Author Topic: The Ordination of Women  (Read 28718 times)

Timotheus Verinus

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2340
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #225 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
TAALC Pastor

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #226 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.


ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #227 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.

 :)

Evangel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Rev. Mark Schimmel
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #228 on: December 17, 2010, 02:44:16 PM »
You took two posts to say that?   ;)
Mark Schimmel, Pastor
Zion Lutheran Church, LCMC
Priddy, TX
--
ACXXIII, "Your majesty will graciously take into account the fact that, in these last times of which the Scriptures prophesy, the world is growing worse and men are becoming weaker and more infirm."

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #229 on: December 17, 2010, 02:44:56 PM »
Comment WIN!!

 ;D

Sandra

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Baptizatus sum.
    • View Profile
    • Baptizatus Sum
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #230 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.
Sandra (Ostapowich) Madden
sandramadden1119@gmail.com

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4309
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #231 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?

John Theiss

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #232 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.

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #233 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.


John Theiss

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #234 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.

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #235 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.



« Last Edit: December 17, 2010, 05:33:49 PM by ptmccain »

John Theiss

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #236 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.

Scott6

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #237 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...
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 09:15:11 AM by Scott Yakimow »

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4309
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #238 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.

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #239 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.