Author Topic: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"  (Read 17288 times)

John Dornheim

  • Guest
When did Rome ordain women?  Give me a source please. 

I do not impugn the ministry of women, as I said I was only making the counter argument to yours.  In rhetorical arguments in can be wise to discern the counter arguments to your own.  Your assessment is, "Try this and if it stands it is God blessed."  This seems a dangerous way for the Church to go forward.  Many things in culture have stood and I can't say that all of them were God blessed.  If you are going to make an argument for women's ordination do so scripturally and by reason.  So far your argument is more emotional than reasoned.

Personally I am thankful for the gifts that women bring to ordained ministry.  I have known some very good women pastors.  But it is interesting to me that we raise women's ordination to a place of church diviision.  It seems to me that ELCAers argue that reconcilation with Rome could only come if Rome allows for the ordination of women.  Never mind that this was not the one of the issues that divded us in the first place.  It is also interesting to me that when anyone challenges or even asks healthy questions re: women's ordination, they are jumped upon as knuckle dragging dinosaur.

As for the Roman Catholic laity crying out for women's ordination.  That is true some have, but there are others who have not cried so loudly if at all.  I'm not sure what your are talking about when you say some are "intimidated by women in leadership roles".  Are you implying that I am intimidated by women in leadership roles?  I can assure you that some women being elevated to leadership in the ELCA would probably frighten me but not because they are women but because of their ideas/values.  The same is true for many men in leadership positions too.

I'm not sure what your point is John except to argue and belittle anyone who challenges you.  As an STS subscriber and one who values the place from which we came, the Roman Catholic Church, and as one who sincerely hopes for reconciliation with Rome I think we can and should be able to talk openly and honestly about women's ordination and what this means for ecumenical efforts towards Rome.  I hope that you can respect this but I suspect that your venom will spew forth at me for simply challenging your assessment and your biases.  Spew forth now...

I have no desire to spew venom at you or anyone. I think that there is a difference between an issue which is church dividing (internal) and a barrier to reconciliation (external).
I also think that there is enough evidence in society that many men have difficulty with women in leadership roles. Take that to wherever you wish, it is very convenient to say that because there is no New Testament witness that it didn't happen then and won't happen now.
We cannot allow other expressions of the faith dictate our theology. We certainly can and should consider them but that is all. If we (and others) can move on this issue then there is every reason to think others can as well. Perhaps were they to look with an open mind and heart, they might change their positions. If they look and shake their heads and wag their fingers, they won't. It is all in God's hands.

John Dornheim

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19810
    • View Profile
"True. Agreed. But which is the worst behavior of the three options-- refusing to speak to someone, telling the required lie that keeps the peace, or telling a truth that causes conflict?"

It's obvioous you're not a mom.  Take the fourth, and often only, option -  if you can't play nice, leave the playground.

" And yet we're constantly told that these differences need not be church-dividing. I don't get it. How can they not be?"

Simple; study Piepkorn, essays both in 'The Church' and also vol. 2, 'The Sacred Scriptures and The Lutheran Confessions',,,,,,,, vol 1 is published by ALPB, so it can't be all bad  8>)   When all is said and done, Pieps observed that since both the Sacred Scriptures nor the Lutheran Confessions are silent, the issue not being an issue of the Gospel or Article of the Faith, the question need not be Chruch dividing.  He himself was often heard to remark that while he personally did not know what it was, based on Tradition, he was confident he knew what it wasn't,,,,,, but, in time, should Rome and the East see to ordain women to the presbyterate, he would readily and joyfully admit he was wrong.  In any event, the issue, at worst, can only be seen as rising to the level of an abuse, or as the East puts it, a 'Western idiosyncracy', never heresy. The wisdom is not to absolutize our differances on such an issue, so that it becomes an either or polarity, but retain the humility to recognize the limitations of our insight and understanding,,,,,,, and play nice, and if not, leave the playground.
In referance to Rome and the East, Piepkorn saw rapid change in Rome in one hundred year increments, in the East, in four hundred year increments.
janielou, you edited out my reasons for stating that the issue had to be church-dividing based on the current discussion, which stemmed from John's statement that "nothing can justify not having [women pastors]" coupled with other people's assertion that nothing can justify having them. Adiaphora can always be justified in some circumstance. If nothing can justify not having women pastors, then those churches that don't have them are morally wrong, not just different on some disputable matter. If Piepkorn is right, then John must be wrong. If nothing can justify a certain behavior, then insisting on that behavior is church-dividing, q.e.d. However, Piepkorn is wrong (gasp! someone get oxygen! does anyone know CPR?) if he says the Scriptures are silent on this issue. That the Scriptures are not silent on the issue is the whole argument of the other side; to simply assume the correctness of one side of the dispute does little to resolve the dispute.

