6
« on: August 11, 2007, 10:14:42 PM »
As I think about the main controversies in the Church of our Day, I am wondering where some of these disagreements fit in the big picture. For the sake of discussion, here are some categories.
1) A particular practice is not Christian. Even under a Two Kingdoms rubric, it cannot be justified as a societal good. Thus, one who actively pursues such a position is definitely in spiritual danger, or worse, may be actively in league with the forces of darkness.
2) A particular practice is heretical. Although it may use the language of Christianity, it actually goes against the Church. Persons pursuing this course may be in spiritual danger, but they are probably sincere.
3) A particular practice is in doctrinal disagreement. This is a serious, but not fatal area of disagreement. It is sufficiently serious that altar fellowship should be avoided, but there is a sufficent biblical witness to this position that opposing parties might be able to laugh about it later on the other side of the heavenly divide.
4) A particular practice is a matter of personal preference. Salvation nor altar fellowship are not in question.
Now with respect to the sexuality debate. Where is it happening? What assumptions are in play before we actually get there? On this particular forum, the sexuality question is tied in to the question of biblical inerrancy. Where does THAT question fit on the scale? And does answering that particular question actually help in figuring out where to go next?
For example, I lurk on a yahoogroup (Apostasy) that deals with these questions on the Anglican side of the Church. There are a few individuals who make the following proposiition. The gay ordination issue can be traced to three events; the abandoning of the King James Bible, the abandoning of the 1929 Prayer Book, and the ordination of women. These proponents argue that although the development of new Bible translations may have been presented as category 4 issues, the people in charge of such things were really in category 2. Since Elizabethan English is fixed, interpretation of the King James text and the 1929 Prayer book text is also fixed. However, since contemporary English is by definition still in a stage of flux, ambigious meanings can be purposely crafted. This development allowed for women's ordination, which by their definition of things was a category 1 controversy. With that hurdle crossed, the level of disagreement on the gay ordination issue was to some extent moot.
Now this analysis is interesting, but there seems to be a huge hole in this summary. Namely, that there are significant numbers of Anglo-Catholic parishes that use the King James Bible, use the 1929 Prayer Book, are vehemently anti-Women's ordination, and are nevertheless pro-gay ordination.
As Lutheran Christians, we have different dynamics at work. Although some folks have posited that the question stems from Biblical inerrancy, and that one's stance on Women's ordination is a good predictor of one's predeliction for the pro-gay question, I am not so sure about that proposition. One monlkey wrench in this discussion is our vision of what constitutes the Holy Ministry. Although there are Evangelical Catholics who hold to a three -fold division of minstry, for the most part, Lutherans have tended to view the office of Ministry as a unitary office.
When looking at the issue of women in minstry, one thing that seems clear to me is that regardless of which side of the debate you are on, the concept of women as deacons is a much more Biblically defensible concept than women as elders or bishops. If one has a unitary vision for the office of minstry, where does one fall on the question? And even if that practice was adopted (ordaining women as deacons, but not elders or bishops), how would that work in the job market? Even if a woman preferred to be a deacon or deaconess, she might not be considered for employment by a congregation. When congregations are looking to hire another staff person, an "Associate in Ministry" might have an appropriate skill set for the present, but a pastor with the same skill set has more flexibility for the future.
I should add that this idea of ordaining women to the diaconate, but not to the presbyterate or episcopate seems to have worked in the Pentecostal world if we define successs as not needing to deal with the pro-gay ordination question. I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but it seems worth reflectiing. Of course, that leads to the question of where would THAT issue be on the scale that I outlined above.
I may not have any answers to these questions, but I do enjoy asking them. I hope some of this made some sense.
Ray
Show Posts