here is that he is claiming to give the "proof" - but to refuse to look at it is reject your own argument.  The fact that you wish to argue that "the history of the church catholic" rejects women in the public ministry does not make it so - especially if that history has been selectively applied by following generations.  You have the chance to show how his position is wrong; your claim that it is without being willing to show how it is wrong is no stronger an argument than his.  If indeed the church has held a position for 1700 years (but not one held for the first 250 years) that position is no more valid because it is longer than was the position of the church against which the Reformation was waged.

That's fine, John. Others may choose to devote their time to refuting the man. I don't have the time. I do not have the interest. I'm simply saying "No" and that is the kindest thing that must be said sometimes. "Get thee me Satan" is the attitude I'm adopting here toward this gentleman, recognizing that while he may be a perfectly nice person with the finest of intentions, it is ultimate the force of demonic desire to overthrow sound doctrine that lies at the root of all sin and evil, in our own lives, and in the lives of the church.

Again, there is at work in these discussions a fundamental error in assumption made by those who wish to keep raising this issue in order to move the ball further toward the goal of the ordination of women: keep "raising questions" and keep "appealing for dialogue" and so forth. Keeping the issue "in play."

I believe and am convinced that there is more than enough evidence marshalled through tremendously helpful resources, such as in the book "Women Pastors" to counter all and any such arguments.

Those who choose to continue to push this issue should consider finding a church home where their views are welcome and accepted.

I concur with Herman Sasse who recounted this incident when the Pope was confronted by a woman demanding to be heard on the ordination of women:

“During the First Session of the Second Vatican Council a lady turned up in Rome and asked for an audience with the pope to discuss with him the question of the ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood. She was Dr. Gertrud Heinzelmann, a lawyer at Lucerne, the famous centre of the Roman Church in Switzerland. Pope John, who was otherwise kindness and patience personified, lost his patience. ‘Tell that suffragette that I shall never receive her. She should go back to her homeland.’ Why did the good pope, who was otherwise prepared for a dialog even with the worst enemies of the Church, give such a harsh answer? Could he not have replied something like this: ‘Tell my daughter that the ordination of women is against the Word of God’? This was his argument when the Archbishop of Canterbury declared such ordination to be against the tradition of the Church. Could he not have referred her for further information to one of his theologians? John was not an intellectual like his predecessor. He was not a great theologian either. But he was, as his ‘Journals’ show, a great pastor. Every pastor knows, or should know, that there are cases, when a discussion is impossible and the only answer to a question can be that ‘Begone, Satan!’ which Jesus spoke not only to the devil (Matthew 4.10), but also to his faithful confessor, Simon Peter (Matthew 16.23).” Sasse, “Ordination of Women”, in The Lutheran 5.9 (3 May 1971): 3.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: John Theiss on December 18, 2010, 02:27:13 PM
I believe Leo X said something similar re:  Brother Martin.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 18, 2010, 02:29:30 PM
I believe Leo X said something similar re:  Brother Martin.

Your point?

I second Rev. Yakimow's suggestion:

"If you like, perhaps you could share his principal arguments and we could see where they lead..."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 18, 2010, 02:31:29 PM
I believe Leo X said something similar re:  Brother Martin.

Why stop there? Let me see your bet and raise you.

Pilate said the same thing to/about Jesus.

So, now the proponents of the ordination of women may compare themselves to Martin Luther and to the Lord Christ.

John, if you would care to set out here on this forum the major points of your recommended book on the subject, I'm sure Pastors Yakimow and Kirchner will prove to be worthy opponents in a debate.

Pr. McCain is just not interested, because he is like Pope John XXIII, call me Pope John Paul, if you prefer.

 :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 18, 2010, 03:10:04 PM
Began thread with the recognized LCMS definitive defense of a male pastorate as stated in the 1985 CTCR report Women in the Church (WIC). The report has been affirmed by three LCMS conventions and is a resource used by many essayists in Women Pastors? 

The essence of the synod’s defense of a male pastorate is the authority of male headship in relation to women.  It is not clear whether this authority is inherent in maleness or whether it is assigned to Christian men only. In any case, the LCMS does not apply male headship to society. The stated reason is the absence of any Biblical laws related to male headship in society.

WIC and the CTCR report Human Sexuality acknowledge that headship in the home results in functional hierarchy and a certain inequality of authority. This inequality of authority, necessary for unity and order in the home and the well being of the wife, is applicable to the Church. In both reports women/wives are subordinate, but equal, though not in the exercise of authority. An article in the Lutheran Witness later stated that women/wives in the Church are “with authority,” but they may not be “in authority.”

Ultimately, the LCMS defense of a male pastorate is based on the premise that the pastoral office is a headship position of authority in relation to the congregation.  Since headship is a male vocation, only men, according to their position in the OC and the HS may be ordained to the pastoral office. 

Question: What is the basis for concluding the pastor is head of the congregation? Is the authority of the pastor in relation to the congregation like the authority of a husband in relation to his wife?  In what way does Scripture apply headship to the pastoral office?  Is there a difference in how the pastor relates to the men of his congregation and how he relates to the women of his congregation. 

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 18, 2010, 03:38:04 PM
Is the authority of the pastor in relation to the congregation like the authority of a husband in relation to his wife?  

Perhaps if you started with the proposition that the authority of the Christ in relation to his bride, the church, is like the authority of a husband in relation to his wife...

E.g., "In marriage we see a picture of the communion between Christ and His bride, the Church."  [LSB, p. 275]
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 18, 2010, 04:22:03 PM
Is the authority of the pastor in relation to the congregation like the authority of a husband in relation to his wife?  
Perhaps if you started with the proposition that the authority of the Christ in relation to his bride, the church, is like the authority of a husband in relation to his wife...
E.g., "In marriage we see a picture of the communion between Christ and His bride, the Church."  [LSB, p. 275]

I think there is something backwards in saying the authority of Christ in relation to his bride, the church, is like the authority of a husband in relation to his wife.  The husband/wife relationship mirrors the relationship of Christ to the Church.  Christ is the Head of the Church who uses His authority to lift up the Church as His counterpart on earth. He then entrusts His authority over sin to Her with the commmand that She exercise authority as He has given it to Her.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 18, 2010, 04:30:29 PM
Okay. Saying that something is "like" something else is not hierarchical. I merely used your order and replaced one who stands in the stead and by the command of Christ with the principal.

I.e., it's your order, so change it if you wish.

But if you don't mind I don't care to modify the LSB rite to:

"In the communion between Christ and His bride, the Church, we see a picture of marriage."

I'd like to keep it the way it is. Nor do I care to discontinue using the term "the Bride of Christ (the Church)" and start characterizing a marriage as "Husband and Church" or "Church and Groom."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 18, 2010, 05:04:54 PM
Began thread with the recognized LCMS definitive defense of a male pastorate as stated in the 1985 CTCR report Women in the Church (WIC). The report has been affirmed by three LCMS conventions and is a resource used by many essayists in Women Pastors? 

The essence of the synod’s defense of a male pastorate is the authority of male headship in relation to women.  It is not clear whether this authority is inherent in maleness or whether it is assigned to Christian men only. In any case, the LCMS does not apply male headship to society. The stated reason is the absence of any Biblical laws related to male headship in society.

WIC and the CTCR report Human Sexuality acknowledge that headship in the home results in functional hierarchy and a certain inequality of authority. This inequality of authority, necessary for unity and order in the home and the well being of the wife, is applicable to the Church. In both reports women/wives are subordinate, but equal, though not in the exercise of authority. An article in the Lutheran Witness later stated that women/wives in the Church are “with authority,” but they may not be “in authority.”

Ultimately, the LCMS defense of a male pastorate is based on the premise that the pastoral office is a headship position of authority in relation to the congregation.  Since headship is a male vocation, only men, according to their position in the OC and the HS may be ordained to the pastoral office. 

Question: What is the basis for concluding the pastor is head of the congregation? Is the authority of the pastor in relation to the congregation like the authority of a husband in relation to his wife?  In what way does Scripture apply headship to the pastoral office?  Is there a difference in how the pastor relates to the men of his congregation and how he relates to the women of his congregation. 


As usual, I question the usefulness of the phrase "defense of the male pastorate". It is not, nor has it ever been, a defensive position. It is simply the shape of the Christian religion, which itself is the proper shape of humanity. By setting it up as something in need of defense, you appropriate the position of status quo for the revisionist practice of ordaining women.   
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 18, 2010, 05:23:44 PM
Peter writes:
As usual, I question the usefulness of the phrase "defense of the male pastorate". It is not, nor has it ever been, a defensive position. It is simply the shape of the Christian religion, which itself is the proper shape of humanity.
I ask:
And those who do not have an all-male pastorate? Not the Christian religion? Not humanity?

Peter writes:
By setting it up as something in need of defense, you appropriate the position of status quo for the revisionist practice of ordaining women.
I comment:
"Defense" is a word that can be neutral, like "apology" in some settings. (The "apology" to the Augustana, for example.) Can it not mean "explain"?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 18, 2010, 05:28:38 PM
Peter writes:
As usual, I question the usefulness of the phrase "defense of the male pastorate". It is not, nor has it ever been, a defensive position. It is simply the shape of the Christian religion, which itself is the proper shape of humanity.
I ask:
And those who do not have an all-male pastorate? Not the Christian religion? Not humanity?

Yes, but heterodox, so not the proper shape. IOW, a female pastor of the Bride is akin to a homosexual relationship and, therefore, not the proper shape of humanity.

Peter writes:
By setting it up as something in need of defense, you appropriate the position of status quo for the revisionist practice of ordaining women.
I comment:
"Defense" is a word that can be neutral, like "apology" in some settings. (The "apology" to the Augustana, for example.) Can it not mean "explain"?

Good example which bolsters Peter's point about not needing to be in the defensive posture.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 18, 2010, 05:36:12 PM
Yes, but heterodox, so not the proper shape. IOW, a female pastor of the Bride is akin to a homosexual relationship and, therefore, not the proper shape of humanity.

No more so than the relationship of a male member of the Bride of Christ with the Bridegroom.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 18, 2010, 05:45:04 PM
Yes, but heterodox, so not the proper shape. IOW, a female pastor of the Bride is akin to a homosexual relationship and, therefore, not the proper shape of humanity.

No more so than the relationship of a male member of the Bride of Christ with the Bridegroom.

Ah, no. that's an invalid comparison that changes the analogy. The male member is a member of the Bride through his baptism so his gender is not applicable anyway. Gal 4:28.  Christ and His Church is the level of the analogy and the relationship. The Church, as the Bride, and its relationship with a female pastor in the stead of Christ, however, is a picture of a homosexual one.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 19, 2010, 03:53:37 PM
As usual, I question the usefulness of the phrase "defense of the male pastorate". It is not, nor has it ever been, a defensive position. It is simply the shape of the Christian religion, which itself is the proper shape of humanity.

Peter:

Peter, I would respectfully ask you to think through the above statements. 

For most of Church history, the idea that women not serve as pastors fell into the same category as women not being physicians, lawyers, university professors, etc. Well into the 19th century few women had the opportunity for higher education. There was a not uncommon perception that they were not emotionally or intellectually suited for careers suited to men (see Darwin and Freud).      Until the time of Florence Nightingale it was not considered appropriate for women to leave her home and care for the sick beyond her family. (When the church of England told her to stay home and crochet, she went to Germany where deaconess nurses were being trained by Lutheran pastor Fliedner.) 

Once women became educated, they entered "male" professions. In time the question was asked, "Why not the ministry?" Initially single Christian women became non-ordained missionaries where they served as evangelists, medical missionaries, teachers and Christian advocates for abused wmen and neglected children. In the Roman Catholic Church they became seminary professors and pastoral counselors.

Meanwhile the LCMS quesioned whether women should teach an adult Bible Class if men were present. To defend the various restrictions placesd on the service of women in the church, the LCMS adopted as it's primary defense against women teaching Bible Class the order of creation as defined by Fritz Zerbst. Today the order of creation, said to be based on texts in the Old and New Testament is the primary defense of a male pastorate. It has been become a defensive posture, one that was not necessary when women were not educated.

The irony is that within the last few years the CTCR has been accused of soft pedaling this defense by persons who think that God forbids women in areas beyond the pastoral office.  Some essayists in Women Pastors" consider this defense of a male pastorate a faith issue.

If I understand your comments above the fact that women, by virture of their created femaleness, are to subject themselves to the authority of men belongs to the shape of the Christian faith which is the shape of humanity.  How do you avoid concluding that all women are subject to all men or that a woman must be under the authority of one man, father, husband or elder brother or ?

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Mike Bennett on December 19, 2010, 07:58:59 PM
As for the North American Lutheran Church and its "study" of the issue. It was clear to me watching the proceedings that the NALC has no intention of studying the issue with a view toward abandoning this unapostolic and anti-catholic practice, but rather to bolster the practice by studies that are more theologically oriented. I think that is a key point to make.

1. I am not a member of the NALC.  At the assembly where it was formed I signed the list for the minutes disavowing any participation in its formaion, though as a layman there was no "reason" for me to do so.  I simply wanted it to be clear.

2. Having said that, what you've written above is as blatant a violation of the Eighth Commandment as I've confronted recently.  You have no earthly idea what NALC's intention is, and your pretending otherwise is inexcusable. 

3. As Mrs. Meyer has in the introductory posting of this topic been meticulously clear in stating here position, both personal and theological, regarding women's ordination, do you now publicly undertake to abandon your habit of hectoring her about it, as though she somehow owes you a statement of her positon?

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: George Erdner on December 19, 2010, 08:41:55 PM
Life would sure be a lot simpler if analogies were proof.

It is an accurate statement to say, "Sugar is like honey, as both are sweet". It is also an accurate statement to say, "Sugar is not like honey, as sugar is granulated crystals and honey is a sticky fluid". Any statement that says "X is like Y" is only valid when, in context, the similar characteristics of X and Y are what is being discussed. Even if the Apostle Paul writes it down in an Epistle, the comparisons are only as accurate as they really are.

The relationship between Jesus and His church is similar to many other relationships. Those similar relationships are valuable as illustrations of aspects of that relationship, but they are not identical. Christ is indeed like a bridegroom to His church in some ways. That doesn't mean Christ is responsible for mowing the lawn, taking out the garbage, or holding the TV remote. Christ is like a shepherd to His church. That doesn't mean he literally uses a wooden crook to pull us out of places.

There is only one thing less useful than attempting to stretch analogies far beyond their breaking points. That is pedantic, sophist nitpicking at the obvious aspects of the analogies that do not apply. Such questions should be expected from high school kids in the 10th grade, or college students in their second year of study. Graduates of seminary should be above such sophomoric rhetoric.
 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 19, 2010, 10:05:52 PM
As usual, I question the usefulness of the phrase "defense of the male pastorate". It is not, nor has it ever been, a defensive position. It is simply the shape of the Christian religion, which itself is the proper shape of humanity.

Peter:

Peter, I would respectfully ask you to think through the above statements. 

For most of Church history, the idea that women not serve as pastors fell into the same category as women not being physicians, lawyers, university professors, etc.
Actually, I have been the one maintaining all along that the movement to ordain women is premised on the women's rights movement and sexual revolution, with women becoming pastors following the same logic as women becoming lawyers, etc. But when I point out the suspicious chronological coincidence, people tell me, no, the move to ordain women is a purely theological thing independent of secular feminism.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 20, 2010, 12:35:02 AM
Actually, I have been the one maintaining all along that the movement to ordain women is premised on the women's rights movement and sexual revolution, with women becoming pastors following the same logic as women becoming lawyers, etc. But when I point out the suspicious chronological coincidence, people tell me, no, the move to ordain women is a purely theological thing independent of secular feminism.

While your argument might have some merit in regards to mainline ordinations, there were female evangelists and church leaders long before the woman's rights movement. I quickly think of Aimee Semple McPherson, Kathryn Kuhlman, Mary Baker Eddy, and I'm sure that there are many others.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on December 20, 2010, 01:35:04 AM

While your argument might have some merit in regards to mainline ordinations, there were female evangelists and church leaders long before the woman's rights movement. I quickly think of Aimee Semple McPherson, Kathryn Kuhlman, Mary Baker Eddy, and I'm sure that there are many others.

 ::)

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 20, 2010, 03:48:26 AM
Ann Hutchinson, in colonial days; the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on December 20, 2010, 09:21:23 AM
Ann Hutchinson, in colonial days; the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.

OK, Charles, I'll give you Ann Hutchinson.  But just when do you and Brian think the movement for women's rights began?

(I think to claim that any of those women named from either the twentieth or the nineteenth centuries were unaffected by the movement for women's rights is very problematic.  And the movement for women's rights encompassed much more than the right to vote, which actually was seen as a means to an end.)

 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Team Hesse on December 20, 2010, 09:30:15 AM
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 20, 2010, 09:32:13 AM
Ann Hutchinson, in colonial days; the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.

OK, Charles, I'll give you Ann Hutchinson.  But just when do you and Brian think the movement for women's rights began?

I have just been enlightened. The first woman's right convention was held in 1848; with a national convention in 1850.

However, I think that Peter's use of "secular feminism" points more specifically to the second wave of the woman's rights movement in the 1960's.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 20, 2010, 09:34:33 AM
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Mary Magdalene is referred to as "the apostle to the apostles" by Bernard of Clairvaux.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on December 20, 2010, 09:56:43 AM
Ann Hutchinson, in colonial days; the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.

OK, Charles, I'll give you Ann Hutchinson.  But just when do you and Brian think the movement for women's rights began?

I have just been enlightened. The first woman's right convention was held in 1848; with a national convention in 1850.

However, I think that Peter's use of "secular feminism" points more specifically to the second wave of the woman's rights movement in the 1960's.

The movement for women's rights has gone through a number of "waves"; and a distinction must be made between the movement beginning in the late 1950's that crested in the early 1970's, and the one that emerged in the mid-to-late eighties and continues to affect us today.  All of these waves are related to one another, but there are critical differences.  This last wave is one that I take great objection to, as I think it has gone in a direction that, among other things, rejects the basic teachings of Christianity and draws its strength from ancient (but very much alive and kicking) heresies. 

(And Brian, you might want to look up Mary Wollstonecroft, the mother of Mary Shelley.  Interesting anticedents to the "modern" women's rights movement.)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 20, 2010, 09:59:19 AM
Erma writes:
OK, Charles, I'll give you Ann Hutchinson.  But just when do you and Brian think the movement for women's rights began?

I comment:
Don't know about what Pastor Stoffregen thinks on this, but I tend to wonder whether the "movement" began long long ago in a galaxy far away, maybe the first time a woman was "sold" as a bride, maybe as Hildegard of Bingen sought to exercise her vocation, or Teresa of Avila began writing letters to the pope, or when Jean d'Arc put on armor and rallied her troops, when Quaker women began leading the movement for abolition of slavery or, and or, and or....

Let's go w-a-y back and consider the time when, in Lysistrata, Aristophanes gave the women of Greece leadership of a "movement" to use free their womanliness from male domination and use it to end war.

Maybe even the Blessed Virgin Mary took the Word of God spoken to her as her own "movement" to accept a situation and a role probably denied to her by her society.

To attribute a "woman's movement" only to secular concerns of the sixties is simply a ruse to make it easier for some theological types to dismiss its importance.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on December 20, 2010, 10:12:29 AM

Maybe even the Blessed Virgin Mary took the Word of God spoken to her as her own "movement" to accept a situation and a role probably denied to her by her society.

Not sure I agree with you altogether on this.  But I am personally convinced that the proper translation in Luke for Mary's reply to the angel Gabriel is that she is "the servant of the Lord"; and that in this she (and the evangelist St. Luke) are intentionally echoing the prophet Isaiah in his "servant-songs." 

And while I obviously disagree with my brothers and sisters in the Missouri Synod on the matter of ordination, I believe that one of the most powerful prophetic statements was made silently by the woman in the Gospel of Mark (and Matthew) who poured the perfumed oil over the head of Jesus right before his Passion.  As Samuel and the other prophets of old, she was declaring him the Anointed One by her act, which spoke louder than words for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 20, 2010, 11:27:00 AM
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou

The OHM didn't exist during Deborah's and Huldah's time, while Junia -- whether she is actually termed an apostle or simply well-known among the apostles doesn't matter much -- could easily have been one of a large groups of apostles that were just what the term means.  I.e., sent one.  The early Christian churches (and Jewish synagogues) sent people carrying messages to other churches (and synagogues) in order to communicate with them.  The apostle was essentially a letter-carrier and did not necessarily have any particular authority other than to deliver the letters.  Sorta like an ancient pony express.  ;)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 20, 2010, 01:04:11 PM
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou

The OHM didn't exist during Deborah's and Huldah's time, while Junia -- whether she is actually termed an apostle or simply well-known among the apostles doesn't matter much -- could easily have been one of a large groups of apostles that were just what the term means.  I.e., sent one.  The early Christian churches (and Jewish synagogues) sent people carrying messages to other churches (and synagogues) in order to communicate with them.  The apostle was essentially a letter-carrier and did not necessarily have any particular authority other than to deliver the letters.  Sorta like an ancient pony express.  ;)

I might choose to speak to Deborah later, but I do note that I love the text in 2nd Kings for its rich pearls of verses.

" 2 [Josiah] did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left." and 13 “Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” and 19 Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people... and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the LORD. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your ancestors, and you will be buried in peace.   All this on the proclamation of a woman. Josiah just simply sought the heart of God.

Some thoughts from one who does still say scripture teaches only some men should be called for the Pastoral Office. Yet we cannot simply base this in human construct and structure that denies the plain description of faithful women's service, such that the scriptural examples are tossed aside.

"not turning aside to the right or to the left." He was blessed to stay out of ditches... because his heart was responsive and he repented, when he heard what God had spoken. I don't know about you, but, Oh that I could have that on my tombstone! ... buried in peace, gathered to my ancestors..

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: James Gustafson on December 20, 2010, 01:21:23 PM
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou

The OHM didn't exist during Deborah's and Huldah's time, while Junia -- whether she is actually termed an apostle or simply well-known among the apostles doesn't matter much -- could easily have been one of a large groups of apostles that were just what the term means.  I.e., sent one.  The early Christian churches (and Jewish synagogues) sent people carrying messages to other churches (and synagogues) in order to communicate with them.  The apostle was essentially a letter-carrier and did not necessarily have any particular authority other than to deliver the letters.  Sorta like an ancient pony express.  ;)


Oooh, jeez, I'm dealing with just Junia here, but this is a hard one I think.  Yes, AND no, not a completely comprehensive answer I think.    ???

