Another contribution to the endless controversy

[Dave Benke]

I believe the ALPB has taken an opinion that allows for contribution and interaction with, for instance, the ACNA and NALC with full approval.  Independent and pan-Lutheran.  So the LCMS allows itself to pretend it's in dialog with these groups when as Will and Peter indicate, it really can't do so, won't do so and therefore heads off to places a lot less amenable in actuality like the Southern Baptists or WELS/ELS.  Which is a shame.

In the same mode, the LCMS has a fine deaconess program that then proceeds to forbid the commissioned deaconesses from reading Scripture during church when they sign their document of participation in the Conference of Deaconesses.  And - this is only hearsay - chooses through its new St. Louis President NOT to renew the Dean of Chapel position, because maybe a woman was heard chanting, or far worse, reading out loud during his tenure.   Dumb stunts.  Theologically vacuous.

On a positive note, the article referenced by RevGal is really enjoyable to read. 

Dave Benke

[Weedon]

You can't be in dialog with those you believe to be in error on a given point, Bishop? Really???

[Dave Benke]

You can't be in dialog with those you believe to be in error on a given point, Bishop? Really???

And how are those LCMS/ELCA dialogs going these days, Will?

Dave Benke

[Weedon]

Not nearly so well as the NALC and Continuing Anglican dialogs.

[peter_speckhard]

Dave, your mask is slipping. You shouldn't let people see that in your view true dialog can only happen between people who doubt their own position, and those who favor dialog are really expressing their openness to the idea that what they believe could be false. You should continue to publicly favor dialog in any and every situation while insisting that openness to dialog is the sign of supreme confidence in one's own position, and unwillingness to dialog is a sign of fear.

The LCMS is not pretending any more than the ELCA is pretending. Both have considered a question. Both have answered it. The LCMS has taken the side of global Christendom through the centuries. The ELCA has taken the side of novelty and innovation. Both sides are equally certain.

[George Rahn]

How does ordination reflect through the glass of JBF, justification by faith?  Another issue is whether "ordination" is to a public office for preaching and teaching the Gospel.  And what does that entail? Thirdly, how does scripture actually forbid women this specific office?  That is, if you agree scripture even addresses that. 

I know these issues have been discussed ad nauseum  at this site as well as through others.  But I think it's good and timely to restate some of the arguments again.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Weedon writes:
One of us has the truth of the matter, which alone is God-pleasing and revealed. The other has human opinion.
And Pastor Charlton writes:
Both can be wrong.  Both can't be right.
Peter writes:
The ELCA has taken the side of novelty and innovation.

I comment, first to Peter:
Thanks for ignoring and dismissing all our theology and prayer and discussion and calling our view mere "novelty and innovation." You keep finding new ways to insult us.
To Pastor Weedon and Pastor Charlton, Hogwash to both comments.
Pastor Weedon, perhaps the Church was right to order an all-male priesthood for all those years. Perhaps that was "revealed". Is it ever possible that "more" can be "revealed"?
Pastor Charlton, are all theological concepts totally universal and eternal? Can the Spirit not guide the church in different ways in different times or different places? The date of Easter controversies come to mind, the time when Christians were excommunicated for not observing Easter on the "right" day. Or the Synod of Whitby in 664 which imposed the "Roman" way of computing the date for Easter on the Irish and Britons?
Now: Dare  I play with speculation concerning The Spirit?
"Well, here are all these Christians passionate about a male-only clergy," thinks The Spirit. "They've got a lot of history and some quirky theology behind them, but it would be a whopping can of worms opened to make a fast change."
   The Spirit takes another sip of chamomile tea. "Then, we've got these Protestants and others just tearing along, with some trendy theology and after only a couple-hundred years of discussion, ordaining women right and left. Bishops even! It's not doing any real harm and is actually doing some good in some places for some people. I don't like the rift between those two groups, but losing those ELCA folks would be bad for the Church, and making those LCMS people put women in their pulpits would probably be bad for their churches and the Church. They will both overstate their positions, but let Us let them both continue with Our blessing. There's time to find ways to bring them together."
See. Both can be right.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Dr. Francis Monseth, the late Dean of the Free Lutheran Seminary, noted that every Lutheran group that teaches the inerrancy of Scripture ordains only men.  That is what leads to different opinions on women's ordination.

This is likely true among Lutherans but not among other conservative Protestants. For example, there are Pentecostals who confess inerrancy but commonly have women ministers. For them the gifts of the Spirit would trump other concerns about order or apostolic norms. These are reasons to look past passages that might restrict the practice.

I believe that it's also true that the passages that conservative Protestants use for not ordaining women are not the passages, nor the reasons, that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have male-only clergy.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Dr. Francis Monseth, the late Dean of the Free Lutheran Seminary, noted that every Lutheran group that teaches the inerrancy of Scripture ordains only men.  That is what leads to different opinions on women's ordination.

This is likely true among Lutherans but not among other conservative Protestants. For example, there are Pentecostals who confess inerrancy but commonly have women ministers. For them the gifts of the Spirit would trump other concerns about order or apostolic norms. These are reasons to look past passages that might restrict the practice.

