Started by Steven Tibbetts, August 30, 2004, 10:17:52 PM
QuoteI suspect that your "hunch" is correct. In fact, I'll gladly stipulate that it is correct: these congregations did not "work through their bishop's office." SO WHAT? At most they are guilty of rudeness toward their bishop and bishop's staff.
QuoteThe buck must stop somewhere, and if it stops with the congregation, as we always maintain, then the bishop cannot refuse to sign off on a validly rostered, validly called pastor.
Quote(I'm using a little shorthand here, so before someone reprises the "but the bishop is liable argument," let me clarify: Lutheran synods/bishops have faced liability for bad apple pastors only when it has been shown that they knew of a problem with the pastor and did nothing about it. That's why I use the phrase "validly rostered" -- if a bishop knows of a problem with a pastor, then he believes that pastor to be invalidly rostered. he has a duty to act, sure enough, but in that case has a duty to seek a change in the pastor's roster status.)
QuoteAt the risk of stating the obvious, there are many many congregations out there with a constitution that does not conform to the "model," because the model is not mandated by the ELCA except when the congregation decides to amend their constitution.
QuoteHi. I'm one of those pesky female ELCA pastors.
QuoteBack when I was preparing for the ordination exam and meeting with my synod's candidacy committee (LCA), I was part of a discussion in a seminary class regarding this process. The conversation turned to certain male students who were known to believe that women should not be allowed to serve as ordained pastors. The professor asked, "Well, what will these men do when they are asked what they think about ordaining women?" The answer came: "They'll lie to the committee." I don't know if synods or seminaries still ask what candidates think about the propriety of women pastors, but I would hope that any pastor or candidate would think very carefully about serving in a church body that held a position that he believed was contrary to Scripture.
QuoteSo what to call an ELCA pastor who doesn't agree with the ordination of women? Well, if he was ordained in the late 1970's or later, he might be a liar.
QuoteOtherwise, what to call a non-ordained member of the ELCA who doesn't approve of the ordination of women? A brother or sister in Christ.
QuoteI would like to make one small request of those who believe that women should not be allowed to serve as ordained pastors. And that is for common courtesy when you have to deal with women who are pastors. Refusing to acknowledge our presence by not returning a greeting, ignoring a hand extended, and in general shunning us in public does not reflect well on you. Men who act in this way only look like they are boorish and rude.
QuoteOn the larger point, how can your affiliation with a voluntary organization change your own constitution? Doesn't each constitution have in it the means of its own amendment. If you don't amend it according to process, it remains unchanged.
QuoteHowever, when the previous organizations no longer exist, any reference to them in a constitution becomes meaningless. How could a congregation call a pastor from the Joint Synod of Ohio and Other States now?
QuoteI think I struck a nerve with Brother Hansen.
Quote"Female warm fuzzies"? Well, now I am relieved to know what has caused the downfall of the ELCA, the theological enterprise in North America, and Western Civilization in general. Not to mention global warming.
QuoteSeriously, I am all too well aware of the opinion that the ordination of women prepared the way for the entire debate on ordination of homosexuals who wish to be or who are in "committed same-gender relationships".
QuoteI don't think that the one automatically lead to the other, or that the former is cut from the same theological or Biblical cloth as the other.
QuoteBut I am disturbed by the thought that the ordination of women might be used as a rationale for the current turmoil in the ELCA, nonetheless.
QuoteLikewise, if someone truly believes that the ordination of women is a violation of Scripture, and yet seeks ordination in a denomination like the ELCA that does just that, that person may be lying, at least by omission, at least to himself. I would be very surprised if synods, committees, etc. in the ELCA were to ask if a candidate agreed with the ordination of women. I would think the not unreasonable assumption would be that a man would not seek ordination in a church body that also ordained women if he had theological reasons to be opposed to that practice.