btw I'm not a mom but I have five children from age ten down to one, and your fourth option (leave the playground) is really the same as what I listed as the first option (refuse to speak to that person) since the gist of it is simply to go your separate ways and stop playing together. The problem, of course, is that if you opt for leaving the playground, say, to start your own ministry down the street from the people with whom you have a problem, those people will then b**** that you left the playground and there is no need for two ministries/games going on. So it really isn't much of an option unless you're up for almost endless whining. And as a dad, I'd say whining is just as bad as being mean.

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
McCain writes:
We are convinced that they are not, in fact, pastors, since that is a Biblical impossibility, therefore, there are those of us who find it impossible to refer to a woman as a pastor or address her as "Pastor"

I comment:
So a particular church body or interpretation "owns" the term? Does not the word have some standing outside the strictures of any given church body? By that measure, Roman Catholics could not refer to us as "priests" or "pastors" or "ordained" because according to the discipline of their church, we are none of those. But they do refer to us as such. Seems like rampant and extreme sectarianism to me, and of an unkindly sort.

John Dornheim

  • Guest
"True. Agreed. But which is the worst behavior of the three options-- refusing to speak to someone, telling the required lie that keeps the peace, or telling a truth that causes conflict?"

It's obvioous you're not a mom.  Take the fourth, and often only, option -  if you can't play nice, leave the playground.

" And yet we're constantly told that these differences need not be church-dividing. I don't get it. How can they not be?"

Simple; study Piepkorn, essays both in 'The Church' and also vol. 2, 'The Sacred Scriptures and The Lutheran Confessions',,,,,,,, vol 1 is published by ALPB, so it can't be all bad  8>)   When all is said and done, Pieps observed that since both the Sacred Scriptures nor the Lutheran Confessions are silent, the issue not being an issue of the Gospel or Article of the Faith, the question need not be Chruch dividing.  He himself was often heard to remark that while he personally did not know what it was, based on Tradition, he was confident he knew what it wasn't,,,,,, but, in time, should Rome and the East see to ordain women to the presbyterate, he would readily and joyfully admit he was wrong.  In any event, the issue, at worst, can only be seen as rising to the level of an abuse, or as the East puts it, a 'Western idiosyncracy', never heresy. The wisdom is not to absolutize our differances on such an issue, so that it becomes an either or polarity, but retain the humility to recognize the limitations of our insight and understanding,,,,,,, and play nice, and if not, leave the playground.
In referance to Rome and the East, Piepkorn saw rapid change in Rome in one hundred year increments, in the East, in four hundred year increments.
janielou, you edited out my reasons for stating that the issue had to be church-dividing based on the current discussion, which stemmed from John's statement that "nothing can justify not having [women pastors]" coupled with other people's assertion that nothing can justify having them. Adiaphora can always be justified in some circumstance. If nothing can justify not having women pastors, then those churches that don't have them are morally wrong, not just different on some disputable matter. If Piepkorn is right, then John must be wrong. If nothing can justify a certain behavior, then insisting on that behavior is church-dividing, q.e.d. However, Piepkorn is wrong (gasp! someone get oxygen! does anyone know CPR?) if he says the Scriptures are silent on this issue. That the Scriptures are not silent on the issue is the whole argument of the other side; to simply assume the correctness of one side of the dispute does little to resolve the dispute.

btw I'm not a mom but I have five children from age ten down to one, and your fourth option (leave the playground) is really the same as what I listed as the first option (refuse to speak to that person) since the gist of it is simply to go your separate ways and stop playing together. The problem, of course, is that if you opt for leaving the playground, say, to start your own ministry down the street from the people with whom you have a problem, those people will then b**** that you left the playground and there is no need for two ministries/games going on. So it really isn't much of an option unless you're up for almost endless whining. And as a dad, I'd say whining is just as bad as being mean.