I think the oral tradition was enhanced via the letters and writings, which were carried back and forth, and especially while the authors yet lived the carrier (s) would be expected to be able to answer questions about the letters being carried or the authors who spoke/wrote them.  To carry and deliver the written word would also lead to the expectation of being able to answer question about the letters, would it not? Such questions as "what are they referring to when they said..." or, "what was their mood, how happy or upset when they said this here", or just plain old questions about general health and expectations and travel plans etc.   Additionally, it's hard for me to imagine that the letters wouldn't have been read aloud many times, perhaps at every house that had Christians in it when the carrier stopped along the way, so they would be memorized by repetition by the carriers by default even if not by requirement.   So no, I don't think its completely fair to assume the letter carriers were simply pony express carriers.  A simple mail carrier who wouldn't even know what was in the envelopes, a non-Christian wouldn't have been expected to carry the letters, or so I think.  The oral tradition kept the words of the original spoken word alive, the letters were necessary for endurance when the authors began to die off.  So clearly, I'm referring only to very early tradition, but the period of time the Junia should belong to.  

Am I mistaken?  If Junia carried letters regularly I suspect she would by necessity be a source of public knowledge, a.k.a., a teacher of the gospel. I can't prove this, but what do you think, does the material support such an outlook in your opinion?  If so, what does that tell us about Junia?

There's so little to work with here, I'm afraid of coming to rock solid answers with so much speculation involved.  :-\
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 20, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
Why do people offer examples of women who weren't pastors as proof that women can be pastors?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on December 20, 2010, 02:45:14 PM
Life would sure be a lot simpler if analogies were proof.

It is an accurate statement to say, "Sugar is like honey, as both are sweet". It is also an accurate statement to say, "Sugar is not like honey, as sugar is granulated crystals and honey is a sticky fluid". Any statement that says "X is like Y" is only valid when, in context, the similar characteristics of X and Y are what is being discussed. Even if the Apostle Paul writes it down in an Epistle, the comparisons are only as accurate as they really are.

The relationship between Jesus and His church is similar to many other relationships. Those similar relationships are valuable as illustrations of aspects of that relationship, but they are not identical. Christ is indeed like a bridegroom to His church in some ways. That doesn't mean Christ is responsible for mowing the lawn, taking out the garbage, or holding the TV remote. Christ is like a shepherd to His church. That doesn't mean he literally uses a wooden crook to pull us out of places.

There is only one thing less useful than attempting to stretch analogies far beyond their breaking points. That is pedantic, sophist nitpicking at the obvious aspects of the analogies that do not apply. Such questions should be expected from high school kids in the 10th grade, or college students in their second year of study. Graduates of seminary should be above such sophomoric rhetoric.
 

You illustrate a key failing in the attempts to "relativize" the Pauline Epistles, George...  Namely that in an attempt to "relativize" the Epistles, people have attempted to reduce them to analogies, which empties them of their meaning, rather than opening them up. 

The truth is that we don't...maybe can't..know all the intentions of Paul in addressing the Corinthian Church.  All we know is that he commanded women to be silent in the Assembly.  Was it because there were women who were disrupting things?  Who knows?  Was it because Paul was a misogynist and/or a male chauvenist?  Who knows?  And in truth, such speculation is beyond our importance, unless you seek to do away with the Pauline Epostles completely.  And, as Lutherans, where are we if we do that?

What we know is that we have a CLEAR and uncomprimising Word of Scripture regarding the role of women within the Christian assembly.  You can ask "What about Deborah?  What about Junia?"  But Paul's word allows no "What abouts."  And, in keeping with Paul's teachings, I will ask "What about" Hildegard of Bingen, one of the women's movement's favorite characters, who deliberately walled herself off, taking on obedience to Paul's teaching as a mark of her fidelity.  What about Theresa of Avila, who niether sought ordination nor the authority of priests and Popes, but dared to stand toe-to-toe with a Pope and demand, in her lay-religious vocation, that the Pope return to Rome from Avignon?

And, if we are not to take 1 Corinthians at it's face, how then do we decide to take Romans 3 at it's flat, face value?

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Voelker on December 20, 2010, 02:48:19 PM
the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.

That's just funny.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 20, 2010, 02:55:03 PM
There is no profit in such prophets.

 :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Edward Engelbrecht on December 20, 2010, 03:41:28 PM
Why do people offer examples of women who weren't pastors as proof that women can be pastors?

Made me smile. I think it's because they have no other texts/examples. Gotta have something to justify what one wants to do.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on December 20, 2010, 04:11:25 PM
Why do people offer examples of women who weren't pastors as proof that women can be pastors?

Maybe you have hit on something that you didn't mean to, Peter...  (I got the thrust of your comment, but I have been chewing on something else in what you've said...)

So many times we have whittled this argument down to whether or not "women can be pastors."  And hence we get into the example of various women who served in leadership positions, cultural attitudes towards women's abilities, blah, blah, blah...  But as my kindergarden teacher used to remind me, this is not a "can" situation.  CAN a woman successfully fill the duties of the Holy Ministry of Word and Sacrament?  Sure.  Very few would debate the physical and mental attributes of women to preach, lead worship, provide pastoral comfort and care...  (Again, this works only if you reduce the Ministry to its bare functions, which is an ecclesiological issue of a different stripe.)  But that is skewing the issue.  The issue is not, "CAN" women be pastors, but "MAY" women serve in ordained ministry.

And for that answer you MUST look at an outside authority, just as surely as the child needing to use the bathroom must look towards their teacher for approval.  My thinking has moved from the "adiaphora" claimed by the ELCA and her predecessor bodies, back to the "Sola Scriptura" that governed Lutheran thinking for so long.  And not only the bare Sola, but also the unbroken orthodox teaching of the Church.  The issue is not "CAN" women serve, which I will answer with a hearty "YES," but "MAY" they serve, to which I have to answer "NO."  By whose authority did the PCB's of the ELCA make this change?  Not by the authority of Holy Scripture.  Not by the authority of orthodox teaching.  Not by any authority except the shaky authority of "this present time" where suddenly "we see things differently."

And to take seriously the whole "slippery slope" argument; while maybe not every body that has adopted the ordination of women has descended into deeper error...yet... what I will ask is something more subtle.  While it may be "possible" for those bodies to adopt women's ordination and not be sucked into the vortex of the other sexuality issues, I will rest more surely in the fact that the bodies that have NOT slipped on women's ordination have not slipped on the other sexuality issues either.  Call it the "Rocky Ledge" arguement.  Among the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, WELS, LCMS, and other bodies that have held firm on women's ordination, which among them have encountered the confusion that those who have compromised on WO have on sexuality?

Take your chance on the fact that a slippery slope might not slide.  I'd rather stand on the rocky ledge.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 20, 2010, 05:44:39 PM
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou

The OHM didn't exist during Deborah's and Huldah's time, while Junia -- whether she is actually termed an apostle or simply well-known among the apostles doesn't matter much -- could easily have been one of a large groups of apostles that were just what the term means.  I.e., sent one.  The early Christian churches (and Jewish synagogues) sent people carrying messages to other churches (and synagogues) in order to communicate with them.  The apostle was essentially a letter-carrier and did not necessarily have any particular authority other than to deliver the letters.  Sorta like an ancient pony express.  ;)


Oooh, jeez, I'm dealing with just Junia here, but this is a hard one I think.  Yes, AND no, not a completely comprehensive answer I think.    ???

I think the oral tradition was enhanced via the letters and writings, which were carried back and forth, and especially while the authors yet lived the carrier (s) would be expected to be able to answer questions about the letters being carried or the authors who spoke/wrote them.  To carry and deliver the written word would also lead to the expectation of being able to answer question about the letters, would it not? Such questions as "what are they referring to when they said..." or, "what was their mood, how happy or upset when they said this here", or just plain old questions about general health and expectations and travel plans etc.   Additionally, it's hard for me to imagine that the letters wouldn't have been read aloud many times, perhaps at every house that had Christians in it when the carrier stopped along the way, so they would be memorized by repetition by the carriers by default even if not by requirement.   So no, I don't think its completely fair to assume the letter carriers were simply pony express carriers.  A simple mail carrier who wouldn't even know what was in the envelopes, a non-Christian wouldn't have been expected to carry the letters, or so I think.  The oral tradition kept the words of the original spoken word alive, the letters were necessary for endurance when the authors began to die off.  So clearly, I'm referring only to very early tradition, but the period of time the Junia should belong to.  

Am I mistaken?  If Junia carried letters regularly I suspect she would by necessity be a source of public knowledge, a.k.a., a teacher of the gospel. I can't prove this, but what do you think, does the material support such an outlook in your opinion?  If so, what does that tell us about Junia?

There's so little to work with here, I'm afraid of coming to rock solid answers with so much speculation involved.  :-\

Knowledge of the Gospel and the content of the letters?  Sure.  But I know lots of laypeople of whom the same can be said (praise God!).

Which is to say I like Peter's pithy response (as modified by Jerry): "Why do people offer examples of women who weren't pastors as proof that women can may be pastors?"  As an apostle in the way defined above, Junia simply wasn't a pastor.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 20, 2010, 05:46:34 PM
Some thoughts from one who does still say scripture teaches only some men should be called for the Pastoral Office. Yet we cannot simply base this in human construct and structure that denies the plain description of faithful women's service, such that the scriptural examples are tossed aside.

Saying that the women didn't occupy the OHM doesn't mean that their service is being written off (sorry if the offhand remark about the "pony express" came across wrong; I just meant it as a mild funny).  It does mean that their service is being recognized in the ways that they did serve.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: James Gustafson on December 20, 2010, 06:44:44 PM
Pr. Yakimow, I agree with Pr. Speckhard, there is certainly no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Junia ever administered the sacraments or held any capacity of leadership in observing a religious service of any kind, and I also agree with the observation that Pr. Kliner points out.  I really only wanted to temper the idea that the letter carriers might be irreverent participants.  For the sake or the lurker I thought it important to point out how I think Christian letters spread the gospels and epistles in the very early Church.  The pony express bit was funny, but only funny so long as no one took it too seriously, male or female they served a seriously important and vital role, likely dangerous too.  A letter carrier arriving in town or passing though to other locations probably felt a lot like Christmas morning to a lot of first and second century Christians  :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 20, 2010, 10:19:50 PM
Some thoughts from one who does still say scripture teaches only some men should be called for the Pastoral Office. Yet we cannot simply base this in human construct and structure that denies the plain description of faithful women's service, such that the scriptural examples are tossed aside.

Saying that the women didn't occupy the OHM doesn't mean that their service is being written off .... [IF]  It does mean that their service is being recognized in the ways that they did serve.

That is a good statement that frames things well, I think. To Pr. Speckard's question, it is the framing that is a concern. So one might ask in reply... Why does it seem that some cast off examples of faithful service, to assert a proof of human construction about men and women when discussing the Office? It is as if the argument is diverted too dig a ditch away from the questions.

There are two points of focus that surround this. It is why I note, "2 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left."

The first is to the encouragement of all the people of God in response to His gifts. 1 Thess 5: "1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well .... 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. ... 11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. ...

16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all;"


       Secondly, There is concern for those who retreat to a false security and hope, that is not connected to the very work of the Office, but a type of division of human theory. God speaks clearly on His ways.

"12 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. 13 Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. ..."

I don't worry too much about the first, the women (and laymen) who respond to God's love. A. They can do nothing else but ...  Acts 4:“Which is right in God’s eyes... You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” ... and B. They find the ways God opens for them if they listen to His voice. LCMS deaconesses et al, are very good at this. They are not prevented by the men's concerns.

The second does concern me, that men place faith in a structure, apart from the very work of the Office. It is like having "faith in faith," instead of faith in Christ.

Quote
(sorry if the offhand remark about the "pony express" came across wrong; I just meant it as a mild funny). 

Not a problem, in that it was received as you intended. I would ask to examine it in light of the above though.

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 20, 2010, 10:29:28 PM
The first is to the encouragement of all the people of God in response to His gifts. 1 Thess 5: "1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well .... 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. ... 11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. ...
"12 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. 13 Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. ..."


Why do you add the words "and sisters" to the text?

I have no problem being a brother in Christ, since we have all been adopted as sons of God in Baptism (Gal. 4:6). :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 20, 2010, 10:31:58 PM
Some thoughts from one who does still say scripture teaches only some men should be called for the Pastoral Office. Yet we cannot simply base this in human construct and structure that denies the plain description of faithful women's service, such that the scriptural examples are tossed aside.

Saying that the women didn't occupy the OHM doesn't mean that their service is being written off .... [IF]  It does mean that their service is being recognized in the ways that they did serve.

That is a good statement that frames things well, I think. To Pr. Speckard's question, it is the framing that is a concern. So one might ask in reply... Why does it seem that some cast off examples of faithful service, to assert a proof of human construction about men and women when discussing the Office? It is as if the argument is diverted too dig a ditch away from the questions.

There are two points of focus that surround this. It is why I note, "2 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left."

The first is to the encouragement of all the people of God in response to His gifts. 1 Thess 5: "1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well .... 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. ... 11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. ...

16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all;"


       Secondly, There is concern for those who retreat to a false security and hope, that is not connected to the very work of the Office, but a type of division of human theory. God speaks clearly on His ways.

"12 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. 13 Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. ..."

I don't worry too much about the first, the women (and laymen) who respond to God's love. A. They can do nothing else but ...  Acts 4:“Which is right in God’s eyes... You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” ... and B. They find the ways God opens for them if they listen to His voice. LCMS deaconesses et al, are very good at this. They are not prevented by the men's concerns.

The second does concern me, that men place faith in a structure, apart from the very work of the Office. It is like having "faith in faith," instead of faith in Christ.

Quote
(sorry if the offhand remark about the "pony express" came across wrong; I just meant it as a mild funny). 

Not a problem, in that it was received as you intended. I would ask to examine it in light of the above though.

TV

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're saying.  And "sisters" is not in the text -- it's been added by someone feeling sparky (i.e., all it says is "ἀδελφοί").
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 20, 2010, 10:39:31 PM
I simply pulled from the NIV, and footnotes continued in ESV for adelphoi or brethren, and as Sandra notes. Change it to brethren if that keeps you from hearing the rest.

Quote
"I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're saying."

 ;) And that is what I'm saying... what you just did, is fence building. No?

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 20, 2010, 10:45:13 PM
;) And that is what I'm saying... what you just did, is fence building. No?

TV

Before I respond, what exactly is wrong with "fence building"?  I'm thinking that if lemmings had stronger fences there'd be quite a few more of the critters...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 20, 2010, 10:47:48 PM
I simply pulled from the NIV, and footnotes continued in ESV for adelphoi or brethren, and as Sandra notes. Change it to brethren if that keeps you from hearing the rest.

Quote
"I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're saying."

 ;) And that is what I'm saying... what you just did, is fence building. No?

TV

The scripture is clear concerning the Office, and those who should be called. It is sufficient to say so. When we strip women out of adelphoi it is sometimes something else we are trying to say. In that regard.

"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, ... Do not quench the Spirit."

TV

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 20, 2010, 10:56:20 PM
I simply pulled from the NIV, and footnotes continued in ESV for adelphoi or brethren, and as Sandra notes. Change it to brethren if that keeps you from hearing the rest.

Quote
"I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're saying."

 ;) And that is what I'm saying... what you just did, is fence building. No?

TV

The scripture is clear concerning the Office, and those who should be called. It is sufficient to say so. When we strip women out of adelphoi it is sometimes something else we are trying to say. In that regard.

"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, ... Do not quench the Spirit."

TV

You underlined a word that's not in the text.  That's all.  I have no issue with considering women as "adelphoi" for the reason Sandra makes clear.  But to underline it and thereby make an argument on a word not in the text is, well, confusing to say the least.  And while I think I might now get your point re: adelphoi, I still have no idea what point you're making in general and so cannot respond.  I'm sorry.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau14 on December 20, 2010, 11:31:00 PM
I simply pulled from the NIV, and footnotes continued in ESV for adelphoi or brethren, and as Sandra notes. Change it to brethren if that keeps you from hearing the rest.

Quote
"I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're saying."

 ;) And that is what I'm saying... what you just did, is fence building. No?

TV

The scripture is clear concerning the Office, and those who should be called. It is sufficient to say so. When we strip women out of adelphoi it is sometimes something else we are trying to say. In that regard.

"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, ... Do not quench the Spirit."

TV

You underlined a word that's not in the text.  That's all.  I have no issue with considering women as "adelphoi" for the reason Sandra makes clear.  But to underline it and thereby make an argument on a word not in the text is, well, confusing to say the least.  And while I think I might now get your point re: adelphoi, I still have no idea what point you're making in general and so cannot respond.  I'm sorry.

Scott,

I just want to say "thank you" for saying this (as you are much more learned in the Greek than I), as I am often confused by TV's posts.

Also, as we as a circuit have finished reading David Scaer's book on James we have learned that "brother" speaks to those within the clergy.  (just a side note)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 21, 2010, 12:13:24 AM
Before I respond, what exactly is wrong with "fence building"?  I'm thinking that if lemmings had stronger fences there'd be quite a few more of the critters...

It's a bit tangential, and we would never get through it here I think, but I would love to sit with you and discuss the thought sometimes.  I'll leave it with this proposal. We can see the fence is like the law, in that it shows where the cliff is. It would not keep the lemmings from jumping over it to their ?end?. any more than it(the law) has saved us. The cliff is a sufficient law. The Gospel is what turns us towards the "water in the well", and coincidentally away from the cliff. In that, we do indeed obey the law (don't go over the cliff )... but as a response to the Gospel. If we make too much of the fence, we diminish the cliff and all its brutal reality, and totally ignore the "well." "You have heard its said, 'you shall not murder,(fence) ... but I say to you (It's a cliff!)'"


...
Also, as we as a circuit have finished reading David Scaer's book on James we have learned that "brother" speaks to those within the clergy.  (just a side note)

(just a side note) I will not quarrel with this point in your study. But do you now carry that into this text?

"12We ask you, adelphoi (clergy?) to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord (plainly clergy)"

So then we have here a command for Bishops? Do you say this use here of adelphoi is to be clergy?

verse 5 - pantaS gar umeiS  - ?must mean all you pastors, and not all Thessalonians?  I was taught Paul likes to add "for all you" type expressions, when he makes positive and negative coupled statements, and that this should be taken as excepting no one, not one, to whom he speaks.  In fact I think this in verse 5, is why translators take the trouble of bringing "brothers and sisters," where elsewhere (ex: James 1:2) they simply say brothers. (even in NIV where they "feel sparky" :) )  Scott, am I getting that wrong? Is this pastors, and not all Thessalonians as Sandra notes?

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 21, 2010, 12:42:33 AM
....I still have no idea what point you're making in general and so cannot respond.  I'm sorry.

Scott,

.... I am often confused by TV's posts.

I do apologize, but let me try and bring it home. Our little discussion about adelphoi and sisters here is the point at hand. We have a problem when we struggle so hard to keep the sisters out of an unrelated text, where reasonably faithful translators, and rules such as - coupled positive and negative statements and add ins as "all you" imbedded, - would indicate otherwise.

Why would we do that? That is my point.

Sandra (and a whole lot of other women) await your answers. Does the Thessalonians text apply to them? My guess is Sandra has that figured out. But I still wonder why we wanted to use Scaer to leave her out. That is what concerns me.
TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau14 on December 21, 2010, 12:49:24 AM
TV, before I go to bed this evening, me and my homies have a phrase ,"unnecessarily profound", take it to heart brother.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Timotheus Verinus on December 21, 2010, 12:58:08 AM
TV, before I go to bed this evening, me and my homies have a phrase ,"unnecessarily profound", take it to heart brother.

Thanks. I do try. But sadly the "necessity" sometimes compels me to at least bring the question. I avoided the "anecdotes"!!  ;D Please do correct my reading of the Greek, as appropriate.

TV
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: George Erdner on December 21, 2010, 02:05:35 AM
Life would sure be a lot simpler if analogies were proof.

It is an accurate statement to say, "Sugar is like honey, as both are sweet". It is also an accurate statement to say, "Sugar is not like honey, as sugar is granulated crystals and honey is a sticky fluid". Any statement that says "X is like Y" is only valid when, in context, the similar characteristics of X and Y are what is being discussed. Even if the Apostle Paul writes it down in an Epistle, the comparisons are only as accurate as they really are.

The relationship between Jesus and His church is similar to many other relationships. Those similar relationships are valuable as illustrations of aspects of that relationship, but they are not identical. Christ is indeed like a bridegroom to His church in some ways. That doesn't mean Christ is responsible for mowing the lawn, taking out the garbage, or holding the TV remote. Christ is like a shepherd to His church. That doesn't mean he literally uses a wooden crook to pull us out of places.

There is only one thing less useful than attempting to stretch analogies far beyond their breaking points. That is pedantic, sophist nitpicking at the obvious aspects of the analogies that do not apply. Such questions should be expected from high school kids in the 10th grade, or college students in their second year of study. Graduates of seminary should be above such sophomoric rhetoric.
 

You illustrate a key failing in the attempts to "relativize" the Pauline Epistles, George...  Namely that in an attempt to "relativize" the Epistles, people have attempted to reduce them to analogies, which empties them of their meaning, rather than opening them up. 

The truth is that we don't...maybe can't..know all the intentions of Paul in addressing the Corinthian Church.  All we know is that he commanded women to be silent in the Assembly.  Was it because there were women who were disrupting things?  Who knows?  Was it because Paul was a misogynist and/or a male chauvenist?  Who knows?  And in truth, such speculation is beyond our importance, unless you seek to do away with the Pauline Epostles completely.  And, as Lutherans, where are we if we do that?

What we know is that we have a CLEAR and uncomprimising Word of Scripture regarding the role of women within the Christian assembly.  You can ask "What about Deborah?  What about Junia?"  But Paul's word allows no "What abouts."  And, in keeping with Paul's teachings, I will ask "What about" Hildegard of Bingen, one of the women's movement's favorite characters, who deliberately walled herself off, taking on obedience to Paul's teaching as a mark of her fidelity.  What about Theresa of Avila, who niether sought ordination nor the authority of priests and Popes, but dared to stand toe-to-toe with a Pope and demand, in her lay-religious vocation, that the Pope return to Rome from Avignon?

And, if we are not to take 1 Corinthians at it's face, how then do we decide to take Romans 3 at it's flat, face value?

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


I am not arguing for or against women's ordination nor for or against women's participation in worship by speaking or singing texts that were written by someone else. I am only speaking against stretching analagies beyond their breaking point. If Paul clearly says this or that, then he said this or that. But if he uses an analagy to illustrate a point, the analagy can't be stretched to "prove" multiple other points.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on December 21, 2010, 09:14:10 AM
  What about Theresa of Avila, who niether sought ordination nor the authority of priests and Popes, but dared to stand toe-to-toe with a Pope and demand, in her lay-religious vocation, that the Pope return to Rome from Avignon?

Jerry, one small correction:  not Theresa of Avila, but Catherine of Sienna.  (Though St. Theresa was equally formidable in her toe-to-toe standing with the Spanish Inquisition!) 

In peace,
Pr. Erma Wolf, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 21, 2010, 09:52:13 AM
Sandra (and a whole lot of other women) await your answers. Does the Thessalonians text apply to them? My guess is Sandra has that figured out. But I still wonder why we wanted to use Scaer to leave her out. That is what concerns me.
TV

Like I said:

I have no issue with considering women as "adelphoi" for the reason Sandra makes clear.

