Author Topic: The Ordination of Women  (Read 28683 times)

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #45 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
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

kls

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2010, 11:17:28 AM »
Wow, even Zoroastrianism priests 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).

janielou13

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #47 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.  

Steverem

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2010, 11:25:32 AM »
Wow, even Zoroastrianism priests 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?   ;)

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #49 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.

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #50 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
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #51 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]
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #52 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]
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Sandra

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Baptizatus sum.
    • View Profile
    • Baptizatus Sum
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #53 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?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 11:47:10 AM by Sandra »
Sandra (Ostapowich) Madden
sandramadden1119@gmail.com

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #54 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.


Karl Hess

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #55 on: December 14, 2010, 11:56:00 AM »
One last thought on the 1 Tim 2 text:  Adam did not sin firstů but Eve didů 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.

kls

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #56 on: December 14, 2010, 11:58:30 AM »
Wow, even Zoroastrianism priests 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.

iowakatie1981

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #57 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

kls

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #58 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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 12:12:38 PM by Kim Schave »

kls

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #59 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.)