I would need to read all of Arthur Carl's writing in this instance to see if we are at different positions. I'd be hard pressed to find areas of disagreement even though he died half a year after I got to St Louis.
John Dornheim

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19810
    • View Profile
McCain writes:
We are convinced that they are not, in fact, pastors, since that is a Biblical impossibility, therefore, there are those of us who find it impossible to refer to a woman as a pastor or address her as "Pastor"

I comment:
So a particular church body or interpretation "owns" the term? Does not the word have some standing outside the strictures of any given church body? By that measure, Roman Catholics could not refer to us as "priests" or "pastors" or "ordained" because according to the discipline of their church, we are none of those. But they do refer to us as such. Seems like rampant and extreme sectarianism to me, and of an unkindly sort.

Charles, is there something about Paul that makes it impossible for you to ignore him? Must you respond to everything he says on any topic? It is borderline obsessive with you, as though you think people here cannot form their own opinions of Paul's comments, but must have your guidance in order to know how ridiculous everything he says really is. The only point Paul made was that people for whom a pastor is by definition male do not call a woman "pastor". Obviously. To illustrate how perfectly normal this view is, consider this. Green Bay is a Catholic town and I often get called "father" when I'm out and about in clericals. Yet when I see a woman in clericals at the hospital, the people who call me "father" never call her "father" because that would be ridiculous. Nor do they call her "mother". I've heard "sister" or else a lot of fumbling about for a word. The point is that for many (not all, but many) of the good Catholic laity of the town, a priest is by definition "father", so a woman dressed as a priest is something of a quandary. I suppose refusing to call her "father" (which to them is what a priest is) is the most unkindly sort of rampant sectarianism in your eyes, since by trying to find another word they are basically denying that she is what her attire claims she is- a "father". But you know how those Catholics are. Some people would as soon call a woman "pastor" as call her "father" because they see the words in the context of clergy as essentially meaning the same thing and not being applicable to a woman. It has nothing to do with one church body or outlook "owning" a term. If you want to call a woman "father" go ahead. But don't expect everyone else to as a matter of politeness or respect, because some people would find it perplexing and ridiculous, and they aren't all unkind sectarian folks. And the same goes for "pastor". I personally use "pastor" because I can't think of anything else suitable and I generally don't want to make an issue of it unless it is the agreed upon issue at hand. But it isn't as though people who fumble about for another word because "pastor" makes no more sense to them than "father" when applied to a woman are all unkind.   

John Dornheim

  • Guest
McCain writes:
We are convinced that they are not, in fact, pastors, since that is a Biblical impossibility, therefore, there are those of us who find it impossible to refer to a woman as a pastor or address her as "Pastor"

I comment:
So a particular church body or interpretation "owns" the term? Does not the word have some standing outside the strictures of any given church body? By that measure, Roman Catholics could not refer to us as "priests" or "pastors" or "ordained" because according to the discipline of their church, we are none of those. But they do refer to us as such. Seems like rampant and extreme sectarianism to me, and of an unkindly sort.

Charles, is there something about Paul that makes it impossible for you to ignore him? Must you respond to everything he says on any topic? It is borderline obsessive with you, as though you think people here cannot form their own opinions of Paul's comments, but must have your guidance in order to know how ridiculous everything he says really is. The only point Paul made was that people for whom a pastor is by definition male do not call a woman "pastor". Obviously. To illustrate how perfectly normal this view is, consider this. Green Bay is a Catholic town and I often get called "father" when I'm out and about in clericals. Yet when I see a woman in clericals at the hospital, the people who call me "father" never call her "father" because that would be ridiculous. Nor do they call her "mother". I've heard "sister" or else a lot of fumbling about for a word. The point is that for many (not all, but many) of the good Catholic laity of the town, a priest is by definition "father", so a woman dressed as a priest is something of a quandary. I suppose refusing to call her "father" (which to them is what a priest is) is the most unkindly sort of rampant sectarianism in your eyes, since by trying to find another word they are basically denying that she is what her attire claims she is- a "father". But you know how those Catholics are. Some people would as soon call a woman "pastor" as call her "father" because they see the words in the context of clergy as essentially meaning the same thing and not being applicable to a woman. It has nothing to do with one church body or outlook "owning" a term. If you want to call a woman "father" go ahead. But don't expect everyone else to as a matter of politeness or respect, because some people would find it perplexing and ridiculous, and they aren't all unkind sectarian folks. And the same goes for "pastor". I personally use "pastor" because I can't think of anything else suitable and I generally don't want to make an issue of it unless it is the agreed upon issue at hand. But it isn't as though people who fumble about for another word because "pastor" makes no more sense to them than "father" when applied to a woman are all unkind.   