As to why not include "sisters" in the text, it's because the text says "brothers."  It's not good translational practice to add in such (valid) interpretive inferences when there's a perfectly good word on offer in the target language.  I.e., adelphoi as "brothers."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 21, 2010, 10:05:04 AM
My point about pastors specifically, as opposed to those who speak the Word of the Lord, lead, serve faithfully, or do whatever more generally, is that not ordaining women is not to deny the many ways God works through women.

Examples of what God did do not erase the template He gives us to work with. Balaam's ass is not a argument for the ordination of donkeys. "A child shall lead them," is not an argument for the ordination of children. David's multiple wives is not an argument for the ordination of polygamists. Moses' poor speaking ability is not an argument for the ordination of those who are not apt to teach. Thus, when people point to the women at the tomb being the first to proclaim the resurrected Lord, or Deborah being a Judge of Israel, as somehow evidence that women should be ordained, I simply don't see it; it is using examples of what God did to overturn what He told us to do, like children saying, "Dad couldn't have meant for our bedtime to be 9:00; he stays up later than that every night."

Plus, when people put forward these arguments, it implies that those of us in church bodies that don't ordain women were somehow denying or embarrassed by the examples of women in the Bible, which is not the case.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Team Hesse on December 21, 2010, 10:26:35 AM
My point about pastors specifically, as opposed to those who speak the Word of the Lord, lead, serve faithfully, or do whatever more generally, is that not ordaining women is not to deny the many ways God works through women.

Examples of what God did do not erase the template He gives us to work with. Balaam's ass is not a argument for the ordination of donkeys. "A child shall lead them," is not an argument for the ordination of children. David's multiple wives is not an argument for the ordination of polygamists. Moses' poor speaking ability is not an argument for the ordination of those who are not apt to teach. Thus, when people point to the women at the tomb being the first to proclaim the resurrected Lord, or Deborah being a Judge of Israel, as somehow evidence that women should be ordained, I simply don't see it; it is using examples of what God did to overturn what He told us to do, like children saying, "Dad couldn't have meant for our bedtime to be 9:00; he stays up later than that every night."

Plus, when people put forward these arguments, it implies that those of us in church bodies that don't ordain women were somehow denying or embarrassed by the examples of women in the Bible, which is not the case.

Obviously, ordination is something I am still struggling with. I , at this time, go with call as, shall we say, the defining element. And by call, I mean externally called by a community gathered by Word and Sacrament for the sake of good order in the fellowship. I see " ordination" as a public rite bearing witness to the community that the one called is recognizably congruent with those who have previously held the office -- a matter of reassuring the community that their calling is within the "Fences" of the faith once handed to the saints. What more is there? and why? Help me out here.

Lou
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on December 21, 2010, 10:34:36 AM
  What about Theresa of Avila, who niether sought ordination nor the authority of priests and Popes, but dared to stand toe-to-toe with a Pope and demand, in her lay-religious vocation, that the Pope return to Rome from Avignon?

Jerry, one small correction:  not Theresa of Avila, but Catherine of Sienna.  (Though St. Theresa was equally formidable in her toe-to-toe standing with the Spanish Inquisition!) 

In peace,
Pr. Erma Wolf, STS

I stand duly corrected...  I honor both St. Theresa and St. Catherine as Doctors of the Church.

Thanks, Erma!

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 11:52:24 AM
Sandra (and a whole lot of other women) await your answers. Does the Thessalonians text apply to them? My guess is Sandra has that figured out. But I still wonder why we wanted to use Scaer to leave her out. That is what concerns me.
TV

Like I said:

I have no issue with considering women as "adelphoi" for the reason Sandra makes clear.

As to why not include "sisters" in the text, it's because the text says "brothers."  It's not good translational practice to add in such (valid) interpretive inferences when there's a perfectly good word on offer in the target language.  I.e., adelphoi as "brothers."

However, sometimes ἀδελφός, as my Greek-English lexicons state, does not refer to male siblings but:

fellow believer Barclay Newman, Jr.

a close associate of a group of persons having a well-defined membership (in the NT it refers specifically to fellow believers in Christ) – fellow believer Louw & NIda

a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich

How should translators express the meaning of ἀδελφός when it refers to a brother-like relationship that includes males and females?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: revjagow on December 21, 2010, 11:56:15 AM
My point about pastors specifically, as opposed to those who speak the Word of the Lord, lead, serve faithfully, or do whatever more generally, is that not ordaining women is not to deny the many ways God works through women.

Examples of what God did do not erase the template He gives us to work with. Balaam's ass is not a argument for the ordination of donkeys. "A child shall lead them," is not an argument for the ordination of children. David's multiple wives is not an argument for the ordination of polygamists. Moses' poor speaking ability is not an argument for the ordination of those who are not apt to teach. Thus, when people point to the women at the tomb being the first to proclaim the resurrected Lord, or Deborah being a Judge of Israel, as somehow evidence that women should be ordained, I simply don't see it; it is using examples of what God did to overturn what He told us to do, like children saying, "Dad couldn't have meant for our bedtime to be 9:00; he stays up later than that every night."

Plus, when people put forward these arguments, it implies that those of us in church bodies that don't ordain women were somehow denying or embarrassed by the examples of women in the Bible, which is not the case.

Something I say rather frequently to those I teach is that we need to make a distinction between "description" and "prescription" when reading the Bible.  The Judges may have been holy people, but assassins, drunkards and people who sacrifice children really do not make for the best role models.  
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 21, 2010, 12:22:00 PM
Sandra (and a whole lot of other women) await your answers. Does the Thessalonians text apply to them? My guess is Sandra has that figured out. But I still wonder why we wanted to use Scaer to leave her out. That is what concerns me.
TV

Like I said:

I have no issue with considering women as "adelphoi" for the reason Sandra makes clear.

As to why not include "sisters" in the text, it's because the text says "brothers."  It's not good translational practice to add in such (valid) interpretive inferences when there's a perfectly good word on offer in the target language.  I.e., adelphoi as "brothers."

However, sometimes ἀδελφός, as my Greek-English lexicons state, does not refer to male siblings but:

fellow believer Barclay Newman, Jr.

a close associate of a group of persons having a well-defined membership (in the NT it refers specifically to fellow believers in Christ) – fellow believer Louw & NIda

a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich

How should translators express the meaning of ἀδελφός when it refers to a brother-like relationship that includes males and females?

"Fellow members" or "associates" is a fine way to translate the term, though it loses some of the organic, familial sense which is a considerable loss.  So if the imagery is strongly that of a family, as I believe it is, then "brothers" remains the best option on hand.  Then, as Sandra said, when interpreting it would should recognize that this was a normal way of addressing mixed groups and that, in Christ, we are all "brothers."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 21, 2010, 01:17:28 PM
How should translators express the meaning of ἀδελφός when it refers to a brother-like relationship that includes males and females?

It's not a translation issue. It's a teaching issue.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 21, 2010, 01:25:20 PM
Obviously, ordination is something I am still struggling with. I , at this time, go with call as, shall we say, the defining element. And by call, I mean externally called by a community gathered by Word and Sacrament for the sake of good order in the fellowship. I see " ordination" as a public rite bearing witness to the community that the one called is recognizably congruent with those who have previously held the office -- a matter of reassuring the community that their calling is within the "Fences" of the faith once handed to the saints. What more is there? and why? Help me out here.

You forgot the part about it being a DIVINE call, not just a call from a congregation following good order. It is a Divine call issued through the means of the congregation's process. Ordination is the rite of setting apart of a person to stand, speak, and act in the stead and by the authority of Christ - the pastor speaks for Christ Himself, representing the Bridegroom to the Bride and is responsible for delivering His gifts to her in Word and Sacrament. It's not merely a testimony that the one they called is fit for the Office, though that is part of it.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Team Hesse on December 21, 2010, 03:23:19 PM
Obviously, ordination is something I am still struggling with. I , at this time, go with call as, shall we say, the defining element. And by call, I mean externally called by a community gathered by Word and Sacrament for the sake of good order in the fellowship. I see " ordination" as a public rite bearing witness to the community that the one called is recognizably congruent with those who have previously held the office -- a matter of reassuring the community that their calling is within the "Fences" of the faith once handed to the saints. What more is there? and why? Help me out here.

You forgot the part about it being a DIVINE call, not just a call from a congregation following good order. It is a Divine call issued through the means of the congregation's process. Ordination is the rite of setting apart of a person to stand, speak, and act in the stead and by the authority of Christ - the pastor speaks for Christ Himself, representing the Bridegroom to the Bride and is responsible for delivering His gifts to her in Word and Sacrament. It's not merely a testimony that the one they called is fit for the Office, though that is part of it.

Thanks. Actually I assume the DIVINE part because only the Holy Spirit gathers a community by Word and Sacrament. I could have been clearer....

Lou
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave_Poedel on December 21, 2010, 03:41:56 PM
Lou, I have been praying for you for a long time, as a brother Pastor and fellow servant of the Word and Sacrament.  My prayer is that, over time, God will continue to strengthen your identity in the Call into which you were properly placed through prayer and the laying on of hands.

I deliberately gifted you with a white clergy shirt that should be worn untucked and that looks good without the tab as with to ease you into your role.  The "uniform" is useful, not to give you any sort of honor (though even in our pagan culture, it still does) but that your gifts might be made more noticeable and you more approachable as Pastor, as distinguished from your other vocation as farmer, which I hold in equal esteem.

God bless you, my brother.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Team Hesse on December 21, 2010, 04:13:24 PM
Lou, I have been praying for you for a long time, as a brother Pastor and fellow servant of the Word and Sacrament.  My prayer is that, over time, God will continue to strengthen your identity in the Call into which you were properly placed through prayer and the laying on of hands.

I deliberately gifted you with a white clergy shirt that should be worn untucked and that looks good without the tab as with to ease you into your role.  The "uniform" is useful, not to give you any sort of honor (though even in our pagan culture, it still does) but that your gifts might be made more noticeable and you more approachable as Pastor, as distinguished from your other vocation as farmer, which I hold in equal esteem.

God bless you, my brother.

Thank you for your gifts and continuing prayers. I have been amazed. Many have said they knew it was only a matter of when not if I would be ordained. And some simply refuse to acknowledge what the Lord has done. I have experienced the truth of my confirmation pastor's witness-- people seem to know I'm a Pastor in the oddest of venues-- clergy attire or not. And there is something about the office--the other day I took communion to some shut-in folks who have been irregularly served by some dedicated lay volunteers and the shut-ins were very insistent that I commune them in the future. There is something here that is powerful for people. Scary sometimes.

Lou
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 21, 2010, 04:16:17 PM
Lou, our Lord Christ instituted the office of the holy ministry, and that is what people are responding to. It is an awesome thing to serve as one of the Lord's representatives in His office.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:17:02 PM
Lou, I have been praying for you for a long time, as a brother Pastor and fellow servant of the Word and Sacrament.  My prayer is that, over time, God will continue to strengthen your identity in the Call into which you were properly placed through prayer and the laying on of hands.

I deliberately gifted you with a white clergy shirt that should be worn untucked and that looks good without the tab as with to ease you into your role.  The "uniform" is useful, not to give you any sort of honor (though even in our pagan culture, it still does) but that your gifts might be made more noticeable and you more approachable as Pastor, as distinguished from your other vocation as farmer, which I hold in equal esteem.

God bless you, my brother.

Thank you for your gifts and continuing prayers. I have been amazed. Many have said they knew it was only a matter of when not if I would be ordained. And some simply refuse to acknowledge what the Lord has done. I have experienced the truth of my confirmation pastor's witness-- people seem to know I'm a Pastor in the oddest of venues-- clergy attire or not. And there is something about the office--the other day I took communion to some shut-in folks who have been irregularly served by some dedicated lay volunteers and the shut-ins were very insistent that I commune them in the future. There is something here that is powerful for people. Scary sometimes.

To keep this centered on the topic: what would you say to a female who had the same experience of a persistent call from God to enter the ordained ministry -- sometimes in spite of her objections? (I've had female clergy relate such stories about God's persistence and their reluctance.)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 21, 2010, 04:19:07 PM
I would say:  we can affirm nothing certainly about the will of God without the Word of God, and nothing CONTRARY to the express Word of God can be the will of God.  Cf.  SA III, Article VIII:5-6, 9.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:21:00 PM
I would say:  we can affirm nothing certainly about the will of God without the Word of God, and nothing CONTRARY to the express Word of God can be the will of God.

And for many of us, the ordination of women is not contrary to the expressed Word of God. Baptism makes us equal before God as Galatians 3 states -- no male nor female.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 21, 2010, 04:22:49 PM
Pr. Stoffregen,

Your argument is not with me; it is with the Holy Spirit who inspired blessed Paul to write not only Galatians 3, but 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 21, 2010, 04:29:41 PM
Baptism makes us equal before God as Galatians 3 states -- no male nor female.

Indeed! All are members of the royal priesthood of the baptized.

But what does that have to do with the pastoral office? It is not given women to do, as Pr. Weedon points out.

What would I say to a female who thinks she had the experience of a persistent call from God to enter the ordained ministry? I'd tell her that she hears someone who can sound just like God, but he's a Liar, as the immutable truth of the divine Word shows.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 21, 2010, 04:32:12 PM
To keep this centered on the topic: what would you say to a female who had the same experience of a persistent call from God to enter the ordained ministry -- sometimes in spite of her objections? (I've had female clergy relate such stories about God's persistence and their reluctance.)

As one who believed I had such a "call" for many years, I realized later that I had been mistaking my own desires and pride for a divine call. God does not make such a call, and I believe he made me female to set me aside for vocations other than pastor.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:33:07 PM
Pr. Stoffregen,

Your argument is not with me; it is with the Holy Spirit who inspired blessed Paul to write not only Galatians 3, but 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.

Among other issues, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 seems to be a later addition, probably not written by Paul. The fact that it is found in a different place in some manuscripts is one piece of evidence for that. It is clear in this letter that Paul allowed women to prophesy and pray in church.

There are translation/interpretation issues with 1 Timothy 2:12. The Greek word translated "authority," specifies a particular kind of authority. The TNIV offers an alternative translation in a footnote; "teach a man in a domineering way." I believe that better captures the sense of the Greek, αὐθεντέω. The only other time this word is used in a biblical writing, Wisdom 12:6, it refers to murdering helpless lives. It is a word that refers to an abuse of power -- a type of "authority" that no pastor should exert over a flock.

Elsewhere in this forum, arguments have been made -- and not just by me -- that "silence" in these passages does not mean "never speaking," but becoming quiet or restful so that one might hear and learn.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:35:10 PM
Baptism makes us equal before God as Galatians 3 states -- no male nor female.

Indeed! All are members of the royal priesthood of the baptized.

But what does that have to do with the pastoral office? It is not given women to do, as Pr. Weedon points out.

What would I say to a female who thinks she had the experience of a persistent call from God to enter the ordained ministry? I'd tell her that she hears someone who can sound just like God, but he's a Liar, as God's Word shows.

I believe that God's Word shows that he is just as likely to call a female into a leadership position as a male. Thus, it is more correct for you to state: "as my interpretation of God's Word shows." Not everyone agrees with your interpretation.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 21, 2010, 04:35:48 PM
Yawn, Brian, the 1970s is calling and it wants its theology back.

 :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:37:54 PM
To keep this centered on the topic: what would you say to a female who had the same experience of a persistent call from God to enter the ordained ministry -- sometimes in spite of her objections? (I've had female clergy relate such stories about God's persistence and their reluctance.)

As one who believed I had such a "call" for many years, I realized later that I had been mistaking my own desires and pride for a divine call. God does not make such a call, and I believe he made me female to set me aside for vocations other than pastor.

It seems just as likely to me that you were properly hearing God's call, but that by listening to the mistaken beliefs of others, you shut out that call. I've run into a few women who thought like you, until they finally answered the call -- by changing denominations -- and saw how others had kept them from responding to God's call.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 21, 2010, 04:39:48 PM
See, Sandra, I knew you made the wrong call, about your call. Brian Stoffregen says so.

 :D
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:40:47 PM
Yawn, Brian, the 1970s is calling and it wants its theology back.

Some of us have moved on from the 70s. Those old battles aren't worth fighting again. The ordination of women is a firmly established practice in our Church. You aren't going to change that. I suspect that we will continue to have LCMS females coming to us (or one LCMC or NALC) because they are convinced that God has called them into the ordained ministry.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 21, 2010, 04:42:57 PM
Baptism makes us equal before God as Galatians 3 states -- no male nor female.

Indeed! All are members of the royal priesthood of the baptized.

But what does that have to do with the pastoral office? It is not given women to do, as Pr. Weedon points out.

What would I say to a female who thinks she had the experience of a persistent call from God to enter the ordained ministry? I'd tell her that she hears someone who can sound just like God, but he's a Liar, as God's Word shows.

I believe that God's Word shows that he is just as likely to call a female into a leadership position as a male. Thus, it is more correct for you to state: "as my interpretation of God's Word shows." Not everyone agrees with your interpretation.
Not everyone agrees that it is more correct to state it that way. Thus, it is more correct for you to state, "It is my interpretation that you should state that it is your interpretation of God's Word."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:43:15 PM
See, Sandra, I knew you made the wrong call, about your call. Brian Stoffregen says so.

I do not "say so," but offer an alternative interpretation, based on the experiences I've heard from other females. Sandra may not be like those others -- and I'm not saying that she has to be.

Of course, if you had said that what she did was absolutely right, that must be true because PTMcCain says so.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:45:38 PM
Not everyone agrees that it is more correct to state it that way. Thus, it is more correct for you to state, "It is my interpretation that you should state that it is your interpretation of God's Word."

Yes, I will claim that my beliefs are based on an interpretation of God's Word -- and that interpretation makes more logical sense to me than other interpretations I have heard.

Are you willing to state that your beliefs are based on an interpretation of God's Word that makes more sense to you than other interpretations?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 21, 2010, 04:46:06 PM
I suspect that we will continue to have LCMS females coming to us (or one LCMC or NALC) because they are convinced that God has called them into the ordained ministry.

Eve heard a similar call. She changed too, and moved right out of The Garden, along with her pastor who acquiesced.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 04:50:39 PM
I suspect that we will continue to have LCMS females coming to us (or one LCMC or NALC) because they are convinced that God has called them into the ordained ministry.

Eve heard a similar call. And she changed too, and moved right out of The Garden.

And if God "chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless" (Eph 1:4), then God must have known that Eve would do what she did, and God had already made provisions for the salvation of sinners. Her act put into place the need for the coming of Jesus, which God knew would happen. So, was she, unknowingly, bringing about the fulfillment of God's plans from before creation?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 21, 2010, 04:54:14 PM

Yes, I will claim that my beliefs are based on an interpretation of God's Word -- and that interpretation makes more logical sense to me than other interpretations I have heard.

Are you willing to state that your beliefs are based on an interpretation of God's Word that makes more sense to you than other interpretations?
What difference would it make if I claimed that or not?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 21, 2010, 05:20:53 PM
And if God "chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless" (Eph 1:4), then God must have known that Eve would do what she did, and God had already made provisions for the salvation of sinners. Her act put into place the need for the coming of Jesus, which God knew would happen. So, was she, unknowingly, bringing about the fulfillment of God's plans from before creation?

"Orthodox Lutheran theology holds that God made the world, including humanity, perfect, holy and sinless. However, Adam and Eve chose (free will) to disobey God, trusting in their own strength, knowledge, and wisdom."

See Paul R. Sponheim, "The Origin of Sin," in Christian Dogmatics, Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 385–407; Francis Pieper, "Definition of Original Sin," in Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 1:538.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 21, 2010, 05:27:32 PM
Don't know why the debate with Brian.  He'll be repeating pretty much what he's said many times.  See this link for an old debate with Brian over 1 Tim 2 and authenteo (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=266.msg6212#msg6212).  It starts with the post linked and then continues for many, many pages.  "Scott3" was my old account at the time.

For something more recent about authenteo and John Chrysostom's reading of it in relation to the bema, the raised platform for authoritative teaching from which the prebyter / episkopes spoke, see this link here (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1195.msg48077#msg48077).  Let's just say that John, knowing a little Greek, finds Brian's reading silly.  That was in my "Scott5" days, btw.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 21, 2010, 05:34:14 PM
It seems just as likely to me that you were properly hearing God's call, but that by listening to the mistaken beliefs of others, you shut out that call. I've run into a few women who thought like you, until they finally answered the call -- by changing denominations -- and saw how others had kept them from responding to God's call.

Actually, I came to this realization while in seminary. And I never really heard anyone discouraging me from becoming a pastor, those just weren't the kinds of people I hung out with. My roommate and best friend from college is a female pastor in the Seattle area, and most of my friends from high school and college are ELCA now as well.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on December 21, 2010, 05:42:48 PM
Lou, I have been praying for you for a long time, as a brother Pastor and fellow servant of the Word and Sacrament.  My prayer is that, over time, God will continue to strengthen your identity in the Call into which you were properly placed through prayer and the laying on of hands.

I deliberately gifted you with a white clergy shirt that should be worn untucked and that looks good without the tab as with to ease you into your role.  The "uniform" is useful, not to give you any sort of honor (though even in our pagan culture, it still does) but that your gifts might be made more noticeable and you more approachable as Pastor, as distinguished from your other vocation as farmer, which I hold in equal esteem.

God bless you, my brother.

Thank you for your gifts and continuing prayers. I have been amazed. Many have said they knew it was only a matter of when not if I would be ordained. And some simply refuse to acknowledge what the Lord has done. I have experienced the truth of my confirmation pastor's witness-- people seem to know I'm a Pastor in the oddest of venues-- clergy attire or not. And there is something about the office--the other day I took communion to some shut-in folks who have been irregularly served by some dedicated lay volunteers and the shut-ins were very insistent that I commune them in the future. There is something here that is powerful for people. Scary sometimes.

To keep this centered on the topic: what would you say to a female who had the same experience of a persistent call from God to enter the ordained ministry -- sometimes in spite of her objections? (I've had female clergy relate such stories about God's persistence and their reluctance.)

It is not the person's "discernment" of the call which is paramount...  It is the Church which discerns the call.  Jim Jones too had "a persistent call from god..."  This is why we have Candidacy Committees.

Oh, and I would add that throughout the years there have been divinely approved ways and avenues for women who sense a "persistent call" from God...  We have known these avenues as "Nuns" and "Deaconesses."

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 21, 2010, 05:57:52 PM
This thread has been a thoughtful learning experience.  Because it has taken several turns and twists, I’ll comment on a few before Christmas.  The first has to do with the exegesis of Ephesians 5: 21-32. 

