The Ordination of Women

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[Scott6]

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.

[revklak]

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. 

[Harvey_Mozolak]

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

[GalRev83]

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.

[Erma S. Wolf]

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

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.

[A Catholic Lutheran]

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

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[A Catholic Lutheran]

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

[peter_speckhard]

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.