I have heard many a Catholic, clergy and lay alike, acknowledge a woman in a collar as "Pastor." Some would say "Reverend". Yes, there are some who are unsure but it is far from all. It is unfair to say that those who belong to faith traditions which do not ordain women that they are unable to respect another and use the proper terminology.
I shudder to think what might happen if we all stop addressing pastors (or rabbis, for that matter) as such because we don't think that they are fit for the office.

John Dornheim

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Peter writes:
Charles, is there something about Paul that makes it impossible for you to ignore him? Must you respond to everything he says on any topic? It is borderline obsessive with you, as though you think people here cannot form their own opinions of Paul's comments, but must have your guidance in order to know how ridiculous everything he says really is.

I comment (risking having my remarks removed again)
No. I do not respond to everything he says on every topic; and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from long-distance psychoanalyzing. And everything he says is not ridiculous, only large portions of his comments seem to me to be w-a-a-y beyond the bounds of sensible discussion. It is not a question of whether other people "must have" my guidance to understand this; I would fervently hope they reach the conclusion on their own. So I am letting them know I agree with them.

Peter:
The only point Paul made was that people for whom a pastor is by definition male do not call a woman "pastor".

Me:
And my only point was that many do. The word doesn't belong to a particular definition. And by the way, the fact that some refuse to call a woman 'Pastor' is not so "obvious" in most circles.

I believe the discussion of how Romans refer to our clergy misses the mark. Language is always in transition and some Catholics are still getting used to close relations with Protestants; so the way to refer to us is not always obvious and changes frequently. But if one were to go that line of thought, we might have to say we cannot ever refer to Roman Catholic priests as "father," because - if they are faithful to their vows of celibacy - they aren't and can never be "father."

Peter:
But it isn't as though people who fumble about for another word because "pastor" makes no more sense to them than "father" when applied to a woman are all unkind.

Me:
No. Not all are. But we take words in context, even in this forum (or perhaps only in this forum). And once again, the meaning derived from the context of the original post was - given all the other postings of a similar nature - clear; the intent to open up another round of denunciations about how the ELCA does things. I thought my original answer (another non-obsessive reply BTW) would end the thread. The ELCA has no policy on same sex marriages.
Enough said. But if one wishes to speculate on "obsession," let us ponder how frequently some posters choose to denounce rather than dialogue and cloak those denunciations in unctuous, condescending language.

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5723
    • View Profile
"True. Agreed. But which is the worst behavior of the three options-- refusing to speak to someone, telling the required lie that keeps the peace, or telling a truth that causes conflict?"

It's obvioous you're not a mom.  Take the fourth, and often only, option -  if you can't play nice, leave the playground.

" And yet we're constantly told that these differences need not be church-dividing. I don't get it. How can they not be?"

Simple; study Piepkorn, essays both in 'The Church' and also vol. 2, 'The Sacred Scriptures and The Lutheran Confessions',,,,,,,, vol 1 is published by ALPB, so it can't be all bad  8>)   When all is said and done, Pieps observed that since both the Sacred Scriptures nor the Lutheran Confessions are silent, the issue not being an issue of the Gospel or Article of the Faith, the question need not be Chruch dividing.  He himself was often heard to remark that while he personally did not know what it was, based on Tradition, he was confident he knew what it wasn't,,,,,, but, in time, should Rome and the East see to ordain women to the presbyterate, he would readily and joyfully admit he was wrong.  In any event, the issue, at worst, can only be seen as rising to the level of an abuse, or as the East puts it, a 'Western idiosyncracy', never heresy. The wisdom is not to absolutize our differances on such an issue, so that it becomes an either or polarity, but retain the humility to recognize the limitations of our insight and understanding,,,,,,, and play nice, and if not, leave the playground.
In referance to Rome and the East, Piepkorn saw rapid change in Rome in one hundred year increments, in the East, in four hundred year increments.
janielou, you edited out my reasons for stating that the issue had to be church-dividing based on the current discussion, which stemmed from John's statement that "nothing can justify not having [women pastors]" coupled with other people's assertion that nothing can justify having them. Adiaphora can always be justified in some circumstance. If nothing can justify not having women pastors, then those churches that don't have them are morally wrong, not just different on some disputable matter. If Piepkorn is right, then John must be wrong. If nothing can justify a certain behavior, then insisting on that behavior is church-dividing, q.e.d. However, Piepkorn is wrong (gasp! someone get oxygen! does anyone know CPR?) if he says the Scriptures are silent on this issue. That the Scriptures are not silent on the issue is the whole argument of the other side; to simply assume the correctness of one side of the dispute does little to resolve the dispute.