Theologian Marva Dawn (PhD Notre Dame) suggests that hermeneutical considerations involved in the exegesis of any Biblical text include the literary co-text (the surrounding passage), the historical context, and the nature of the Triune God according to His self revelation in the written and Incarnate Word.  She cautions against
1.   the hermeneutical fallacy of  “selective literalism” – i.e. choosing only particular texts to take literally.
2.   the hermeneutical fallacy of “reading into the text” – adding one’s presupposition to the interpretation of a passage and
3.   the hermeneutical fallacy of “propositional exegesis” – i.e. asserting a proposition and then giving a proof text.

Ephesians 5 begins with the words “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly beloved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” The chapter seems to be addressed to women and to men.

 Verse 18b continues, “Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.”  The chapter is one that speaks of what a sanctified life that is the work of the Holy Spirit in men and woman.  The sacrifice of Christ justifies women and men and the Holy Spirit sanctifies women and men.

In vs 21 Paul continues to expound on what the sanctified life of Christians is like – they submit to one another.”  Then comes a passage that reads as if the husband’s role in relation to his wife is somehow associated with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the resulting sanctification of his wife.  However, the text  clearly says that the Church, all its member (vs.30), are cleansed by the washing with water through the word. In this way She, all the members of the Church are presented to Christ as a radiant Church without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.   

Is this a text that teaches that the role of the husband is in someway associated with the sanctification of his wife, a work the rest of Ephesians and the whole of the NT associates with God the Holy Spirit?  What about single women?  Who are the men in her life that plays the role of her sanctification? Is this how Scripture and the Confessions understand the pastoral office in relation to the women AND the men of the congregation?

I submit this is a text that requires further study within the whole of God’s work of justifying and recreating His creation Man, male and female.  What it says about human marriage cannot be interpreted without maintaining the critical distinction of God and Man, male and female.

BTW, Marva Dawn is not a feminist under the influence of post modern thinking. Her books on human sexuality do not endorse homosexual behavior. She has written a great deal about supporting the nuclear family and the historic liturgy of the Church.

 

 


Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 21, 2010, 06:18:11 PM
In vs 21 Paul continues to expound on what the sanctified life of Christians is like – they submit to one another.”  Then comes a passage that reads as if the husband’s role in relation to his wife is somehow associated with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the resulting sanctification of his wife.  However, the text  clearly says that the Church, all its member (vs.30), are cleansed by the washing with water through the word. In this way She, all the members of the Church are presented to Christ as a radiant Church without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.    

Is this a text that teaches that the role of the husband is in someway associated with the sanctification of his wife, a work the rest of Ephesians and the whole of the NT associates with God the Holy Spirit?  What about single women?  Who are the men in her life that plays the role of her sanctification? Is this how Scripture and the Confessions understand the pastoral office in relation to the women AND the men of the congregation?

Of course human relationships play a role in the sanctification of each other.  The marriage relationships, most importantly.  As to single women, they aren't wives, so I have a hard time seeing how something describing the marriage relationship applies to them.  As to random men and women of the congregation, they aren't all husbands or wives to each other, so again the connection doesn't exist.

Paul, quite simply, distinguishes between the role of the husband relative to his wife and the role of the wife relative to her husband.  As you find this troublesome, it sounds, again, like you have a problem with Paul.  Take it up with him.

I submit this is a text that requires further study within the whole of God’s work of justifying and recreating His creation Man, male and female.  What it says about human marriage cannot be interpreted without maintaining the critical distinction of God and Man, male and female.

I submit that I'm not sure if, given your present attitude toward the text, that you'll ever be satisfied with it -- barring a radical change.  Of course there's more to study about the relationship of husbands and wives, but as your puzzlement arises in the context of women's ordination, quite simply, before God, there is Man, male and female, who are equally justified before Him through Christ by the power of the Spirit.

In relation to each other, Paul himself makes a distinction.  The same guy that can write Gal. 3:28 also writes Eph. 5 and 1 Tim 2.  It's just as it is.  I and the Church have long accounted for that; you, apparently, have and can not account for that fact.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 21, 2010, 07:36:20 PM
BTW, Marva Dawn is not a feminist under the influence of post modern thinking. Her books on human sexuality do not endorse homosexual behavior. She has written a great deal about supporting the nuclear family and the historic liturgy of the Church.

But she is a feminist.

Mike
[/quote]

Mike, please provide evidence to support your claim.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 07:56:17 PM

Yes, I will claim that my beliefs are based on an interpretation of God's Word -- and that interpretation makes more logical sense to me than other interpretations I have heard.

Are you willing to state that your beliefs are based on an interpretation of God's Word that makes more sense to you than other interpretations?
What difference would it make if I claimed that or not?

Because it is much more honest about the difference. It's between two different interpretations of the Word of God. Rather, than the often present difference of the Word of God vs. "you" (whoever the "you" might be).
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 21, 2010, 07:58:18 PM
Don't know why the debate with Brian.  He'll be repeating pretty much what he's said many times.  See this link for an old debate with Brian over 1 Tim 2 and authenteo (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=266.msg6212#msg6212).  It starts with the post linked and then continues for many, many pages.  "Scott3" was my old account at the time.

For something more recent about authenteo and John Chrysostom's reading of it in relation to the bema, the raised platform for authoritative teaching from which the prebyter / episkopes spoke, see this link here (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1195.msg48077#msg48077).  Let's just say that John, knowing a little Greek, finds Brian's reading silly.  That was in my "Scott5" days, btw.

What was my reading? I quoted a footnote from the TNIV. I made a reference to Wisdom. How do you get "my reading" from those?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 21, 2010, 08:06:07 PM
In relation to each other, Paul himself makes a distinction.  The same guy that can write Gal. 3:28 also writes Eph. 5 and 1 Tim 2.  It's just as it is.  I and the Church have long accounted for that; you, apparently, have and can not account for that fact.

Scott:

We agree that maleness and femaleness is a critical distinction necessary for a procreative heterosexual marriage.

I think we agree that God does not relate to His children on the basis of their maleness or femaleness. To each He is their good and gracious God.

I think we agree that maleness and femaleness is not a distinction that separates them in the Church as the one Holy Body of Christ. Both are the Bride to which He has joined Himself as intimately as a husband is joined to His wife.  Both receive all that He has given to His Bride.

I think we agree that each is responsible before God to love as they have been loved by God. Each is to be an "imitator of God."

I think we agree that there are times the love of a husband for his wife is sacrificial and times the love of a wife for her husband is sacrificial. At times the love of the husband involves submisision of self for the well being of his wife just as the love of a wife for her husband involves submission of self. Sacrificial love does not have more authority than submissive love. Neither involves a positon of authority over the other.

Where we disagree is whether or not the distinction of male and female is also a spiritual distinction intrinistic to the critical male/female distinction that belongs to a heterosexual marriage. I understand you to say that the Church has always said there is some sort of spiritual distinction intrinsic to maleness and femaleness and I that should just accept the fact that this is what God says in the Bible.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 21, 2010, 08:15:23 PM
What would happen to this discussion if the expression "relate to" (which I don't believe arises from the Scriptures and is without dogmatic significance in the Church) were proscribed?  Would it help or hurt?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 21, 2010, 08:30:14 PM
I think we agree that there are times the love of a husband for his wife is sacrificial and times the love of a wife for her husband is sacrificial. At times the love of the husband involves submisision of self for the well being of his wife just as the love of a wife for her husband involves submission of self. Sacrificial love does not have more authority than submissive love. Neither involves a positon of authority over the other.

I agree that there may be times this is the case, but I do not agree that Paul does not make a particular type of submission characteristic of a husband to his wife and a wife to her husband.  When I say "characteristic," I mean that what is distinctive is a particular description that is how one would identify what is most proper to a husband or to a wife.  Here, Paul does make a distinction between different characters as they apply to husband and to wife.

And if Christ does not exercise some type of "authority" over his Church, then perhaps what you write would work.  Except that Christ is indeed an authority over his Church as her head, and it is this to which Paul points as the archetype of the marital relationship.

Where we disagree is whether or not the distinction of male and female is also a spiritual distinction intrinistic to the critical male/female distinction that belongs to a heterosexual marriage. I understand you to say that the Church has always said there is some sort of spiritual distinction intrinsic to maleness and femaleness and I that should just accept the fact that this is what God says in the Bible.

I have no idea what you mean by a "spiritual distinction," and I suspect that you are valuing "maleness" (whatever that might be) over "femaleness."

Rather, I see God as having created and redeemed both men and women equally (note the lack of an abstract "maleness" and "femaleness," as I'm not sure anyone knows what those mean apart from real men and women).  In accordance with His own creation of the man and the woman, He then sees an ordered relationship between the two where both have equal dignity even as they serve different, yet equally important roles.

One of the roles that God has chosen to restrict to some men and not an abstract idea of "maleness" is that of the pastor.  And in the marriage relationship, He also, through Paul, uses the analogy of Christ in relation to the husband and the Church in relation to the wife.  He then goes on to say that as Christ is related to the Church, so the husband is related to His wife.

Which is to say that again you're tripping up against Paul's words.

Unless, that is, you could answer the question I've repeatedly asked you and you have refused to respond to: Please give me an interpretation of Eph. 5 that respects its actual words.  But to be honest, I don't think you'll ever offer such a reading of Eph. 5.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on December 21, 2010, 08:36:44 PM
BTW, Marva Dawn is not a feminist under the influence of post modern thinking. Her books on human sexuality do not endorse homosexual behavior. She has written a great deal about supporting the nuclear family and the historic liturgy of the Church.

One of the ironies of this whole topic is that it is not incumbent upon one side or the other to be a "feminist" or an "anti-feminist."  Rosemary Radford Ruether, a prominent feminist theologian, is a Roman Catholic (Benedictine, I believe) nun.  When challenged by other feminists how she could remain in a Church that didn't have a radical-egalitarian/"inclusive" form of leadership, she had to respond by saying that there were bigger things than herself or her own understandings.  Think about that, for a moment.  Regardless of her own "feelings" on the subject, regardless of whether she is "listened to" or not, here is one feminist who has agreed to abide within a Church that has declared the subject "closed."  

I'm not trying to debate Marva Dawn's feminist criteria or leanings.  Personally, I like Marva Dawn.  My point is that it doesn't have to be necessary to go out of the way to declare someone to "not be a feminist" nor should it be an assumption that because one is a feminist, to assume their camp on this issue.  It is completely possible to be a "feminist" and yet not be of the opinion that the ordination of women is just or good.  Likewise, I think it possible to be "anti-woman" (if in attitude if not in speech) and yet allow for the ordination of women.

One example...  I have known men, myself included here, who have gone out of their way to make an example of a woman pastor because of their gender.  Like saying "Wow, you really can preach!"  Just how "feminist" is that?  And yet I have encountered that type of sentiment from high-minded male Bishops and Pastors, who considered themselves "feminists" (or at least sympathizers to the cause), who were really just condescending, but pushed the cause of women's ordination.  At the end of the day they patted themselves on the back for "holding the door open" for women to go through.

Just saying.  Whether Marva Dawn is a feminist or not, is not the issue.  

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
  
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 21, 2010, 09:20:36 PM
Rosemary Radford Reuther is not a nun. Never has been.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 21, 2010, 09:58:03 PM

Yes, I will claim that my beliefs are based on an interpretation of God's Word -- and that interpretation makes more logical sense to me than other interpretations I have heard.

Are you willing to state that your beliefs are based on an interpretation of God's Word that makes more sense to you than other interpretations?
What difference would it make if I claimed that or not?

Because it is much more honest about the difference. It's between two different interpretations of the Word of God. Rather, than the often present difference of the Word of God vs. "you" (whoever the "you" might be).
No, that is your interpretation. My interpretation is that your way is less honest.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 22, 2010, 07:11:49 AM
Think about that, for a moment.  Regardless of her own "feelings" on the subject, regardless of whether she is "listened to" or not, here is one feminist who has agreed to abide within a Church that has declared the subject "closed."  

"Agreed to abide?"  I am not seeing that from what I am reading.  She is known as an activist for her causes which are in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic church, which include: abortion on demand (she sits on the board of Catholics for Choice (http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/board/default.asp)), referring to God as God/ess, etc.   I believe it would be more appropriate to say she has remained to fight for change as opposed to saying she has agreed to abide based on what I am reading of her work.

Quote
"It is completely possible to be a "feminist" and yet not be of the opinion that the ordination of women is just or good."

Can someone name a feminist theologian who holds that women’s ordination is NOT a good thing?  I don't know if there are any.

Quote
Likewise, I think it possible to be "anti-woman" (if in attitude if not in speech) and yet allow for the ordination of women.

Indeed!  I can see it on this forum at times even.   ;D

Based on these comments by Ruether:
My view is that if you want to leave and join another church, that is just fine, particularly if women want to be ordained. Women should go to another denomination if they want to be ordained because it won't happen in my lifetime or [pointing to me] in yours within the Catholic Church. I am very committed to keeping or trying to support the continuance of progressive perspectives in Catholicism, but I think that you can only do that by building bases of support that are somewhat independent of the hierarchy and cannot be shut down by the hierarchy. (http://www.crosscurrents.org/Ruetherspring2002.htm)

I believe there are some in Missouri trying to “support the continuance of progressive perspectives,” as well.  I also believe, though, that we're fortunate that in the foreseeable future this type of change will not occur.  There are many men and women who have experienced firsthand the empty promises of feminism through the years in which it has run its course and for the sake of the Gospel will challenge this philosophy from continuing its erosion of the church (in the same way it has our society).
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 22, 2010, 08:55:15 AM
See my comment far upstream: Someday the LCMS will ordain women. But it it not my place to argue for it or to meddle in its internal affairs when it discusses the subject.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 22, 2010, 09:34:11 AM
Never say "never," Mr. Gehlhausen. We may, deo volente have a lot of centuries left in humanity's time on earth and much can happen as we listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 22, 2010, 09:41:20 AM
And some of us think that if the Lord returned tomorrow, he might ask certain people "how come you aren't ordaining women like I told others to do?"  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 22, 2010, 09:44:00 AM
See my comment far upstream: Someday the LCMS will ordain women. But it it not my place to argue for it or to meddle in its internal affairs when it discusses the subject.

Of course, such crystal-ball readings are, at best, gratuitous, and at worse, distractions from what has been, up to now, a better discussion than this.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 09:59:00 AM
And some of us think that if the Lord returned tomorrow, he might ask certain people "how come you aren't ordaining women like I told others to do?"  ;D ;D ;D

Because the Lord does not contradict His immutable Word. Therefore, it would not be the Lord asking but, perhaps, someone else's final gasp.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 22, 2010, 10:00:16 AM
FWIW, since we've been discussing the role of women and teaching in the congregation, the Apostolic Constitutions (which I have been perusing) state:

VI. We do not permit our “women to teach in the Church,” but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such. For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters; also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus; Salome, and certain others. For, had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself had first commanded these also to instruct the people with us. For “if the head of the wife be the man,” it is not reasonable that the rest of the body should govern the head. Let the widow therefore own herself to be the “altar of God,” and let her sit in her house, and not enter into the houses of the faithful, under any pretence, to receive anything; for the altar of God never runs about, but is fixed in one place. Let, therefore, the virgin and the widow be such as do not run about, or gad to the houses of those who are alien from the faith. For such as these are gadders and impudent: they do not make their feet to rest in one place, because they are not widows, but purses ready to receive, triflers, evil-speakers, counsellors of strife, without shame, impudent, who being such, are not worthy of Him that called them. For they do not come to the common station of the congregation on the Lord’s day, as those that are watchful; but either they slumber, or trifle, or allure men, or beg, or ensnare others, bringing them to the evil one; not suffering them to be watchful in the Lord, but taking care that they go out as vain as they came in, because they do not hear the word of the Lord either taught or read. For of such as these the prophet Isaiah says: “Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: for the heart of this people is waxen gross, and they hear heavily with their ears.”  (Ap. Const. III:VI; ANF 7:427-8)

I've emphasized three things that struck me because they mirror different points made repeatedly in this discussion.

First, Christ did not send out any women to preach.

Second, there is no command from Christ for women to teach during the worship service.

Third, the idea of "head" implies leadership and authority.

That these three points were included in a list of canons so long ago suggests to me that perhaps there was a similar discussion to ours at the time, and these canons answered that discussion on behalf of some areas of the church of the 4th century (though it's likely they reflect traditions dating much earlier).  Considering that the Montanists were still quite active in the 4th century, it could have been adopted specifically in response to their practice of having women presbyters.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 22, 2010, 10:06:22 AM
And some of us think that if the Lord returned tomorrow, he might ask certain people "how come you aren't ordaining women like I told others to do?"  ;D ;D ;D

Because the Lord does not contradict His immutable Word. Therefore, it would not be the Lord asking but, perhaps, someone else's final gasp.

Whiile God's Word is immutable, our interpretations -- including the LCMS's -- are not.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 10:22:03 AM
And some of us think that if the Lord returned tomorrow, he might ask certain people "how come you aren't ordaining women like I told others to do?"  ;D ;D ;D

Because the Lord does not contradict His immutable Word. Therefore, it would not be the Lord asking but, perhaps, someone else's final gasp.

Whiile God's Word is immutable, our interpretations -- including the LCMS's -- are not.

Oh, I thought you were touting an ever-changeable text as applied to the reader, e.g.:

http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3538.msg195529#msg195529
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 22, 2010, 10:28:53 AM
See my comment far upstream: Someday the LCMS will ordain women. But it it not my place to argue for it or to meddle in its internal affairs when it discusses the subject.

Of course, such crystal-ball readings are, at best, gratuitous, and at worse, distractions from what has been, up to now, a better discussion than this.

I agree.  I'm far more enlightened still in my reading of your responses to the questions being asked, Pastor Yakimow, and also in my current reading of Women Pastors (http://www.cph.org/p-680-women-pastors-2nd-edition.aspx?SearchTerm=women pastors) than anything I've seen put forth on this thread or even by the feminist theologians this forum from time-to-time takes me to.  I do thank you for the time and effort you've put into addressing this issue, and I continue to be in awe of the pastoral approach you took in so doing.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 22, 2010, 10:32:44 AM
Might it be granted that those of us who have women pastors might also have taken a "pastoral" (often a vague, fungible word, but...) approach. That is, we have heard women speak of their calls to the ministry over many decades and we did not simply say: "Oh, you must be mistaken, God could never have spoken to you that way."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 22, 2010, 10:35:16 AM
And some of us think that if the Lord returned tomorrow, he might ask certain people "how come you aren't ordaining women like I told others to do?"  ;D ;D ;D

Because the Lord does not contradict His immutable Word. Therefore, it would not be the Lord asking but, perhaps, someone else's final gasp.

Whiile God's Word is immutable, our interpretations -- including the LCMS's -- are not.

Oh, I thought you were touting an ever-changeable text as applied to the reader, e.g.:

http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3538.msg195529#msg195529

The text doesn't change, interpretations do as we come to better understanding of the historical meaning of the words, the culture and society in which the words were first spoken and what they meant to them.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: kls on December 22, 2010, 11:17:47 AM
Might it be granted that those of us who have women pastors might also have taken a "pastoral" (often a vague, fungible word, but...) approach. That is, we have heard women speak of their calls to the ministry over many decades and we did not simply say: "Oh, you must be mistaken, God could never have spoken to you that way."

I believe Sandra responded very well to what you imply in your last statement.  As for your definition of "pastoral", it may indeed be a "vague, fungible" word to you, but for me (and my church body) it is not.  

God indeed calls women; I remember my own very well.  I don't believe we're honoring Him when we serve in a position that is contrary to what He has put forth in His Word, though.  In the book Women Pastors (http://www.cph.org/p-680-women-pastors-2nd-edition.aspx?SearchTerm=women pastors), there is a section entitled "How My Mind Has Changed" written by Louis A. Smith that I found to be quite helpful in addressing women who are currently ordained or considering it.

And Pastor Speckhard's question still remains unanswered, I believe:

Why do people offer examples of women who weren't pastors as proof that women can be pastors?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 11:33:48 AM
The text doesn't change, interpretations do as we come to better understanding of the historical meaning of the words, the culture and society in which the words were first spoken and what they meant to them.

Well, before you characterized it as The Word speaking to different audiences in different times. Now, it's the interpretation.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 22, 2010, 11:40:33 AM
The text doesn't change, interpretations do as we come to better understanding of the historical meaning of the words, the culture and society in which the words were first spoken and what they meant to them.

Well, before you characterized it as The Word speaking to different audiences in different times. Now, it's the interpretation.

Yup, and what each audience hears the Word saying in their own time is their interpretation.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 22, 2010, 12:31:22 PM
Just saying.  Whether Marva Dawn is a feminist or not, is not the issue. 
Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS   

Pr. Kliner:
You are right.  Whether Marva Dawn is a feminst or not is not the issue.  What I added was totally unnecessary. It was a stupid attempt on my part to head off posts that would dismiss her by giving her the label "feminist."  LCMS contributers on this Forum have on several threads referred to feminisim as a four letter word.

I would refer readers to Elaine Storkey's book What's Right With Feminism.  She identifies 3 strands of secualr feminism - liberal feminism, Marxist feminism and radical feminsim. She then deals with 2 common Christian responses.  One is that of indignation. They deny any substance to the need for changes that have come as a result of past and present feminist movements. That response has been represented on this Forum.  Other Christians have become so absorbed in the feminism that they are in danger of losing their Christian distinctiveness. RR Ruether is an example of the latter.

Storkey presents a third way: a biblically rooted Christian feminism which has a long history.  In the LCMS this is the “feminism” that resulted in women being allowed to become parochial school teachers, the formation of the LWML, be elected officers in the Walther League, to vote and to serve on synodical Boards and Commission. It led to a women being allowed to consult with the CTCR on studies havving to do wioth women in the church.  Prior to the seventies all studies on the service of women were done by men. LCMS men on this Forum have said, "What's wrong with that?"

It is biblically rooted feminism that prompts LCMS women to openly confront LCMS theologians who refuse to explain why the interpretation of I Cor 11, I Cor 14, Ephesians 5 and I Timothy has changed in our life time.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 12:43:07 PM

Well, before you characterized it as The Word speaking to different audiences in different times. Now, it's the interpretation.

Yup, and what each audience hears the Word saying in their own time is their interpretation.

If the key is the interpretation then the Word (other than the symbols of the text) is not immutable and truth for all time but, rather, a fall into relativism, and truth is in the eye of the beholder. As Rev. Bohler stated regarding your position:

"With your position of an ever-changable text, Rev. Stoffregen, I think we are only left with Pilate's question: What is truth?  Who knows, since what was true for Paul's day is not true for us today.  And we can never know what will be true tomorrow. "
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 22, 2010, 01:51:33 PM
Let the widow therefore own herself to be the “altar of God,” and let her sit in her house, and not enter into the houses of the faithful, under any pretence, to receive anything; for the altar of God never runs about, but is fixed in one place. Let, therefore, the virgin and the widow be such as do not run about, or gad to the houses of those who are alien from the faith. For such as these are gadders and impudent: they do not make their feet to rest in one place, because they are not widows, but purses ready to receive, triflers, evil-speakers, counsellors of strife, without shame, impudent, who being such, are not worthy of Him that called them. For they do not come to the common station of the congregation on the Lord’s day, as those that are watchful; but either they slumber, or trifle, or allure men, or beg, or ensnare others, bringing them to the evil one; not suffering them to be watchful in the Lord, but taking care that they go out as vain as they came in, because they do not hear the word of the Lord either taught or read. For of such as these the prophet Isaiah says: “Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: for the heart of this people is waxen gross, and they hear heavily with their ears.” (Ap. Const. III:VI; ANF 7:427-8)

Is it any wonder that persons who thusly depicted women would not submit to a woman teaching the Word. 

