Started by GalRevRedux, June 01, 2021, 08:52:53 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on June 01, 2021, 11:33:46 AMPastor Fienen:Quite frankly, it seems to me that if I were to engage in theological discussion, women's ordination would be rather far down on the list of items for discussion or debate.Me:And yet, it is that issue, and that issue alone which caused your church body to break fellowship with the ALC.
Quote from: Charles Austin on June 01, 2021, 11:48:57 AMYou are mostly right, John. But the issues of "inerrancy," Jonah, and creation days didn't seem to gain break-it-up traction concerning hermeneutical matters. Ordaining women made a certain hermeneutic clearly visible.
Quote from: Charles Austin on June 01, 2021, 12:15:17 PMPeter:WO is simply the clearest line demarcating the deeper division between RC/Orthodox/conservative Protestant Christendom and revisionist/progressive/liberal Protestant Christendom. Me:You do understand, Peter, that there are RC/Orthodox/other Protestant (even conservative) christians who do not have a problem with women's ordination, even if it came into their own church body? They are just not on that stump now. Back in the days of the LCMS battle for the Bible, there were several checklists for purity of doctrine put out by the Christian Newa and related factions.
Quote from: Pr. Terry Culler on June 01, 2021, 11:34:32 AMDr. 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.
Quote from: peter_speckhard on June 01, 2021, 11:51:03 AMMakes perfect sense if you take for granted that WO is Scriptural, and unsurprising if you think it isn't. The debate is pretty much over, as is the era when it was somehow provocative. It still might come up here and there as a side-note, but Christianity has divided over it and both sides have moved on. Liberal Protestant denominations have moved on to other far, more provocative campaigns. Pretty much everyone else has answered the question of WO differently than liberal Protestantism but equally sees it as a question asked and answered, not a current theological debate. Something like the Saddleback change makes (small) news as a residual reminder that the divide is not yet perfectly clean and total, but it is getting there. The author of the article doesn't want to revisit an old argument because it is tedious and distracting from what she sees as her real work. It is equally tedious and distracting to conservative/traditional/orthodox when people bring up our lack of women pastors as some sort of problem or open question. WO is simply the clearest line demarcating the deeper division between RC/Orthodox/conservative Protestant Christendom and revisionist/progressive/liberal Protestant Christendom.