Ed, I've found that one reason certain Pentecostal groups (such as AOG) allow women to be "pastors" or "ministers" is that they do not have a Lutheran understanding of the pastoral office.  In fact, they use the title "pastor" very loosely.  For example, at the AOG in my city they've had several "youth pastors" whose functions are limited to what an LCMS DCE would do.  Thus, when they hear the LCMS say "We don't allow women to serve as pastors!" they often think we mean that we don't allow women to do any kind of church work.

According to an AoG pastor who used to attend a pericope study group, he was rare among their clergy because he had a seminary degree. Their process for being ordained a pastor is quite different than ours.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

Do you have a link to the NALC paper you cite? I would like to read it.

You can find it here:  https://thenalc.org/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Teaching%20Statements/The-Bible-as-the-Word-of-God-Final.pdf

Thanks very much. This is an interesting statement both for what it says and for what it does not say. It would be especially helpful to see how this worked out in particular examples.

One confusing thing about the document are the indented paragraphs that appear to be block quotes but have no citation information. I'm not sure whether they are block quotes or not.

How is this statement used in the NALC, I wonder.

[Weedon]

Pr. Austin,

I'm no more interesting in debating and rehashing it again than Donna is. You've come to your conclusions; I have come to mine. That's why whatever else it is, it is not an "endless controversy." It is a settled area of disagreement.

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Weedon writes:
One of us has the truth of the matter, which alone is God-pleasing and revealed. The other has human opinion.
And Pastor Charlton writes:
Both can be wrong.  Both can't be right.
Peter writes:
The ELCA has taken the side of novelty and innovation.

I comment, first to Peter:
Thanks for ignoring and dismissing all our theology and prayer and discussion and calling our view mere "novelty and innovation." You keep finding new ways to insult us.
To Pastor Weedon and Pastor Charlton, Hogwash to both comments.
Pastor Weedon, perhaps the Church was right to order an all-male priesthood for all those years. Perhaps that was "revealed". Is it ever possible that "more" can be "revealed"?
Pastor Charlton, are all theological concepts totally universal and eternal? Can the Spirit not guide the church in different ways in different times or different places? The date of Easter controversies come to mind, the time when Christians were excommunicated for not observing Easter on the "right" day. Or the Synod of Whitby in 664 which imposed the "Roman" way of computing the date for Easter on the Irish and Britons?
Now: Dare  I play with speculation concerning The Spirit?
"Well, here are all these Christians passionate about a male-only clergy," thinks The Spirit. "They've got a lot of history and some quirky theology behind them, but it would be a whopping can of worms opened to make a fast change."
   The Spirit takes another sip of chamomile tea. "Then, we've got these Protestants and others just tearing along, with some trendy theology and after only a couple-hundred years of discussion, ordaining women right and left. Bishops even! It's not doing any real harm and is actually doing some good in some places for some people. I don't like the rift between those two groups, but losing those ELCA folks would be bad for the Church, and making those LCMS people put women in their pulpits would probably be bad for their churches and the Church. They will both overstate their positions, but let Us let them both continue with Our blessing. There's time to find ways to bring them together."
See. Both can be right.

In your goofy scenario, the Holy Spirit says the ELCA is right but has the patience for how slow to catch on the LCMS is. Even pretending to be God doesn't render you capable of imagining mutually exclusive positions both being correct.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes:
The ELCA has taken the side of novelty and innovation.

I comment, first to Peter:
Thanks for ignoring and dismissing all our theology and prayer and discussion and calling our view mere "novelty and innovation." You keep finding new ways to insult us.

I did not call your view "mere" novelty and innovation. I said it was on the side of novelty an innovation. Which manifestly, literally, metaphorically, and in all other is perfectly true and accurate. If you think it insulting to be found on the side of novelty and innovation, don't be on that side. And if I were looking for new ways to insult you, I certainly wouldn't choose an old, well-worn, and familiar observation about you, which is that you're on the side of novelty and innovation.

[Charles Austin]

Wrong on two points, Peter. I'm suggesting that a gracious God is able to say OK to both views on what constitutes coordination. What we must wait to bring together is how you and I are going to get along and have full church fellowship while holding these desperate views.
As for the "novelty and innovation" semi-insult, I commend your deft, though incomplete "moderation."
I'll be in fellowship with you, even though you don't ordain women.
Can you be in fellowship with me, and simply not go to ELCA services where women preside?

[Dan Fienen]

Wrong on two points, Peter. I'm suggesting that a gracious God is able to say OK to both views on what constitutes coordination. What we must wait to bring together is how you and I are going to get along and have full church fellowship while holding these desperate views.
As for the "novelty and innovation" semi-insult, I commend your deft, though incomplete "moderation."
I'll be in fellowship with you, even though you don't ordain women.
Can you be in fellowship with me, and simply not go to ELCA services where women preside?

Can you really be in fellowship with us and accept that when we have joint worship no ELCA women pastors or partnered homosexual pastors are allowed to lead part of the worship? Can you really be in fellowship with us and accept that in the exchange of pastors between our church bodies no ELCA women pastors or partnered homosexual pastors will be accepted by the LCMS?

You say that you are willing to be in fellowship with me, how does that create an obligation for me to be willing to be in fellowship with you? We have differing understandings as to what is necessary for fellowship. Why does that create an obligation for me to abandon my principles in favor of yours?


It has become a standard trope in police procedural TV shows for the creepy male villain to declare his love for the hapless female damsel in distress as though his love for her creates an obligation for her to reciprocate his affection. Parallels?