The men Jesus sent out were all uncircumcised Jewish men. What conclusion are we to draw from this? In a time when women were not considered reliable witnesses or teachers sending out women would have hindered the Gospel.  Jesus did not send out women with the original 12. Neither did Jesus give any laws forbidding women to speak/teach the Word or to  make disciples.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: aletheist on December 22, 2010, 01:53:53 PM
It is biblically rooted feminism that prompts LCMS women to openly confront LCMS theologians who refuse to explain why the interpretation of I Cor 11, I Cor 14, Ephesians 5 and I Timothy has changed in our life time.
Just to clarify--to what specific change in the interpretation of those particular passages are you referring here, which you claim has occurred in our lifetime?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: aletheist on December 22, 2010, 02:02:44 PM
I have not seen 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1 cited in this thread so far. Does the stated requirement for an overseer/bishop, elder, or deacon to be "the husband of one wife" (or "a man of one woman" per the ESV footnotes) inherently limit those offices to men, or are there good exegetical reasons not to take such a position?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 22, 2010, 02:18:21 PM
Is it any wonder that persons who thusly depicted women would not submit to a woman teaching the Word. 

Ah.  So based on this inference, you recommend...  ???

The men Jesus sent out were all uncircumcised Jewish men. What conclusion are we to draw from this? In a time when women were not considered reliable witnesses or teachers sending out women would have hindered the Gospel.  Jesus did not send out women with the original 12. Neither did Jesus give any laws forbidding women to speak/teach the Word or to  make disciples.

"...uncircumcised Jewish men"?  Methinks you mean "circumcised Jewish men."

As to conclusions, I would and have relied upon the quite clear didactic teachings of Paul.  But Jesus' example in his choice of only men for roles clearly connected to authoritative teaching serves to strongly buttress Paul's didactic teachings, just as the lack of any female presbyter or episkopes in the NT has the same effect by way of negative example.

Your last statement (Neither did Jesus give any laws forbidding women to speak/teach the Word or to  make disciples) only works if Paul were not speaking with the Spirit of Christ, though I would distinguish between speak/teach the Word in the context of worship from speaking/teaching the Word in other contexts or making disciples more generally.  It is only the authoritative teaching (in Chrysostom, that from the bema) that Paul mentions in 1 Tim. 2.

And while the Spirit of Christ does command some qualified men to be presbyters / episkopes, that same Spirit never does so for women.

Again, could you please give a reading of Eph. 5 that respects its actual words and shows that what Paul really meant is that in the marital relationship, there is no distinction between men and women.

<<Let the reader note that silence will descend on my request yet again.  It must, of course, because Paul does distinguish where Marie does not, and to admit that would be to admit at least the possibility that men and women might have different roles in the church and not only in marriage.>>
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 22, 2010, 02:31:43 PM
Which is to say that again you're tripping up against Paul's words.  Unless, that is, you could answer the question I've repeatedly asked you and you have refused to respond to: Please give me an interpretation of Eph. 5 that respects its actual words.  But to be honest, I don't think you'll ever offer such a reading of Eph. 5.

Scott:  In regard to the authority that belongs to Jesus, Head of the Church. It is authority over sin, death and the devil and an authority that is unique to His life, death and resurrection.  The Scriptures do not associate this authority with the human maleness of Jesus, the Christ. 

How does He exercise His authority as Head of the Church, the One Holy Bride who is His Body? I submit that the entire NT witnesses to His being the Head who confers on Her, His Body,  all that belongs to who He is as the unique Son of God and the Son of Man.  He exercises His unique authority to lift Her up to Be His counterpart on earth. He does not then say to His Bride, however you may not speak, teach or act with the authority I have given to you because you are the Bride and not the Bridegroom.

If I may be honest, I think there is a real danger that LCMS men are claiming the unique authority of our Lord, an authority that originates in His submissive sacrificial love, and associating it with their human maleness. As I previously stated, some in the LCMS now acknowledge that women as the Church are “with” authority, but that they may not be “in authority over” men in the church because only men can be husbands and husbands have authority over their wives. 

How does this relate to Ephesians 5? I recently ordered  the IVP book “Abusing Scripture, The Consequences of Misreading the Bible” by Manfred T Brauch.  I have not yet read the entire book, but glanced at his comments on Ephesians 5. He writes,
“I have placed verse 26 in brackets and italics to indicate that it represents a brief Christological-soteriological expansion of Christ self-giving in verse 25.   It is inconceivable for Paul to have thought that the husband’s self- subordinating love for his wife does for the wife what Christ did for the church (including husbands and wives,) namely making his wife by purifying her. The only point of comparison is this: husbands are to love their wives in sacrificial, self-giving love, just as Christ loved and gave himself for the church.”

Might you be misusing this text to justify the claim that men are in any way more like the Son of God or the Holy Spirit than are women? 



Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 22, 2010, 02:38:42 PM
Just to clarify--to what specific change in the interpretation of those particular passages are you referring here, which you claim has occurred in our lifetime?  

Sure - I Cor 11 is not longer said to establish a four level structure of "God, Christ, man woman each member of the order superordinated to the succeeding member."
 
Ephesians five is no longer used as the basis for saying wives are to obey their husbands.

In some LCMS circles I Cor 14 is no longer said to forbid women lectors.

Big change has been in I Tim 2.  Teaching men and exercising authorithy over men were considered two separate prohibitions. Now they are said to be one prohibtion, thus women may teach men in Bible Class. 

There have been other changes, but this is a sample for which you asked.
 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 22, 2010, 02:40:13 PM

"...uncircumcised Jewish men"?  Methinks you mean "circumcised Jewish men."

You think correctly.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 22, 2010, 02:48:33 PM
Might you be misusing this text to justify the claim that men are in any way more like the Son of God or the Holy Spirit than are women? 

You know what, I don't think I'll respond except to say: "Nope, because that's not my claim."

Until you give an actual reading of the text of Eph. 5 that shows that Paul doesn't distinguish the role of the husband from that of the wife (instead of the extreme generalities you "submit" for our consideration), as far as I'm concerned, our conversation will go nowhere.

And though I've never used this term (at least as I can recall), I now think you're being dishonest in discussion, asking questions and either responding extremely obliquely or simply not at all to questions and points made in response that are directed your way.  That's dishonest.

[[On further reflection, I do remember expressing my loss of trust in what you write in the wake of your knowing misrepresentation of the process that resulted in TCT where you used as an example of not listening to the women something where the CTCR did, in fact, listen.  You did this in your Forum Letter article and I said that I was surprised at the misrepresentation and loss trust in your representations of others views, but I didn't at that time express that you were being dishonest in our discussions.  Again, as far as I can recall]]
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 22, 2010, 02:52:45 PM
Scott:  In regard to the authority that belongs to Jesus, Head of the Church. It is authority over sin, death and the devil and an authority that is unique to His life, death and resurrection.  The Scriptures do not associate this authority with the human maleness of Jesus, the Christ. 

How do you separate the human maleness of the Son of God from the rest of His person?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: aletheist on December 22, 2010, 02:54:15 PM
I'd have difficulty using this descriptive quality rather than the direction for women to be silent found in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14.
To me, those passages read as prescriptive, not (merely) descriptive.

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife . . ." (1Ti 3:2)
"Let deacons each be the husband of one wife . . ." (1Ti 3:12)
". . . appoint elders . . . if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife . . ." (Tit 1:5)

Even so, I was not suggesting alternative Scriptural support for ordaining only men; these passages simply supplement the ones that have already been discussed, as additional data points for consideration.

Press too strongly on this point, and you end up having male pastors who are single violating Scripture.
That is obviously a different issue altogether, but frankly--if I may indeed press the point a bit, to see where it leads--it seems to follow directly from the texts. Childless men would also apparently be ineligible, along with those whose children are not believers or who otherwise fail to manage their own households well. Can we pick and choose which Biblical qualifications are still binding? At a minimum, Paul apparently presupposed that only married men with submissive, believing children would be overseers/bishops, elders, and deacons.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 22, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
The Scriptures do not associate this authority with the human maleness of Jesus, the Christ. 

Whoops, Mrs. Meyer just slipped over into some Christological heresy here.

When Christ says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to ME." He was speaking as the Theanthropic Son of God. Upon further reflection, I'm sure she will correct herself, since I know how concerned she is for proper Christology and Trinitarian theology when these issues are discussed. There is no separating the human nature from the Divine nature in Christ, and it is an odd way to speak to use the phrase "human maleness."

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: aletheist on December 22, 2010, 03:12:32 PM
In regard to the authority that belongs to Jesus, Head of the Church. It is authority over sin, death and the devil and an authority that is unique to His life, death and resurrection.
Is it authority only over sin, death, and the devil? Does Christ have no authority over anything else pertaining to the Church? Does He not possess ultimate authority that is unique to His person, rather than just His life, death, and resurrection?

The Scriptures do not associate this authority with the human maleness of Jesus, the Christ.
The Scriptures associate this authority with the person of Jesus, the Christ, who was (and is) a human male.

He does not then say to His Bride, however you may not speak, teach or act with the authority I have given to you because you are the Bride and not the Bridegroom.
Is anyone claiming otherwise? What He does seem to say to His Bride (through Paul) is that the authority that He has given to her to speak, teach, and act (at least in public worship) is not for just anyone to exercise.

If I may be honest, I think there is a real danger that LCMS men are claiming the unique authority of our Lord, an authority that originates in His submissive sacrificial love, and associating it with their human maleness.
What (most) LCMS men are claiming is that the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, associated the headship of Christ over the Church with the headship of a husband over his wife.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: LCMS87 on December 22, 2010, 03:16:11 PM
Let the widow therefore own herself to be the “altar of God,” and let her sit in her house, and not enter into the houses of the faithful, under any pretence, to receive anything; for the altar of God never runs about, but is fixed in one place. Let, therefore, the virgin and the widow be such as do not run about, or gad to the houses of those who are alien from the faith. For such as these are gadders and impudent: they do not make their feet to rest in one place, because they are not widows, but purses ready to receive, triflers, evil-speakers, counsellors of strife, without shame, impudent, who being such, are not worthy of Him that called them. For they do not come to the common station of the congregation on the Lord’s day, as those that are watchful; but either they slumber, or trifle, or allure men, or beg, or ensnare others, bringing them to the evil one; not suffering them to be watchful in the Lord, but taking care that they go out as vain as they came in, because they do not hear the word of the Lord either taught or read. For of such as these the prophet Isaiah says: “Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: for the heart of this people is waxen gross, and they hear heavily with their ears.” (Ap. Const. III:VI; ANF 7:427-8)

Is it any wonder that persons who thusly depicted women would not submit to a woman teaching the Word.  

This seems a rather uncharitable reading of the text.  The Apostolic Constitutions are clearly not arguing against women per se here, but only against those who were behaving in specific ungodly ways.  

I note particularly the concern that they do not listen to the word of the Lord.  Clearly, theirs was a different culture from our own.  From this brief snippet I'm not able to completely follow all the details of what behavior the author believes is to be expected from Christian widows and virgins, but to criticize certain women who do not come to church, "as those that are watchful", and who therefore, "do not hear the word of the Lord either taught or read" is not an anti-woman view.  It is a continuing complaint of the prophets, the apostles, and our Lord himself concerning all who refuse to hear and take to heart his word.  That the Apostolic Constitutions addresses a specific evidence of this stiff-necked behavior apparently prevalent in that day is not surprising.  It should certainly not be taken as demeaning of all women.  (Unless, of course, it can be shown that the accusations made are completely without foundation.  Knowing the sad effects of sin in my life, I have little difficulty believing that what is described here could actually happen.)    
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: aletheist on December 22, 2010, 03:20:30 PM
There have been other changes, but this is a sample for which you asked.
Thanks, but I am still confused. Would it not be the "biblically rooted feminists" who would need to explain these changes, rather than LCMS theologians who (presumably) still hold to the old interpretations? Or is it only the LCMS theologians who have embraced these changes that LCMS women are openly confronting? If so, what is the reason for the confrontation?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 03:38:21 PM
The Scriptures do not associate this authority with the human maleness of Jesus, the Christ.  

See "The Maleness of God"

http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: aletheist on December 22, 2010, 03:43:51 PM
Yeah, well, that makes it hard to square with 1 Corinthians 7:29-33. That is why I see both texts as descriptive and not prescriptive.
I see no conflict with 1Co 7:29-33. There, Paul writes "to the church of God in Corinth" that "an unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." To me, this passage comes across as descriptive, not prescriptive. It is an observation directed at Christians in general--not specifically overseers/bishops, elders, or deacons--and it does not say, "An overseer/bishop, elder, or deacon must (or even should) be unmarried." By contrast, in 1Ti 3:2, Paul writes "to Timothy my true son in the faith" that "an overseer must be the husband of one wife." To me, this passage comes across as prescriptive, not descriptive. It is an instruction directed at one being charged with appointing overseers/bishops, elders, and deacons.

Otherwise, congregations could move to depose their pastors at the first sign of rebellion from a preacher's kid.  ;)
No, because "the first sign of rebellion" is not necessarily an indicator that a preacher's kid is not a believer. Who among us can honestly claim never to have shown any signs of rebellion? I confess that I do so every day. Rather, Paul seems to be saying that a prospective overseer/bishop, elder, or deacon must have a reasonably long track record of managing his household (including children) well.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 22, 2010, 04:21:07 PM

How do you separate the human maleness of the Son of God from the rest of His person?

Sandra:  I did not separate the human maleness of the Son of God.  I said that the authority of Christ as Head of the Church was not in the maleness of His human body.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 22, 2010, 04:24:19 PM
Might you be misusing this text to justify the claim that men are in any way more like the Son of God or the Holy Spirit than are women?  

You know what, I don't think I'll respond except to say: "Nope, because that's not my claim."

Until you give an actual reading of the text of Eph. 5 that shows that Paul doesn't distinguish the role of the husband from that of the wife (instead of the extreme generalities you "submit" for our consideration), as far as I'm concerned, our conversation will go nowhere.

And though I've never used this term (at least as I can recall), I now think you're being dishonest in discussion, asking questions and either responding extremely obliquely or simply not at all to questions directed your way.  That's dishonest.

[[On further reflection, I do remember expressing my loss of trust in what you write in the wake of your knowing misrepresentation of the effects of your criticism of TCT in your Forum Letter article, but I didn't at that time express that you were being dishonest in our discussions.]]

Conclusion:

This conversation is not going anywhere because I am not trustworthy and dishonest.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 04:33:53 PM
Sandra:  I did not separate the human maleness of the Son of God.  I said that the authority of Christ as Head of the Church was not in the maleness of His human body.

From Rottmann's paper:

"But what exactly is the connection between the maleness of Jesus, the apostles, and by extension, all pastors? It does not seem too difficult to surmise, at least on the surface of things, that they are His representatives. When they speak His words and distribute His gifts, the Church receives these things in precisely the manner described in the Catechism: "as from God Himself, not doubting, but firmly believing," and, "as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself." Thus, the Catechism identifies corporate worship as the connection between Jesus, the apostles, and the entire Office of the Ministry.

And corporate worship reveals the problem of women’s ordination. If True Maleness is "love which loves" and True Femaleness is "love which is loved," as I have suggested above, then a female pastor changes Christian worship into a pagan act of appeasement. A female pastor, no matter how theologically articulate she may be, by virtue of her femaleness represents a god who came to be served; a god who must first be loved before love will be reciprocated."

http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm


Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 22, 2010, 04:34:16 PM
Might you be misusing this text to justify the claim that men are in any way more like the Son of God or the Holy Spirit than are women? 

You know what, I don't think I'll respond except to say: "Nope, because that's not my claim."

Until you give an actual reading of the text of Eph. 5 that shows that Paul doesn't distinguish the role of the husband from that of the wife (instead of the extreme generalities you "submit" for our consideration), as far as I'm concerned, our conversation will go nowhere.

And though I've never used this term (at least as I can recall), I now think you're being dishonest in discussion, asking questions and either responding extremely obliquely or simply not at all to questions directed your way.  That's dishonest.

[[On further reflection, I do remember expressing my loss of trust in what you write in the wake of your knowing misrepresentation of the effects of your criticism of TCT in your Forum Letter article, but I didn't at that time express that you were being dishonest in our discussions.]]

Conclusion:

This conversation is not going anywhere because I am not trustworthy and dishonest.

No, the conversation is going nowhere because you won't respond to points or questions so there is no conversation to be had.

Rather, what the responses are, time and again, are general "submissions" from you (largely unconnected to any particular text of Scripture) that are non-responsive to the points and questions actually being raised.

As a post-facto evaluation of that type of posting habit, it is dishonest behavior.

As to trustworthiness, you can easily talk to someone you don't trust.

And what caused me to lose the trust I previously had for you was your characterization of the process that resulted in TCT where you used as an example of women not being listened to something that they were, in fact, listened to.  Like I said, that doesn't stop conversation, though; it just makes the one conversing with you more suspicious when you casually throw around generalities of "the LCMS'" view or characterizations of LCMS documents.  All that means is that I actually have to read the documents to respond.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on December 22, 2010, 06:05:26 PM
I am moved to say both "Wow" and "Gack" at the same time with regard to the Rottmann article, Don.  Thanks for tuning us into that one, under the category "confessional Lutherans".  "True maleness in the image of God" as essential to God being God, holding that beneath the metaphor of God as Father God is substantially male takes us back to first of all some wonderful pagan images as in the totem pole (or for true Americans the Washington Monument), and secondly to concepts that the Greek fathers dealt with a long time ago when discussing the Trinity (perichoresis, viz.) , and finally to the words of Jesus who said, "God is Spirit."  Who has seen God?  Apparently this pastor, who speculates about the foreskin on Adam or lack thereof and carries it through to speculation on the very image of God as being in an underlying manner male, and not, as Luther indicated, having to do with righteousness.  I get this, as did Michaelangelo - the old white guy with a beard.  It is a perduring image.  As is the totem pole.  Gack.

Dave Benke 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 22, 2010, 06:14:10 PM
Mrs Meyer, please respond to my pointing out the significant Christological heresy you have, no doubt inadvertently, slipped into. I do hope you correct yourself.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 06:47:32 PM
President Benke,

I posted it because I found it intriguing. Certainly Pr. Rottmann called it an exploratory essay, throwing things out there for discussion.

On the other hand...

"...the metaphor of God as Father..."

That's it? Metaphor?

"O heavenly Father/Mother, as we prepare to celebrate the birth of The Door..."
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on December 22, 2010, 07:34:42 PM
Don, take your time with this.   There are plenty of articles on this topic; speculators have done their darndest through the years to take the metaphorical and make it physical, all to no avail theologically.  Landmines abound, Don, landmines.  Such as "how cool.  God the Father is an old man, God the Son is a young man, and God the Spirit is a dove.  Three Gods and two of them look just like me.  Thank God He's white, by the way.  What kind of male God would be some other race?  And none of them look like my wife."   Or, "It's all about nuts and bolts, tabs and slots.  God is essentially a bolt, a tab, a.......totem pole."  Or, "Adam had no foreskin."  What? What is your point?

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 07:39:00 PM
I would hardly correlate Father with having a beard or being white or some of the other provocative, giggling-schoolboy terms you've thrown in.

So, taking my time, speaking slowly...

God as Father is metaphor only?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: mariemeyer on December 22, 2010, 07:45:39 PM
Whoops, Mrs. Meyer just slipped over into some Christological heresy here.

When Christ says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to ME." He was speaking as the Theanthropic Son of God. Upon further reflection, I'm sure she will correct herself, since I know how concerned she is for proper Christology and Trinitarian theology when these issues are discussed. There is no separating the human nature from the Divine nature in Christ, and it is an odd way to speak to use the phrase "human maleness."  

Paul: Give it up. I did not separate the human nature from the Divine nature in Christ.  I did say that the authority given to Christ did not orignate with nor was it bound to his human maleness.

Several years ago an LCMS woman, a college professor,  commented, "Someone has to tell the Emperor he is not wearing anything clothing." At the time I winced at her comment.  Today I think she was on to something.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 22, 2010, 07:47:35 PM
Apparently God's choice to create Adam first means absolutely nothing.

 ::)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 22, 2010, 08:05:39 PM
"Someone has to tell the Emperor he is not wearing anything clothing."

That's what you think you're doing?  ???

It only works if you can give a coherent account.  I and many others can read the text of Gal. 3:28, Eph. 5 and 1 Tim 2 and take account of each passage (along with their related passages).  You only have Gal. 3:28 et al.

Perhaps you feel a draft?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on December 22, 2010, 08:23:02 PM

How do you separate the human maleness of the Son of God from the rest of His person?

Sandra:  I did not separate the human maleness of the Son of God.  I said that the authority of Christ as Head of the Church was not in the maleness of His human body.

All that we say about Christ as human male can also be said of Christ as Head of the Church, and even said of God Himself.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 22, 2010, 08:44:50 PM
Whoops, Mrs. Meyer just slipped over into some Christological heresy here.

When Christ says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to ME." He was speaking as the Theanthropic Son of God. Upon further reflection, I'm sure she will correct herself, since I know how concerned she is for proper Christology and Trinitarian theology when these issues are discussed. There is no separating the human nature from the Divine nature in Christ, and it is an odd way to speak to use the phrase "human maleness."  

Paul: Give it up. I did not separate the human nature from the Divine nature in Christ.  I did say that the authority given to Christ did not orignate with nor was it bound to his human maleness.

Several years ago an LCMS woman, a college professor,  commented, "Someone has to tell the Emperor he is not wearing anything clothing." At the time I winced at her comment.  Today I think she was on to something.


Mrs. Meyer, you have spent many years criticizing, questioning and, frankly, attacking the orthodox Lutheran confession of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. You have persistently attacked the theology and teaching of our many fathers and teachers in the faith in your efforts to advance the agenda of the ordination of women.

Now, when you have so clearly and evidently slipped into overt Christological heresy, you resort to defensiveness and rude dismissal.

Frankly, if you are not in a position to receive criticism and have your faults and failings pointed out, perhaps you ought to reconsider how wise it is for you to try to establish yourself as a critic.

You have erred, seriously, in your understanding of the two natures in Christ. It is evident you have a severely distorted understanding of the human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the point you are willing even to "write off" our Lord's "maleness" as you put it.

I urge you to think very seriously about the extremely significant error you have embraced and are, apparently, willing to keep repeating.

Rather than lapsing into a sort of "poor me, I'm being criticized" mode of responding to your critics here, you should consider just how many of us, who are very serious about our theology, are trying to help you understand where you are wrong and continue be so seriously wrong.

Until then, however, you are the one responsible for making it difficult, if not impossible, to regard your rhetoric here as a serious effort at dialogue, rather than simply being monologue.

Finally, I would also note, and this is strangely ironic, there is another person who deals with issues in the way you are, assumes the same rhetorical posture, who refuses to recognize or concede any possible error, who always is quick to throw all responsibility for misunderstanding back on his opponents. That person is Herman Otten.

Consider that.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on December 22, 2010, 09:45:06 PM
Don, male-ness-masculinity in the Godhead.  Must this not contain physicality?  Beyond Jesus, into the Godhead?  Mine are not school-kid comments, friend.  They are the extension of moving male physicality into the Godhead - the "deep penetrating structures of the universe," so to speak.  Totemic.  You are creating God in your own image if you place masculine physicality into the essence of the Godhead.  If not physicality, then what do you mean?  I would take it then you mean what is called metaphor - this is how we speak of God - as Father. 

Ask it another way, maybe - is it important that the terms used as metaphors for God are primarily masculine?  That's a valid question. 

That the essence or ontology of the Godhead is masculine, that's the kind of thinking that resulted in the killing of physically imperfect children through the centuries - if the image of God is connected to physicality and one is physically dramatically imperfect, they are a) cursed b) not able to be connected to God, whose image is not righteousness but also physical perfection.  Get rid of them.  "He became sin who knew no sin, that in him we might become the righteousness of God."  Not great physical specimens.  What troubles me is that you would give credence to this badly flawed theological argumentation because of your pre-set which is against cultural feminism.
The answer you have chosen is cultural masculinism. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 22, 2010, 10:01:55 PM
Our synod teaches that the first person of the Trinity is to be addressed as Father, not Mother or Parent. If that distinction necessarily imputes physicality to the Godhead (since maleness is the only distinction in the words) then what is the rationale behind the Biblical language and the LCMS policy toward it? Shouldn't addressing God as Father be exactly the same as addressing Her as Mother, if phyicality, which cannot be ascribed to the Godhead, provides the only distinction between the words? Or is it possible that there is more to "male and female" than body parts and procreational function? 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on December 22, 2010, 10:09:12 PM
Physicality, Peter.  You are answering the question I raised with a "Yes."  An appropriate answer, because it is the language of Scripture used, as Jesus indicates, metaphorically. 

He says "I and the Father are one," and yet says "God is Spirit."  I take that as an understanding that to call God "Father" is appropriate in terms of relationship, while understanding that ontologically the Godhead does not contain physicality, but is spirit.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 22, 2010, 10:25:20 PM
Physicality, Peter.  You are answering the question I raised with a "Yes."  An appropriate answer, because it is the language of Scripture used, as Jesus indicates, metaphorically. 

He says "I and the Father are one," and yet says "God is Spirit."  I take that as an understanding that to call God "Father" is appropriate in terms of relationship, while understanding that ontologically the Godhead does not contain physicality, but is spirit.

Dave Benke
I do not think insisting on Father rather than Mother imputes physicality to the Godhead, nor do I think calling God Mother is the same thing as calling Him Father. Quite apart from any male anatomy, God the Father begets, which is a uniquely masculine activity.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 22, 2010, 10:34:39 PM
Peter writes:
God the Father begets, which is a uniquely masculine activity.

I respond:
 ???  ???
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 22, 2010, 10:40:10 PM
Peter writes:
God the Father begets, which is a uniquely masculine activity.

I respond:
 ???  ???
"Born of the Virgin Mary" is a miracle. "Born of the Virgin Joseph" is an absurdity.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 22, 2010, 11:17:12 PM
Don, male-ness-masculinity in the Godhead.  Must this not contain physicality?  Beyond Jesus, into the Godhead?  Mine are not school-kid comments, friend.  They are the extension of moving male physicality into the Godhead - the "deep penetrating structures of the universe," so to speak.  Totemic.  You are creating God in your own image if you place masculine physicality into the essence of the Godhead.  If not physicality, then what do you mean?  I would take it then you mean what is called metaphor - this is how we speak of God - as Father. 

Ask it another way, maybe - is it important that the terms used as metaphors for God are primarily masculine?  That's a valid question. 

That the essence or ontology of the Godhead is masculine, that's the kind of thinking that resulted in the killing of physically imperfect children through the centuries - if the image of God is connected to physicality and one is physically dramatically imperfect, they are a) cursed b) not able to be connected to God, whose image is not righteousness but also physical perfection.  Get rid of them.  "He became sin who knew no sin, that in him we might become the righteousness of God."  Not great physical specimens.  What troubles me is that you would give credence to this badly flawed theological argumentation because of your pre-set which is against cultural feminism.
The answer you have chosen is cultural masculinism. 

Dave Benke

President Benke,

I simply do not understand why you do this.

I thought I was very clear about Rottmann's presentation. I wrote:

"I posted it because I found it intriguing. Certainly Pr. Rottmann called it an exploratory essay, throwing things out there for discussion."

I said neither "aye" nor "nay" to his assertions but, rather, suggested that he was pushing the envelope. Yet you now ascribe all of his argument to me and even tell me that I take a position which I have taken because of some "pre-set."

All I did was ask you to verify what you said. I asked:

"On the other hand...

'...the metaphor of God as Father...

That's it? Metaphor?"

And your answer, after the ridicule and ascribing to me a position that results in killing imperfect children, is...

a false dichotomy.  Metaphor or physicality.  You reject the latter, so we must conclude that you hold that God as Father is only metaphor, for you give us no other choice.

FWIW, I'll go with Pr. Speckhard's comments, for I believe that God as Father being a metaphor only is serious error.


Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 23, 2010, 04:35:32 AM
Just seems to me that after Eden any "begetting" going on was not solely a masculine activity, except perhaps for some of those organisms that are able to be transexual or reproduce in other non-binary non-gender ways.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on December 23, 2010, 07:32:54 AM
Peter, of Mary - "what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit," Matt. 1:20.  Don, "So God created man in his image, in the image of God He created him, male and female he created them."  Genesis 1:27. 

Don, you posted the article.  I don't find it intriguing at all. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 23, 2010, 07:51:56 AM
Genesis 1:27 is not the only text we have on the subject of the Creator's ordering of his creation, as St. Paul makes clear in His epistles.

And therein is a point that some do not wish to account for, or worse yet, choose simply to ignore.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: revjagow on December 23, 2010, 08:34:14 AM
FWIW, backtracking on this thread, I thought that Marie wrote that Christ's authority did not stem from His maleness (according to His human nature) but according to His divinity (sitting at the right hand of God).  Obviously, Christ is both at the same time, but different attributes of Christ are communicated according to His two natures.  If He were not human, then He could not have died.  If He were not divine, He could not reign at God's right hand.  There is a proper way to divide Christ's nature as we come to understand this mystery, and, obviously, if we slip too far in emphasizing one over the other, then we tiptoe over the line to heresy. 

[Incidentially, didn't Christweild some "male" authority with His family by moving them all to Capernaum.  It' seems He is in charge of His mother and sister's well being]

I'm just posting this out of a concern for fairness.  I have been following the meaty dialog here and would like to see it kept at the high level it was at.  Also, pondering the two natures of Christ is related to the mysteries of the incarnation we are all pondering now, yes?

Many blessings in your final Christmas preparations!
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 23, 2010, 08:41:11 AM
Don, you posted the article.  I don't find it intriguing at all.  

Dave Benke

President Benke,

Given that you believe that God as Father is only metaphor I can understand that. Maybe you're related to this guy too.

http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/god/2010/01/god-the-father-the-perfect-metaphor/  

The irony, however, is that you think that God as male is "cultural masculinism" which has led to killing imperfect children, when the killing of imperfect children is the result of quite the opposite cultural trait and view.

I believe in God the Father Almighty who created me...and I have been baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Much more than mere metaphor.

Don Kirchner
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 23, 2010, 08:52:03 AM
Peter, of Mary - "what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit," Matt. 1:20. 
Not following you. Note the passive. Mary conceived, which is a different thing than begetting. Begetting is a masculine function, conceiving is a feminine function. They are not interchangeable activities, nor are the words merely masculine and feminine forms of the same thing, like actress and actor. You have never conceived a child, nor has your wife ever begotten one, not because it is a biological impossibility but because it is a logical contradiction. That's why I wrote that "Born of the Virgin Mary" is a miracle, because the biologically impossible happened. "Born of the Virgin Joseph" is an absurdity, a logical contradiction, like a God making a rock so big that God can't lift it.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Matt Staneck on December 23, 2010, 09:11:33 AM
Scripture is ripe with metaphors.  And I don't think metaphor's are taken in a "just" or "only" fashion as though they were symbolism only, or allegorical, and/or not real. 

Jesus is the Lamb of God.  This is a metaphor.  He is really the lamb of God who takes the way the sin of the world, but he is fully, 100% human.  So Jesus in that sense is not a lamb (to the current thread point) in a physical manner.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd.  As we are the sheep, (another metaphor that is both true yet we're not physically sheep) Jesus is our shepherd.  Is Jesus really a shepherd? Yes.  Is he a shepherd like those keeping watch by night? No.  He was a carpenter.  Metaphors.

I could go on but it would belabor a point and probably annoy a few people.  So God is Father?  Yes.  God the Father is male as in human male with the physicality of one?  No.  God is Spirit.

Metaphors are a beautiful thing and they carry the entirety of Holy Scripture.  This does not mean they are simple allegories or not true, quite the opposite.  We have metaphors because God is wholly other and has elected to communicate to us in these means. 

Theology is the art of distinction.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 23, 2010, 09:17:52 AM
Words mean things. So let us make some distinctions.

A metaphor is figurative speech, "in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them." And yes, metaphors can be beautiful things.

So let us take one of those beautiful metaphors- Christ the Lamb. But the Son is not a metaphor only.

President Benke has suggested that God as Father is metaphor only.  I find this to be serious error.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 23, 2010, 09:19:13 AM
Peter writes:
God the Father begets, which is a uniquely masculine activity.

I respond:
 ???  ???
"Born of the Virgin Mary" is a miracle. "Born of the Virgin Joseph" is an absurdity.

Not quite. γεννάω is used of both males and females in the procreation act. It is usually translated differently if it is about the male role ("beget") or the female role ("give birth"). Do we not imply that that the regenerated have been "born from above" or "born from God"? There are also OT passages where God is pictured as giving birth to Israel.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 23, 2010, 09:22:01 AM
I would say that the Father is the proper name of the first person of the Trinity.  It is not a metaphor but rather, again, a name indicating whom is being referenced.

God the Father is beyond any human conceptions of fatherhood.  So what it means for the first person to be named "Father" can only be understood analogically, which is to say, among other things, that the Father is not male in the same way humans are male.  Perhaps this is where the language of "metaphor" is better used.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 23, 2010, 09:30:10 AM
President Benke has suggested that God as Father is metaphor only.  I find this to be serious error.

What about the images of God as mother? Are they metaphors or something else?


Numbers 11:12-13 —
Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth? Why do you tell me to carry them in my arms, as a nurse carries an infant, to the land you promised on oath to their ancestors? Where can I get meat for all these people? They keep wailing to me, 'Give us meat to eat!'

Deuteronomy 32:18 —
You deserted the Rock, who bore you;
   you forgot the God who gave you birth.

Job 38:28-30 —
Does the rain have a father?
   Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
   Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone,

It seems that it is biblical to talk about God having a womb. Do we mean that literally or metaphorically?

If God is male, then can we talk about God having the male genitalia. If we do, are we speaking literally or metaphorically? If metaphorically, then it seems that the image of God as male/Father must be a metaphor.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on December 23, 2010, 09:34:16 AM
Thanks, Scott - well put in all six of the sentences you wrote.  All reinforce the way the Greek fathers worked this through lo those many centuries ago.  

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: BrotherBoris on December 23, 2010, 09:43:25 AM
President Benke has suggested that God as Father is metaphor only.  I find this to be serious error.

What about the images of God as mother? Are they metaphors or something else?


Numbers 11:12-13 —
Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth? Why do you tell me to carry them in my arms, as a nurse carries an infant, to the land you promised on oath to their ancestors? Where can I get meat for all these people? They keep wailing to me, 'Give us meat to eat!'

Deuteronomy 32:18 —
You deserted the Rock, who bore you;
   you forgot the God who gave you birth.

Job 38:28-30 —
Does the rain have a father?
   Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
   Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone,

It seems that it is biblical to talk about God having a womb. Do we mean that literally or metaphorically?

If God is male, then can we talk about God having the male genitalia. If we do, are we speaking literally or metaphorically? If metaphorically, then it seems that the image of God as male/Father must be a metaphor.
[/b]



God DOES have male genitalia. That's why God was circumcised on the eight day after His birth.  I realize this is (pardon the pun) rather a 'foreskin in the face' to feminist theology and "HerChurch" theology, but not so long ago the Lutheran Church used to sing:

O blessed day when first was poured
The blood of our redeeming Lord!
O blessed day when Christ began
His saving work for sinful man!
     The Lutheran Hymnal (1941), number 115 verse 1.

Boris
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 23, 2010, 09:46:44 AM
"[The Father] is not a metaphor but rather, again, a name indicating whom is being referenced."

"Thanks, Scott - well put in all six (sic) of the sentences you wrote."

I suppose it could be argued that for anyone else to be a father can only be understood analogically. In fact, to understand my father, George Kirchner, as a father can, in a sense, only be understood analogically. That Christ is my Savior can, in a sense, be only understood analogically. So God the Father as Creator could, in a sense, be understood only analogically.

I confess, however, that God the Father as Creator of heaven and earth, who begat the Son, my Savior, is far more than metaphor.


Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 23, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
God DOES have male genitalia. That's why God was circumcised on the eight day after His birth.  I realize this is (pardon the pun) rather a 'foreskin in the face' to feminist theology and "HerChurch" theology, but not so long ago the Lutheran Church used to sing:

Then the passage about God having a womb must mean that God has both.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 23, 2010, 10:18:16 AM
Boris has dramatically illustrated the still startling reality of the Incarnation of the Word of God.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: FrPeters on December 23, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
Which is why it is important to observe the Circumcision and Name of Jesus... Once again the Church Year comes crashing in with the full force of the reality of our confession...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: John Theiss on December 23, 2010, 01:58:33 PM
Brother Boris, do both the Father and Holy Spirit have male genitalia?  Did the Son have male genitalia prior to his conception?  Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all one person?  The whole doctrine of the Trinity places us into spaces where we risk saying more than God has revealed in trying to emphasize one aspect of a larger truth.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 23, 2010, 02:04:55 PM
Brother Boris, speaking from an Eastern point of view, well summarizes the Western view too.

It is the Faith of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that God became Man and that the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is forever and always after the Incarnation, true God and true Man. To minimize, dismiss or otherwise attempt to regard the Incarnation of the Son of God as a human male is contrary to the catholic faith.

We have seen on this thread a very serious Christological heresy being espoused, in zeal to advance the agenda of the ordination of women. This has yet to be acknowledged and retracted.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: John Theiss on December 23, 2010, 02:12:07 PM
Sorry, I must have missed something.  I did not note anyone on the forum saying that the Son of God did not remain a human male after his incarnation.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: ptmccain on December 23, 2010, 02:14:15 PM
John, review the comments more carefully and you'll see the Christological error made when speaking about the human nature of Christ.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Weedon on December 23, 2010, 02:27:09 PM
Lewis nailed it:

What Ransom saw at that moment was the real meaning of gender. Everyone must sometimes have wondered why in nearly all tongues certain inanimate objects are masculine and others feminine. What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees? Ransom has cured me of believing that this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the word. Still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the organic adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of the things that have feminine gender; there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless. Masculine is not attenuated male, nor feminine attenuated female. On the contrary, the male and female of organic creatures are rather faint and blurred reflections of masculine and feminine. Their reproductive functions, their differences in strength and size, partly exhibit, but partly also confuse and misrepresent, the real polarity.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 23, 2010, 08:00:11 PM
I suppose it could be argued that for anyone else to be a father can only be understood analogically. In fact, to understand my father, George Kirchner, as a father can, in a sense, only be understood analogically.

Only in the obvious sense that no father executes his office in the exact same way.  But this in no way negates that your father is father to you in the exact same way that I am father to my children.  There is no analogy involved; rather, your father and I are univocally father in the exact same sense.

This cannot be said of God the Father where such univocal reference no longer works.

That Christ is my Savior can, in a sense, be only understood analogically. So God the Father as Creator could, in a sense, be understood only analogically.

I'm not sure why the first clause is true, so the second clause would be a non-sequitur.  But of course, the phrase "in a sense" would shield these claims from any criticism...

I confess, however, that God the Father as Creator of heaven and earth, who begat the Son, my Savior, is far more than metaphor.

Yes, like I said, "Father" is a proper name and not a metaphor, and "Creator" is a character of the one identified as "Father."

But if the desire is to understand "Father" as more than a proper name (which is already quite enough), then any sense of "Father" in relation to God is understood by way of analogy.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Michael Slusser on December 23, 2010, 08:11:45 PM
I confess, however, that God the Father as Creator of heaven and earth, who begat the Son, my Savior, is far more than metaphor.

Yes, like I said, "Father" is a proper name and not a metaphor, and "Creator" is a character of the one identified as "Father."

But if the desire is to understand "Father" as more than a proper name (which is already quite enough), then any sense of "Father" in relation to God is understood by way of analogy.

Early on in Christianity, "Father" was short for Pater ton holon, Father of the Universe, an epithet Christians shared with non-Christians. "Father" as proper name really comes in in reciprocal relationship with Jesus as the "Son."

Jesus himself was often called "Father" in the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 23, 2010, 08:17:07 PM
Jesus himself was often called "Father" in the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

Having read quite a bit from those centuries, I don't recall coming across Jesus as so referenced.  "Pais" (child) was common as were other descriptors, but unless I'm completely off my rocker, I don't remember "Father" as a title for Jesus.

I.e. do you have a reference?  I'd like to look at it.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Michael Slusser on December 23, 2010, 08:30:48 PM
Jesus himself was often called "Father" in the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

Having read quite a bit from those centuries, I don't recall coming across Jesus as so referenced.  "Pais" (child) was common as were other descriptors, but unless I'm completely off my rocker, I don't remember "Father" as a title for Jesus.

I.e. do you have a reference?  I'd like to look at it.

The evidence is set out in Raniero Cantalamessa, "Il Cristo 'Padre' negli scritti del II - III sec.," Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 3,1 (1967): 1-27. He cites the Epistula apostolorum 41; Martyrdom of Peter 10, in the Acts of Peter, Lipsius-Bonnet I 98, 3-4; Acta Ioannis 77 & 122; 2 Clement 1.4; Letter to Diognetus 9,6; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. I 6, 42,3; Pseudo-Clementine Homilies III 19,1 [GCS 43, 63.14] . . . That gets me to p. 4 of his article. He continues for 20+ pp.

He concludes as explanation that, before Christianity began to reserve "Father" to the person who is Father of Christ, it used father as it was customarily used, with reference to the nature of the divinity.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 23, 2010, 09:15:32 PM
Jesus himself was often called "Father" in the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

Having read quite a bit from those centuries, I don't recall coming across Jesus as so referenced.  "Pais" (child) was common as were other descriptors, but unless I'm completely off my rocker, I don't remember "Father" as a title for Jesus.

I.e. do you have a reference?  I'd like to look at it.

The evidence is set out in Raniero Cantalamessa, "Il Cristo 'Padre' negli scritti del II - III sec.," Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 3,1 (1967): 1-27. He cites the Epistula apostolorum 41; Martyrdom of Peter 10, in the Acts of Peter, Lipsius-Bonnet I 98, 3-4; Acta Ioannis 77 & 122; 2 Clement 1.4; Letter to Diognetus 9,6; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. I 6, 42,3; Pseudo-Clementine Homilies III 19,1 [GCS 43, 63.14] . . . That gets me to p. 4 of his article. He continues for 20+ pp.

He concludes as explanation that, before Christianity began to reserve "Father" to the person who is Father of Christ, it used father as it was customarily used, with reference to the nature of the divinity.

Peace,
Michael

I'll look over all the references you mention, but a quick glance indicates that the word "father" was not used as a title or a name in the Epistula or Clement but as a quick relational description (such as an Ethiopic variant that says the disciples responded to Jesus by saying, "Lord, you are our father").  I'll give a more complete analysis tomorrow when I can actually look at all the documents to which I have access...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Tom Eckstein on December 23, 2010, 11:07:28 PM
Jesus himself was often called "Father" in the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

Having read quite a bit from those centuries, I don't recall coming across Jesus as so referenced.  "Pais" (child) was common as were other descriptors, but unless I'm completely off my rocker, I don't remember "Father" as a title for Jesus.

I.e. do you have a reference?  I'd like to look at it.

The evidence is set out in Raniero Cantalamessa, "Il Cristo 'Padre' negli scritti del II - III sec.," Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 3,1 (1967): 1-27. He cites the Epistula apostolorum 41; Martyrdom of Peter 10, in the Acts of Peter, Lipsius-Bonnet I 98, 3-4; Acta Ioannis 77 & 122; 2 Clement 1.4; Letter to Diognetus 9,6; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. I 6, 42,3; Pseudo-Clementine Homilies III 19,1 [GCS 43, 63.14] . . . That gets me to p. 4 of his article. He continues for 20+ pp.

He concludes as explanation that, before Christianity began to reserve "Father" to the person who is Father of Christ, it used father as it was customarily used, with reference to the nature of the divinity.

Peace,
Michael

I'll look over all the references you mention, but a quick glance indicates that the word "father" was not used as a title or a name in the Epistula or Clement but as a quick relational description (such as an Ethiopic variant that says the disciples responded to Jesus by saying, "Lord, you are our father").  I'll give a more complete analysis tomorrow when I can actually look at all the documents to which I have access...

I've read some (not all) church history on this issue, too, and Jesus being called "father" was more of a title (as "Christ") and never a proper name, as in "Our Father..."  A good example of this is in Isaiah ch. 9 where among various titles given to the messiah is "Everlasting Father" (according to some translations).  Here the Hebrew for "father" is more in the sense of "Lord" of "Head" and, again, not a proper name.

Also, we need to avoid the idea that we call God "father" because this is an extrapolation of an earthly father - that is, we tend to understand God in terms of human relational categories.  But this is theology of glory and puts us in bondage to the abstract - as does Feuerbach with his "Fatherhood of God."  In contrast, Scripture teaches that God IS father and earthly fathers share in (but not completely) his image, as earthly marriage is an image of the TRUE MARRIAGE that is between Christ and His Church.

Just my two cents worth.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 24, 2010, 08:49:32 AM
The evidence is set out in Raniero Cantalamessa, "Il Cristo 'Padre' negli scritti del II - III sec.," Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 3,1 (1967): 1-27. He cites the Epistula apostolorum 41; Martyrdom of Peter 10, in the Acts of Peter, Lipsius-Bonnet I 98, 3-4; Acta Ioannis 77 & 122; 2 Clement 1.4; Letter to Diognetus 9,6; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. I 6, 42,3; Pseudo-Clementine Homilies III 19,1 [GCS 43, 63.14] . . . That gets me to p. 4 of his article. He continues for 20+ pp.

He concludes as explanation that, before Christianity began to reserve "Father" to the person who is Father of Christ, it used father as it was customarily used, with reference to the nature of the divinity.

Peace,
Michael

Thanks again for this!  Good stuff!

1. Epistula Apostolorum 41: He answered and said unto us: Go and preach, and ye shall be labourers, and fathers, and ministers. We said unto him: Thou art he (or, Art thou he) that shalt preach by us. (Lord, thou art our father. Eth.) Then answered he us, saying: Be not (or, Are not ye) all fathers or all masters. (Are then all fathers, or all servants, or all masters? Eth.) We said unto him: Lord, thou art he that saidst unto us: Call no man your father upon earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven, and your master. Wherefore sayest thou now unto us: Ye shall be fathers of many children, and servants and masters? He answered and said unto us: According as ye have said (Ye have rightly said, Eth.). For verily I say unto you: whosoever shall hear you and believe on me, shall receive of you the light of the seal through me, and baptism through me: ye shall be fathers and servants and masters.

2. Martyrdom of Peter 10 (from the Acts of Peter): <Couldn't find the reference in a quick check, sorry>

3. Acts of John 77: And John, filled with great gladness and perceiving the whole spectacle of the salvation of man, said: What thy power is, Lord Jesu Christ, I know not, bewildered as I am at thy much compassion and boundless long-suffering. O what a greatness that came down into bondage! O unspeakable liberty brought into slavery by us! O incomprehensible glory that is come unto us! thou that hast kept the dead tabernacle safe from insult; that hast redeemed the man that stained himself with blood and chastened the soul of him that would defile the corruptible body; Father that hast had pity and compassion on the man that cared not for thee; We glorify thee, and praise and bless and thank thy great goodness and long-suffering, O holy Jesu, for thou only art God, and none else: whose is the might that cannot be conspired against, now and world without end. Amen.

Acts of John 81 (for comparison): And when she had clothed herself, she turned and saw Fortunatus lying, and said unto John: Father, let this man also rise, even if he did assay to become my betrayer.

4. 2 Clement 1.4: For [Christ] graciously bestowed light upon us.  Like a father, he called us children.


5. Epistle to Diognetus 9.6: ...for both reasons he has wanted us to believe in his kindness, to consider him our nurse, father, teacher, counselor, physician, mind, light, honor, glory, strength, and life, and to have no concern over what to wear or eat.

6. Clement of Alexandria, Paed I.6.42: The Word is everything to His little ones, both father and mother, educator and nurse.

7. Clement of Alexandria, Paed I.6.43: [I'm unsure if this is the reference in mind] Therefore, we fly trustfully to the 'care-banishing breast' of God the Father; the breast that is the Word, who is the only one who can truly bestow on us the milk of love.

8. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies III 19,1: On this account, I say, He Himself, rising from His seat as a father for his children, proclaiming the things which from the beginning were delivered in secret to the worthy, extending mercy even to the Gentiles, and compassionating the souls of all, neglected His own kindred.

9. Melito, in Pascha 46-7, ib. 3: <Couldn't find the reference in a quick check, sorry>

10. Clem Alex Protrept. 10. 110.3: [I'm unsure if this is the reference in mind] The Lord tries you, that “you may choose life.” He counsels you as a father to obey God. “For if ye hear Me,” He says, “and be willing, ye shall eat the good things of the land...

11. Hippolytus, c. Noet. 13: If, then, the Word is sent by Jesus Christ, the will of the Father is Jesus Christ.



There's a smattering of the references.  Some observations:

A. "Father" as metaphor or image (i.e. "like a father"): 4, 5, 6, 8, 10

B. "Father" as formal address: 3.  Note the parallel where John is addressed as "Father" in the Acts of John, so this is an honorific that can be applied to many people and is not restricted as some type of formal title for Jesus.

C. "Father" as descriptor of a relation: 1.  Here, though, it appears in an Ethiopic variant and is, further, extended to apply to all the disciples who are now termed "fathers."

D. Jesus / the Son as part or related to the Father via inter-trinitarian terminology, but not identified as the "Father": 7, 11

So it really wasn't used as a title or a proper name for Jesus, though the word "father" was used in reference to Jesus a number of times, mostly metaphorically or as a matter of formal address, similar to the early practice of addressing people as kyrios (Lord) which simply means, "sir" rather than a reference to the Almighty.

This is different than pais language, for example, in early Christian literature where it is used more as a formal title applicable to the Son.

But in a personal message sent to me giving me additional references, Fr. Slusser had this great line: "The notion that we are begotten by the one who has given us new life, that is, by Jesus Christ, is a true and fruitful insight. He is not only our 'brother.'"  To which I say, "Amen, and amen!"
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on December 24, 2010, 09:09:51 AM
Thanks, Fr. Slusser and Scott.  Very illuminating.  The analogoug and metaphorical nature of fatherhood (and maternal/paternal in several instances is apparent.

Blessed Eve of the Nativity!

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 24, 2010, 10:31:15 AM
Also, we need to avoid the idea that we call God "father" because this is an extrapolation of an earthly father - that is, we tend to understand God in terms of human relational categories.  But this is theology of glory and puts us in bondage to the abstract - as does Feuerbach with his "Fatherhood of God."  In contrast, Scripture teaches that God IS father and earthly fathers share in (but not completely) his image, as earthly marriage is an image of the TRUE MARRIAGE that is between Christ and His Church.

Just my two cents worth.


Thanks, Pr. Eckstein. Generally, this is what I was getting at in acquiescing to the idea of Father, in a sense, being understood by analogy, i.e., words are analogous to their previous use. I was thinking of Voelz' hermeneutics class. As he states in his book, "...when a sound or sight symbol is encountered by a receptor (i.e., hearer, reader), a mental concept is elicited from the memory world of that receptor." It works both ways. We use words via how we've seen them used in the past by others.

Yes, you are a father but, in a sense, you are a father only by analogy or extrapolation to your dear, sainted father, who is a father analogous or by extrapolation to his father, etc., back to Adam, who fathered/begat Seth, to The Father, who begat the Son from eternity, Almighty Creator of Adam and all heaven and earth, "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." So, hardly a mere metaphor.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on December 24, 2010, 11:56:50 AM
Also, we need to avoid the idea that we call God "father" because this is an extrapolation of an earthly father - that is, we tend to understand God in terms of human relational categories.  But this is theology of glory and puts us in bondage to the abstract - as does Feuerbach with his "Fatherhood of God."  In contrast, Scripture teaches that God IS father and earthly fathers share in (but not completely) his image, as earthly marriage is an image of the TRUE MARRIAGE that is between Christ and His Church.

Just my two cents worth.


Thanks, Pr. Eckstein. Generally, this is what I was getting at in acquiescing to the idea of Father, in a sense, being understood by analogy, i.e., words are analogous to their previous use. I was thinking of Voelz' hermeneutics class. As he states in his book, "...when a sound or sight symbol is encountered by a receptor (i.e., hearer, reader), a mental concept is elicited from the memory world of that receptor." It works both ways. We use words via how we've seen them used in the past by others.

Oh, I'm sorry.  When I was speaking of analogy, the archetype is the Father as shown by Scripture in just the way Tom put it above.  We understand our own fatherhood in light of God the Father of which "Father" is most properly used.  We don't understand God's Fatherhood by looking at human fatherhood.  Just as we don't look to human marriage to understand Christ's relation to the Church but rather to Christ's relation to the Church to understand human marriage.

Sorry if I was unclear on my point.

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 24, 2010, 11:59:31 AM
Thanks and agreed, Pr. Yakimow.

A blessed Nativity!
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Vern on February 20, 2011, 01:43:23 PM
Our Church voted today to call The Reverend Cynthia Bullock as our new Pastor. It was a unanimous vote to call her. She is an exceptional Preacher and a very delightful person.

We look forward to working with her.

Vernon Jorgensen :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau on February 24, 2011, 12:30:41 PM
Was Paul a "very delightful person"? grabau
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peterm on February 24, 2011, 02:25:39 PM
He may have been thought so by some, we don't know...some may also have thought the other way.   ;D  There were some in my first parish who thought I had the makings of a good preacher and was also a very nice boy, and publically said so.  They were in their nineties and sure that I was waaay to young to be a pastor (26) but were willing to concede that almost everyone was younger than they were.  Now that I serve in long term care "nice boy" is making the rounds again.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on February 24, 2011, 06:08:05 PM
Paul, like Moses, was responsible for a murder.  So maybe you could call him homicidal.  And depending on your mood towards him, you might call him a homicidal maniac.   But a delightful one, nonetheless. 

Grabau, are we trying to make a point there somewhere?  Are we looking for pastors NOT to be delightful persons?  Are we favoring grumpy?  Dopey?  Jerky? 

Winsome is the word used at the bureaucratic level.  We are looking for pastors who winsomely bring the Gospel to the people of God.  Paul was the epitome of "win-some," being all things to all people so that by all means he might save some.  Apparently he had some flexibility of approach.  Winsome.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Vern on February 25, 2011, 02:31:30 PM
The reason I said that Pastor Bullock is a delightful person is that the last pair of Pastors we had were NOT delightful people. I, therefore: look forward to her ministry with us.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: edoughty on February 25, 2011, 07:09:33 PM
The reason I said that Pastor Bullock is a delightful person is that the last pair of Pastors we had were NOT delightful people. I, therefore: look forward to her ministry with us.
Congrats to you and your congregation, Vernon!

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Vern on March 06, 2011, 02:04:18 PM
Today was the first Sunday for our new Pastor Cynthia Bullock.
She preached a very wonderful sermon on the Transfiguration with more emotion and expressionism than I've seen in many a year. The entire service was good, but capped off at the end when she asked the kids to come up before the blessing. She then talked to them about Lent, about inside and outside voices and then said that with Lent coming we needed to be more quiet until Easter, so we were going to "bury" our alleluia banner for awhile. After getting rousing alleluias from the kids and the congregation she had the kids carry the banner out.

In case you hadn't noticed I was VERY impressed!!!!!

Vernon Jorgensen ;D
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 06, 2011, 02:10:09 PM
Vernon, I'm glad you had a good service this morning. But bear in mind that opposition to the ordination of women is in no way related to how impressive a preacher or person a woman mght be.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 06, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
If the primary argument against the ordination of women is that they cannot do the job, the argument looses.  Not many men can do the job, and it seems that some women can.  The argument must be not can they but should they.

Dan
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Vern on March 06, 2011, 03:39:19 PM
I repeat my statement from awhile back: Who were the first PEOPLE told to announce that Christ had risen from the grave?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 06, 2011, 04:48:01 PM
I know! I know!

The women who went to the tomb on Easter morning. (Matt 28:7)  And all Christians as well may proclaim on Easter- and every day- "Christ is risen!"

I'm not sure what that has to do with to whom it is given to be a pastor. (Matt. 28:16-20) As stated above, the Stuart Smalley argument:

http://www.hark.com/clips/wgdxtcrbks-im-good-enough

is irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Vern on March 06, 2011, 07:41:59 PM
Doesn't that show that they were told to preach the Word?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on March 06, 2011, 08:41:22 PM
No.  It has very little to do with the Office of the Holy Ministry.  The priesthood of the baptized is distinct from the pastoral office.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: George Erdner on March 06, 2011, 08:42:51 PM
Doesn't that show that they were told to preach the Word?

It shows that those women who were eyewitnesses of an event were told to convey a specific message to a specific group of people at a specific time. It takes some interpretive extrapolation to extend that to proving (or disproving) a the eligibility of an entire gender to be similarly called for all time.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau on March 07, 2011, 09:52:19 AM
Jeremy, yes and that is what subjectivists never can seem to understand.  If it makes me feel good it must be right.  grabau
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 07, 2011, 09:57:20 AM
No.  It has very little to do with the Office of the Holy Ministry.  The priesthood of the baptized is distinct from the pastoral office.

What are the biblical basis for making such distinctions?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 07, 2011, 12:37:50 PM
Matt. 28:16-20
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on March 07, 2011, 01:41:42 PM
Thanks Don!  It's not too tricky to figure out. 

And neither is every man is called into the office of the holy ministry.  Some are called to be apostles, some are called to be evangelists, teachers, preachers.  Some.  Not all, but some.  My flesh-and blood brother is not called to be a pastor.  He and I are brothers by birth, and brothers by God's gracious baptism.  He serves His Lord in his various ways, I serve the same Lord in my various ways. 

And Brian, what is your understanding of baptismal theology?  Of vocation?  Of the holy ministry?  The priesthood of the baptized? 

Jeremy 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Dave Benke on March 07, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
I agree with two aspects here -
1) the argument for ordination for women based on talent would certainly not favor men exclusively, and more than likely would favor women
2) with Jeremy, the distinction between the ministry of the baptized and ordained is important.

Additionally, a question for the general conversation is then not talent, but gift-based.  Consider I Corinthians 12.  Paul is obviously referencing males and females (or the first creed, "Jesus is Lord" would belong only to men).  And the gifts listed include full participation in the Body - healing, mercy, words of wisdom, etc., plus tongues and interpretation.  Absent what I would consider a bogus "these things no longer pertain" rendering of the text, why can or should women as the baptized NOT participate in these ways? 
Similarly in Romans 12:1-8 another list of the gifts of the Spirit includes "teaching," as well as "prophecy."  Do these gifts which are to be used in public by the Church as it is Spirit-led bring about a blurring of the ordained/baptized boundary?  If so, how?  If not, how not?

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau14 on March 07, 2011, 05:16:06 PM
Matt. 28:16-20

And
John 20:21-23
John 21:15-17
Mark 16:15
Luke 9:1-6
Acts 20:28 (amongst others)

then you have passages that deal with the (mediate) call to the Office of the Holy Ministry such as:
Acts 1:23-26
Acts 6:1-6
Acts 9:1-19
Acts 11:25-26
Acts 13:1-3
Acts 14:21-23
Acts 20:28
II Corinthians 5:18-20
I Corinthians 12:28
I Timothy 4:14
II Timothy 1:16; 2:2
Ephesians 4:11

See also AC V, XIV, and XXVIII
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 07, 2011, 05:54:45 PM
Matt. 28:16-20

These verses don't really distinguish between the laity and ordained. We allow lay people to baptize (in emergency situations) and to teach in all kinds of situations.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 07, 2011, 05:58:58 PM
Sure they do. You simply reject them and, instead, look to your practice for doctrine and exceptions for your rule.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 07, 2011, 06:01:39 PM
And Brian, what is your understanding of baptismal theology?  Of vocation?  Of the holy ministry?  The priesthood of the baptized? 

In my understanding, the primary difference between the laity and the ordained is that the ordained can preside at communion. Before I had even entered seminary, I had been preaching. I had been "sent" as an evangelist and travelled across the U.S. I had taught Sunday school.

It was not just the 11 apostles who were empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost -- but all of the disciples who were present -- which may have been all of the followers of Jesus at that time.

There are no indications that any believer has not been gifted in some way by the Holy Spirit and that the gift is to be used for building up the body of Christ.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 07, 2011, 06:45:32 PM
Matt. 28:16-20

And
John 20:21-23 -- too bad about Thomas, guess he was stuck with the laity since he didn't receive the holy breath and the command about forgiveness.

John 21:15-17 -- nothing in those verses about a special office for Peter, most likely a three-fold affirmation of his place in the fellowship after his three-fold denial of Jesus.

Mark 16:15 -- I believe that throughout the gospels the Twelve/Eleven represent all believers.

Luke 9:1-6 -- Luke 10:1-12 involved many more than the Twelve in almost exactly the same kind of commission

Acts 20:28 (amongst others) - In any Lutheran church I've been in that had "elders" (see Acts 20:17) they were lay people.

then you have passages that deal with the (mediate) call to the Office of the Holy Ministry such as:

Acts 1:23-26
Based in the criteria given in vv. 21-22, none of us would qualify for that "Office of the Holy Ministry."

Acts 6:1-6 Ironically, one of those selected to "wait on tables" (so that the apostles could give attention to prayer and the ministry of the word) was the first to be martyred for performing miracles and preaching the Word. Perhaps with a perverted kind of logic, some might claim that the stoning of Stephen was because of God's judgment against this "deacon" who overstepped his authority and was preaching the Word rather than just distributing food (and/or money).

Acts 9:1-19 Are you suggesting that all clergy need to have a Damascus Road event to be qualified for the Office of the Holy Ministry?

Acts 11:25-26 There's no indication that Barnabas was anything but a committed lay person at this point. Even the laying on of hands on Paul by Ananias is seen more as an act of healing and perhaps confirmation of his new relationship with God. The "ordination-type" laying on of hands for Barnabas and Paul doesn't occur until Acts 13:2-3 -- after they have returned from their mission.

Acts 13:1-3 If that's the act that "set them apart" for the Office of Holy Ministry, what were they doing preaching and teaching in Antioch?

Acts 14:21-23 Again, the only Lutheran tradition of elders that I know of, is with lay people. (In the Presbyterian church, elders are ordained for life.)

II Corinthians 5:18-20 When Paul had Timothy accompany him, he had him circumcised (Acts 16:1-2). There's nothing in Acts about Timothy receiving the laying on of hands. It is also clear that Silvanus also preached to the Corinthians (2 Cor 1:19). When did he enter the office of Holy Ministry?

I Corinthians 12:28 Different gifts, one Spirit -- one baptism. There's also no indication that any of those "parts" are limited to males. We know that there were female prophets in Corinth.

I Timothy 4:14 Pretty much the same thing we do at confirmation.

II Timothy 1:16; 2:2 There's no indication that these "teachers" were anything but people who had the gift of teaching; just like the thousands of volunteers our churches have in our Sunday school programs.

Ephesians 4:11 -- Yup, offices given by God -- and nothing to indicate that they were for males only or only for the ordained. Especially in line with 4:7: "But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it," thus, everyone is involved in building up the body of Christ.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 07, 2011, 06:59:47 PM
John 20:21-23 -- too bad about Thomas, guess he was stuck with the laity since he didn't receive the holy breath and the command about forgiveness.

Neither were you and I.

And he was there at Matt. 28:16-20- at the institution of the Office of the Holy Ministry, where it was given him to do.

and so forth...
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau14 on March 07, 2011, 07:42:08 PM
Brian,

Did Jesus institute the Office of the Holy Ministry? Because in the Gospel texts that Pr. Kirchner and I have given, it explicitly shows an office being given (to men).  Your arguments concerning the ministry seem to be more in line with the Wauwatosan thelogians than that of historic Lutheranism.

Also, your line of thinking is out of line with the AC XXVIII,  Our teachers hold that according to the Gospel the power of keys or the power of bishops is a power or command of God to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer the sacraments.  For Christ sent out the apostles with this command, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.  Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”  According to Mark 16:15 he also said, “Go and preach the gospel to the whole creation.”
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: grabau on March 07, 2011, 07:46:25 PM
The priesthood of believers does not mean that every person should have a turn in the chancel. grabau
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on March 07, 2011, 09:31:20 PM

II Corinthians 5:18-20 When Paul had Timothy accompany him, he had him circumcised (Acts 16:1-2). There's nothing in Acts about Timothy receiving the laying on of hands.


2 Timothy 1:6.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: vicarbob on March 07, 2011, 10:20:13 PM


Acts 6:1-6 Ironically, one of those selected to "wait on tables" (so that the apostles could give attention to prayer and the ministry of the word) was the first to be martyred for performing miracles and preaching the Word. Perhaps with a perverted kind of logic, some might claim that the stoning of Stephen was because of God's judgment against this "deacon" who overstepped his authority and was preaching the Word rather than just distributing food (and/or money).


This was put forward by a highly respected pastor and acknowledged Hebrew Testament scholar two years ago at our monthy conference meeting. I thought he was jesting, but wasn't. The curious thing was that , at his invitation, I had lead services ( 4-5 times) at the congregation he served when he was away on vacation. After our public discussion, I wasn't invited back. I heard later that he didn't appreciate a deacon questioning the biblical scholarship of a pastor. I think he was having a bad week....
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on March 08, 2011, 11:19:11 AM
First, let me lay a couple of my (proverbial) cards out upon the table:
-I was, at one time, a strident activist for the Ordination of women.  I still would not strip the ordianation of women away from those who have already been ordained.
-I am not in favor of of the ordination of women any longer, NOT because women are not talented or unable to ably fulfill the demands of ministry, but because I have come to see ordination as belonging to the whole (catholic) Church, not merely one segment or age.  In other words, the contemporary Church cannot merely assert it's right or understanding of ordination over-and-above the the Church throughout the ages, nor can one denomination (or a group of denominations) assert their rights and understanding over-and-above other Christians...ESPECIALLY those Christians who confess that they believe in the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" understanding of the Church.
-I have BIG problems with both the foundations and the implications of HOW the LCA and ALC came to practice the ordination of women.  This includes basic hermeneutical methodology (such as diminishing Paul as being chauvensitic and misogynetistic and hence irrelevant), political arguments (such as tackling the issue on the base of "equal rights" as opposed to a Churchly understanding of ministry), and a sense of superiority (ie. a sense of being enlightened and progressive because "we ordain women" as opposed to the "backwards" people who do not...).

All these being said...  If I were to argue FOR the ordination of women, I would begin here:
-John 20:16-8, especially where our Lord calls Saint Mary Magdalene by name and gives her a charge: "But go to my brothers and say to them 'I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.'"  In this exchange we see a mirroring of both the Prophetic form of call, where God calls out to the Prophet and gives them a word to speak and also the classic form of Apostolic call where Jesus calls his Apostles and gives them charge like "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men," and "Let down the net for a catch."  This call and charge led Saint Bernard of Clairvaux to bestow upon Saint Mary Magdalene the honorific title of "Apostle to the Apostles," though it should be as quickly noted that the Church has never officially understood the call of Christ to Mary Magdalene as actually extending the Apostolic Office to Mary.  But this would be my starting point since, at least it begins with a discussion of the Apostolic ministry.

-I would then turn my attention to the Feast of Pentecost in Acts 2, where Saint Peter begins to explain Pentecost by recalling the Prophet Joel: "In the last days, it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..."  This proclamation signals that Pentecost is an eschatological event, that something decisive has happened within the Christian community.  We continue to echo that thought in the Eucharistic Prayer (for those who use the EP at least) when we proclaim that "at the end of the age, you sent your Son, Jesus Christ..."  The curse of Original Sin that set male and female at odds with each other has been lifted, prolepticly we live within this new reality even as we struggle with sin's effects.  This is part and parcel for the Lutheran understanding of Simul Justus et Peccator, the "already/not yet" characteristic of God's Kingdom.  Now, does this set the stage for the inclusion of women in the Pastoral office?  I would hasten to say that women have already occupied an office and estate within the Church where they "prophesy" and proclaim God's word and will already, and so such a proleptic reality does not NECESSARILY mean that the Pastoral/Apostolic office is somehow opened.  But again, at least (to my ears) such an argument begins to take seriously the Kingdom of God rather than taking a civil/civil rights approach to the the argument.

-If we are looking for an Old Testament precident, I would not turn to Miriam nor Deborah, but rather (as I have said elsewhere) to Zipporah (Moses' wife and priestess of Midian) who, in Exodus 4 functions in some sort of priestly role. (Exodus 4:24-26)  It's thin...really thin...but it's at least something closer to the sacredotal role than any of the arguments I have heard elsewhere.

Again, I am not persuaded.  But these are the texts and arguments that I think are at least worth arguing from.  I don't know, maybe some have argued these before, but I haven't seen these texts being wrestled with. 

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on March 08, 2011, 11:49:16 AM
and Jerry, while your texts are a good beginning, I still see many of the Pauline submission and silence texts to be in context so closely connected and excuse the word, braided, intertwined with headcoverings and other things that are simply ignored by contemporary Christendom and even the doctrinal tradition of the church...   we have been working thru 1 Corinthians in Bible Class since Sept and as we draw toward the end I did some comparative reading in commentaries by CPH  (not that I hold them up as the best or hold them up for any form of ridicule) just to say that it is interesting that they cannot agree whether tongues ceased or whether they were foreign language facility or a language unlike any other human tongue (both gifts of the Spirit) and cannot agree whether prophecy is some special gift given and ceasing with the early church, something similar to OT prophecy or another word for pastoral preaching.  And it seems to me that there is even more clarity with these issues than questions of women's role with men as males or as husbands as directed by the NT.  Should make BOTH sides of this issue more careful.  I know I am, just wish the other side spoke a little more like they were not hearing things from God's mouth to their doctrinal ears.  God has a lot to forgive this pile of dust that still swirls yet a bit with life.    Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on March 08, 2011, 12:06:47 PM
I hear and understand what you are saying here, Harvey...  It is a difficulty that affects many aspects of Church life at the moment. 

And excercising due care is a necessary condition in all our discussions.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Kurt Strause on March 08, 2011, 01:46:37 PM
I very much appreciate Pr. Kliner's bringing to the discussion John 20 and Acts 2, and his willingness to consider an ecumenical proposal he no longer endorses.

I believe that's how those of us in the ELCA ought to think of the ordination of women, as a kind of "holy ecumenical experiment" offered for the sake of the whole church of Christ. We began to ordain women, not because we believe the church had been mistaken all along, but rather that in our reading of scripture God grants us permission to do so. Yet, in a divided church, such interpretation must always be offered in humility. We ordain women for the whole church to observe and consider and, as the Spirit may give witness, to adopt. We do so humbly, allowing the practice to bear fruit, knowing that it may take decades, generations, even centuries.   

Kurt Strause

Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: James Gustafson on March 08, 2011, 02:14:04 PM
I very much appreciate Pr. Kliner's bringing to the discussion John 20 and Acts 2, and his willingness to consider an ecumenical proposal he no longer endorses.

I believe that's how those of us in the ELCA ought to think of the ordination of women, as a kind of "holy ecumenical experiment" offered for the sake of the whole church of Christ. We began to ordain women, not because we believe the church had been mistaken all along, but rather that in our reading of scripture God grants us permission to do so. Yet, in a divided church, such interpretation must always be offered in humility. We ordain women for the whole church to observe and consider and, as the Spirit may give witness, to adopt. We do so humbly, allowing the practice to bear fruit, knowing that it may take decades, generations, even centuries.   

Kurt Strause

Is the only possible outcome the expectation of success?  How does one fail such a test then?  If it can't fail, performed until it succeeds no matter how long that takes, then its not really submitted for observation and consideration with humility.  Can the rest of the Church observe and consider and then reject?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Kurt Strause on March 08, 2011, 02:31:18 PM
Is the only possible outcome the expectation of success?  How does one fail such a test then?  If it can't fail, performed until it succeeds no matter how long that takes, then its not really submitted for observation and consideration with humility.  Can the rest of the Church observe and consider and then reject?

No, the expectation of success is not the only possible outcome. But I don't believe the first, second or maybe even third generation can make that judgment. We offer the practice for the long term. How long that term shall be, God will instruct. Offering it in humility may mean coming to the conclusion we were wrong. Again, that's a decision which shouldn't be made for a long time, long after those who first decided are all gone.

I think, whenever we can in ecumenical dialogue, urge those churches who don't ordain women to be patient with us and maintain the bonds of fellowship where possible. And from our perspective, we should not make another church's ordination of women a condition of communion.

Kurt Strause
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Vern on March 08, 2011, 05:04:50 PM
Gentlemen,
In support of my position I wish to ask the following: have you ever had your congregation walk out of your Church with most of them people smiling and feeling excited? That was how we felt after our first service with Pastor Bullock. When talking to a fellow member of our Congregation I mentioned that her sermon was "down to earth". He agreed with me. :)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Sandra on March 08, 2011, 05:10:52 PM
Gentlemen,
In support of my position I wish to ask the following: have you ever had your congregation walk out of your Church with most of them people smiling and feeling excited? That was how we felt after our first service with Pastor Bullock. When talking to a fellow member of our Congregation I mentioned that her sermon was "down to earth". He agreed with me. :)

So it was good because it felt good?

Really?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on March 08, 2011, 05:12:19 PM
In support of my position I wish to ask the following: have you ever had your congregation walk out of your Church with most of them people smiling and feeling excited?


I'm not sure what to conclude from that, other than the congregation felt good immediately after her first service.  Many pastors who later (or sooner) have been run out of town can speak of their wondrous reception at the beginning.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 08, 2011, 05:30:45 PM
Gentlemen,
In support of my position I wish to ask the following: have you ever had your congregation walk out of your Church with most of them people smiling and feeling excited? That was how we felt after our first service with Pastor Bullock.

Well, Eve felt something similar, after talking to The Liar. "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." [Gen. 3:6] Perhaps she was even smiling and feeling excited.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on March 08, 2011, 05:35:54 PM
Yep, that's the "truth". Should you feel "good" or even inspired by a sermon from a woman, just remember - it's really Satan speaking. We get that.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 08, 2011, 05:39:44 PM
You err, Rev. Austin, misconverting a particular proposition into a universal one.

Your conclusion, therefore, is logically invalid and, in fact, wrong. My focus was on relying on what feels (or looks or tastes) good as validation.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 08, 2011, 05:44:24 PM
Gentlemen,
In support of my position I wish to ask the following: have you ever had your congregation walk out of your Church with most of them people smiling and feeling excited? That was how we felt after our first service with Pastor Bullock. When talking to a fellow member of our Congregation I mentioned that her sermon was "down to earth". He agreed with me. :)
Yes. In the first few months after a vacancy or turbulent time, it is so common as to be expected.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on March 08, 2011, 05:51:23 PM
dgkirch writes:
You err, Rev. Austin, misconverting a particular proposition into a universal one.

I respond:
O.k., so every time I hear a women preach I am not hearing the snake, is that right? Can I get an "Amen!" on that? Or not?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 08, 2011, 05:53:01 PM
You might even be hearing the Gospel!   :)

Just remember... Satan can validly baptize you.   ;)
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on March 08, 2011, 05:55:31 PM
anybody else?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 08, 2011, 05:56:39 PM
dgkirch writes:
You err, Rev. Austin, misconverting a particular proposition into a universal one.

I respond:
O.k., so every time I hear a women preach I am not hearing the snake, is that right? Can I get an "Amen!" on that? Or not?
Charles, your tedious use of absolutes like "every time" make you sound like a dolt. The point was clear to everyone else-- Eve felt good after being deceived, which means that a congregation feeling good after a sermon does not in and of itself mean a good sermon was preached. You are the one deliberately being a ruining the thread with your childish, faux misunderstandings.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: revklak on March 08, 2011, 06:11:30 PM
Mark 16:15 -- I believe that throughout the gospels the Twelve/Eleven represent all believers.

Luke 9:1-6 -- Luke 10:1-12 involved many more than the Twelve in almost exactly the same kind of commission

If "throughout the gospels the Twelve/Eleven represent all believers," then how is it that "Luke 10:1-12 involved many more than the Twelve?"  Were the "many more" NOT believers?  Why have texts refering to "many more" or having to choose 12 from among all the disciples, if the 12 would simply represent all?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Richard Johnson on March 08, 2011, 06:12:18 PM
dgkirch writes:
You err, Rev. Austin, misconverting a particular proposition into a universal one.

I respond:
O.k., so every time I hear a women preach I am not hearing the snake, is that right? Can I get an "Amen!" on that? Or not?

No. But if you said "Not every time I hear a woman preach am I hearing the snake," then OK.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: revklak on March 08, 2011, 06:16:20 PM
Gentlemen,
In support of my position I wish to ask the following: have you ever had your congregation walk out of your Church with most of them people smiling and feeling excited? That was how we felt after our first service with Pastor Bullock. When talking to a fellow member of our Congregation I mentioned that her sermon was "down to earth". He agreed with me. :)

ALL RIGHT -- before evyone continues to get off track  --- remember the thrust of the arguement is NOT whether someone can preach a sermon, deliver a message, read poetry, etc and makes it a satisfying experience to the hearers, but the question is AS FAR AS ECCLESIOLOGY IS CONCERNED  is it meet and right for ALL or any to do so?  Or in this case, women?
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on March 08, 2011, 06:32:55 PM
Peter writes:
You are the one deliberately being a ruining the thread with your childish, faux misunderstandings.

I comment:
So much for civil language. And you claim to know what I am "deliberately" trying to do? You claim my assertions are "faux"? And "childish"?

Garbage. It was clearly suggested that hearing a woman preach, one was hearing Satan. Not everyone - for which deo gratias - agrees. But it was said, and given the history of postings by certain folk here, that view is held.

But here's the deal. I'll back out of this discussion, not because I am not interested, but because - in the minds of most here - there is no discussion. Women pastors are wrong wrong wrong. We get that. Furthermore, according to Pastor Hess, women who do certain things that most women do today are corrupting the "order of creation" and the cause of society's ills.

Excuse me. I think I'll look for evidence of Noah's flood in my New Jersey back yard.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 08, 2011, 06:36:16 PM
Garbage. It was clearly suggested that hearing a woman preach, one was hearing Satan...But it was said...

Rev. Austin,

I corrected you once, pointing out your illogical conclusion and then specifically stated that I was focusing on the danger in using feelings as validation. What better example than to look to the original fall into sin.

You now make the same erroneous misconversion of my proposition after being corrected and having it explained to you. You are now intentionally stating a falsehood.

Your statements clearly show us that a lie is not gender-specific, but please stop.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 08, 2011, 06:50:51 PM
It was clearly suggested that hearing a woman preach, one was hearing Satan. Not everyone - for which deo gratias - agrees. But it was said, and given the history of postings by certain folk here, that view is held.
No such thing was ever suggested in this thread. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on March 08, 2011, 07:03:57 PM
dgkirch (after someone complimented a woman's sermon):
Well, Eve felt something similar, after talking to The Liar. "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." [Gen. 3:6] Perhaps she was even smiling and feeling excited.

Me:
 >:(
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 08, 2011, 07:07:04 PM
Now you're simply being a bully, Rev. Austin. Please stop.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Charles_Austin on March 08, 2011, 07:11:14 PM
ok
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 09, 2011, 02:05:41 AM

Mark 16:15 -- I believe that throughout the gospels the Twelve/Eleven represent all believers.

Luke 9:1-6 -- Luke 10:1-12 involved many more than the Twelve in almost exactly the same kind of commission

If "throughout the gospels the Twelve/Eleven represent all believers," then how is it that "Luke 10:1-12 involved many more than the Twelve?"  Were the "many more" NOT believers?  Why have texts refering to "many more" or having to choose 12 from among all the disciples, if the 12 would simply represent all?

Ch. 9 tells about the 12 being sent out (the verbal form of "apostle"). Ch. 10 shows that being sent out (same word as ch. 9) is not limited to the 12, but for many different disciples. What the 12 are called to do is not limited to just the 12, but is expected of all believers. Thus we can say about believers today that God sends us out with a message about the kingdom to share with the world. It is not just a task for the 12, or only a few believers; but all of us.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Scott6 on March 09, 2011, 07:10:32 AM
Is the only possible outcome the expectation of success?  How does one fail such a test then?  If it can't fail, performed until it succeeds no matter how long that takes, then its not really submitted for observation and consideration with humility.  Can the rest of the Church observe and consider and then reject?

No, the expectation of success is not the only possible outcome. But I don't believe the first, second or maybe even third generation can make that judgment. We offer the practice for the long term. How long that term shall be, God will instruct. Offering it in humility may mean coming to the conclusion we were wrong. Again, that's a decision which shouldn't be made for a long time, long after those who first decided are all gone.

I think, whenever we can in ecumenical dialogue, urge those churches who don't ordain women to be patient with us and maintain the bonds of fellowship where possible. And from our perspective, we should not make another church's ordination of women a condition of communion.

Kurt Strause

I just came across this Freud quote from 1927 which I thought eerily apropos:

Let me, therefore, give an express assurance that I have not the least intention of making judgements on the great experiment in civilization that is now in progress in the vast country that stretches between Europe and Asia [i.e., communism].  I have neither the special knowledge nor the capacity to decide on its practicability, to test the expediency of the methods employed, or to measure the width of the inevitable gap between intention and execution.  What is in preparation there is unfinished, and therefore eludes an investigation. (quoted in: Lawrence Hoffman, Beyond the Text: A Holistic Approach to Liturgy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) 127)

In any case (and this is only tangentially connected to the quote), there has to be criteria by which experiments may be judged.  And if those take generations to work out, then the intervening generations suffer, and the criteria lose their force as such insofar as those that designed them are gone and the new generations don't feel their force.  If they have an indefinite endpoint, then the criteria simply are no longer criteria at all but become tacit justifications -- ways to lull folks asleep.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: revklak on March 09, 2011, 08:05:46 AM

Mark 16:15 -- I believe that throughout the gospels the Twelve/Eleven represent all believers.

Luke 9:1-6 -- Luke 10:1-12 involved many more than the Twelve in almost exactly the same kind of commission

If "throughout the gospels the Twelve/Eleven represent all believers," then how is it that "Luke 10:1-12 involved many more than the Twelve?"  Were the "many more" NOT believers?  Why have texts refering to "many more" or having to choose 12 from among all the disciples, if the 12 would simply represent all?

Ch. 9 tells about the 12 being sent out (the verbal form of "apostle"). Ch. 10 shows that being sent out (same word as ch. 9) is not limited to the 12, but for many different disciples. What the 12 are called to do is not limited to just the 12, but is expected of all believers. Thus we can say about believers today that God sends us out with a message about the kingdom to share with the world. It is not just a task for the 12, or only a few believers; but all of us.
But you still didn't anaswer the question -- why have 12 singled out if all are part of the same intention and work?  Why have 12 that learn from you apart from the others - why have only 3 join you on a mountain, or in a garden? 

I have no dispute that we are all called to 'bring a message' to the world.  We each have our own vocation, our own apostalate.  But if all is meant for all, then why didnt' he confer the keys or the binding and loosing of sins on ALL disciples, or even the 70 that get sent out?  Seems to me that there is something about the 12 beyond simply to mirror Israel which signifies some sort of leadership/authority -- even if we are so anti-authority. 
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on March 09, 2011, 08:20:51 AM
Only Jewish males are to be apostles... or is it ... pastors? 
Peter is the first Pope.  Note his first place.
only people ordained in apostolic sucession, following the Petrine line, have the office of pastoral ministry. 
can we not text base these things?
if we were want to do so...
how about changing our worship schedule to Sundays... oops we did that, sorry Sabbatarians...
and are they OK, aren't they and our folks who have Saturday night worship to help attendnace figures, even tho they disagree with us, unless they or we are disagreeable to the point of sin?
and isn't changing the day of formal worship monkeying around with one of the 10?
walking on the waters of pure doctrine is always a difficult thing
the hand reaching for us fortunately, I mean blessedly....

Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: GalRev83 on March 09, 2011, 09:10:02 AM
It was clearly suggested that hearing a woman preach, one was hearing Satan. Not everyone - for which deo gratias - agrees. But it was said, and given the history of postings by certain folk here, that view is held.
No such thing was ever suggested in this thread. 

I hate to say this -- and I am not trying to prolong the discussion -- but I drew the same conclusion as Charles did when I read that exchange. In fact, I read it out loud to my husband and said, "look, they are saying now that hearing a woman preach can be like Satan speaking." From the responses, I guess I was wrong to draw that conclusion. But I wanted to say that Charles is not the only one who heard that implication.

I cannot begin to describe my gut response to the last few pages of this thread. And since affective response is scorned around here, I will certainly not bother trying. :-[
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on March 09, 2011, 10:08:05 AM
It was clearly suggested that hearing a woman preach, one was hearing Satan. Not everyone - for which deo gratias - agrees. But it was said, and given the history of postings by certain folk here, that view is held.
No such thing was ever suggested in this thread. 

I hate to say this -- and I am not trying to prolong the discussion -- but I drew the same conclusion as Charles did when I read that exchange. In fact, I read it out loud to my husband and said, "look, they are saying now that hearing a woman preach can be like Satan speaking." From the responses, I guess I was wrong to draw that conclusion. But I wanted to say that Charles is not the only one who heard that implication.

I cannot begin to describe my gut response to the last few pages of this thread. And since affective response is scorned around here, I will certainly not bother trying. :-[

Donna, I had given up following this thread (being as dismayed by the last few pages as you are) but I saw your name and so risked a look.  And I will step forward and declare that I had the same reaction as you and Charles when I read that initial post.  I am willing to accept the explanation that the interpretation that I had, that listening to a woman preach the Gospel was the same as listening to the Great Deceiver, was not the intended interpretation.  But folks, Charles wasn't alone in his reaction. 

And having said this, men, I'm done.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 09, 2011, 10:25:59 AM
But you still didn't anaswer the question -- why have 12 singled out if all are part of the same intention and work?  Why have 12 that learn from you apart from the others - why have only 3 join you on a mountain, or in a garden?


Perhaps Jesus had favorites.

Quote
I have no dispute that we are all called to 'bring a message' to the world.  We each have our own vocation, our own apostalate.  But if all is meant for all, then why didnt' he confer the keys or the binding and loosing of sins on ALL disciples, or even the 70 that get sent out?  Seems to me that there is something about the 12 beyond simply to mirror Israel which signifies some sort of leadership/authority -- even if we are so anti-authority. 

I believe that Jesus gave the keys to all disciples in Matthew 18:18. The singular "you" in 16:19, addressed to Peter, is now a plural "you" addressed to disciples. We certainly apply 18:15-17 and 18:19-20 to apply to believers of all times -- and not just the 12.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on March 09, 2011, 10:28:43 AM
Let me add in:

First, the exchanges of the last twelve hours has been mean-spirited and frought with ill-chosen words.  I hope that, on Ash Wednesday of all days, there can be some confession and peace on these matters.

Second, maybe the exchanges of the past twelve hours reflects just how this particular issue has become a Shibboleth among Christians.  And I mean that very, very literally.

Third, let me rejoice with Vernon, whose congregation is experiencing joy at hearing the Gospel proclaimed.  Shame on everyone for not being able to rejoice at the news that a flock of God's people is experiencing joy in these days when sorrow seems so much more prevalent.  You don't need to be an advocate for the ordination of women to rejoice with another congregation's good fortune.  "We played the flute and you would not sing, we mourned and you would not cry."

Fourth, that doesn't change the matter.  As I said above, the issue is not whether a woman has the gifts and talents or not.  That's an absurdity, and one of the things that the ELCA's continuing coverage of women's ordination reveals is a latent sexism...  Duh!  Of course there are talented women preachers, theologians, and care-givers.  The question is whether or not the Church has the license to extend the Apostolic office to women, or whether it was established in a certain way that it only extends males.

Fifth, I'm not particularly impressed with all the things that the Church has chosen to change or ignore, thereby making the argument that this is open to change as well...  That form of argumentation quickly degenerates.  So, just because we're not "Sabbatarians," does not necessarily mean that we can disregard regulations on ordinations.  Not unless you also then are OK with saying "Well, we no longer keep the Sabbath Day on Saturday, so I guess we don't have to abstain from adultery too..."

I don't know...  Maybe there's no room for a reasoned discussion on this issue, that it really is a shibboleth...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 09, 2011, 10:29:22 AM
It was clearly suggested that hearing a woman preach, one was hearing Satan. Not everyone - for which deo gratias - agrees. But it was said, and given the history of postings by certain folk here, that view is held.
No such thing was ever suggested in this thread. 

I hate to say this -- and I am not trying to prolong the discussion -- but I drew the same conclusion as Charles did when I read that exchange. In fact, I read it out loud to my husband and said, "look, they are saying now that hearing a woman preach can be like Satan speaking." From the responses, I guess I was wrong to draw that conclusion. But I wanted to say that Charles is not the only one who heard that implication.

I cannot begin to describe my gut response to the last few pages of this thread. And since affective response is scorned around here, I will certainly not bother trying. :-[

Donna, I had given up following this thread (being as dismayed by the last few pages as you are) but I saw your name and so risked a look.  And I will step forward and declare that I had the same reaction as you and Charles when I read that initial post.  I am willing to accept the explanation that the interpretation that I had, that listening to a woman preach the Gospel was the same as listening to the Great Deceiver, was not the intended interpretation.  But folks, Charles wasn't alone in his reaction. 

And having said this, men, I'm done.

Thanks for sharing your reaction. I had it, too, but since some believe that Charles and I must be the same person, (although Richard J and Steven T, to name at least two participants, have seen us both,) it wouldn't have done any good for me for respond.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 09, 2011, 10:31:29 AM
Not unless you also then are OK with saying "Well, we no longer keep the Sabbath Day on Saturday, so I guess we don't have to abstain from adultery too..."

But we have said that -- at least concerning Jesus' definition of remarriage as adultery.
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on March 09, 2011, 10:35:05 AM
That's it...  Lest I fall into the trap of the past twelve hours, I'm getting out of here BEFORE I say something I will dearly regret.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: The Ordination of Women
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 09, 2011, 10:40:07 AM
The point was made that the congregation went away feeling good after listening to the new woman pastor preach, as though that in itself was a argument for women's ordination. The counter-point was made that Eve went away from the serpent feeling good, too, which undermines the argument that the listener's feelings justify the sermon or the one preaching it. The point, in both cases, was about the relevence of good feelings. Pretty basic stuff, really. But this thread is indeed going nowhere, so let's lock it down.