btw I'm not a mom but I have five children from age ten down to one, and your fourth option (leave the playground) is really the same as what I listed as the first option (refuse to speak to that person) since the gist of it is simply to go your separate ways and stop playing together. The problem, of course, is that if you opt for leaving the playground, say, to start your own ministry down the street from the people with whom you have a problem, those people will then b**** that you left the playground and there is no need for two ministries/games going on. So it really isn't much of an option unless you're up for almost endless whining. And as a dad, I'd say whining is just as bad as being mean.

I would need to read all of Arthur Carl's writing in this instance to see if we are at different positions. I'd be hard pressed to find areas of disagreement even though he died half a year after I got to St Louis.
John Dornheim

Actually, it might be that he hasn't written about it at all. That in itself might be significant as to the importance of the question AND, for Piepkorn, whether it really is a church dividing problem.

The fact is that by late 1973 (six weeks before his death) he told me (and my 7 year old daughter) that there was no scriptural nor confessional prohibition to ordaining women.

I think we can summarize his position. He found no wirtten evidence (scriptural or confessional) one way or the other. He respected the tradition and the ecumenical church. By the time American Lutherans ordained Lutherans he accepted them.

If anyone finds anything written by Arthur Carl Piepkorn on the subject of women's ordaination I would like to know about it. Phil Secker, editor of the Piepkorn volumes is searching and hasn't yet.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH, STS
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

GoCubsGo!

  • Guest
When did Rome ordain women?  Give me a source please. 

I do not impugn the ministry of women, as I said I was only making the counter argument to yours.  In rhetorical arguments in can be wise to discern the counter arguments to your own.  Your assessment is, "Try this and if it stands it is God blessed."  This seems a dangerous way for the Church to go forward.  Many things in culture have stood and I can't say that all of them were God blessed.  If you are going to make an argument for women's ordination do so scripturally and by reason.  So far your argument is more emotional than reasoned.

Personally I am thankful for the gifts that women bring to ordained ministry.  I have known some very good women pastors.  But it is interesting to me that we raise women's ordination to a place of church diviision.  It seems to me that ELCAers argue that reconcilation with Rome could only come if Rome allows for the ordination of women.  Never mind that this was not the one of the issues that divded us in the first place.  It is also interesting to me that when anyone challenges or even asks healthy questions re: women's ordination, they are jumped upon as knuckle dragging dinosaur.

As for the Roman Catholic laity crying out for women's ordination.  That is true some have, but there are others who have not cried so loudly if at all.  I'm not sure what your are talking about when you say some are "intimidated by women in leadership roles".  Are you implying that I am intimidated by women in leadership roles?  I can assure you that some women being elevated to leadership in the ELCA would probably frighten me but not because they are women but because of their ideas/values.  The same is true for many men in leadership positions too.

I'm not sure what your point is John except to argue and belittle anyone who challenges you.  As an STS subscriber and one who values the place from which we came, the Roman Catholic Church, and as one who sincerely hopes for reconciliation with Rome I think we can and should be able to talk openly and honestly about women's ordination and what this means for ecumenical efforts towards Rome.  I hope that you can respect this but I suspect that your venom will spew forth at me for simply challenging your assessment and your biases.  Spew forth now...

I have no desire to spew venom at you or anyone. I think that there is a difference between an issue which is church dividing (internal) and a barrier to reconciliation (external).
I also think that there is enough evidence in society that many men have difficulty with women in leadership roles. Take that to wherever you wish, it is very convenient to say that because there is no New Testament witness that it didn't happen then and won't happen now.
We cannot allow other expressions of the faith dictate our theology. We certainly can and should consider them but that is all. If we (and others) can move on this issue then there is every reason to think others can as well. Perhaps were they to look with an open mind and heart, they might change their positions. If they look and shake their heads and wag their fingers, they won't. It is all in God's hands.

John Dornheim

Your difference between "dividing" and "barrier to reconciliation" is double speak.  Should the ELCA spilt over women's ordination? It hasn't and shouildn't.  Does women's ordinatiion keep us divided from Rome, or is it a barrier to reconciliation?  Yes, although it is one issue among several others.

But you didn't answer my earlier question: When did the Roman Catholic Church ordain women?  Either admit that you mis-spoke or qoute some credible source.

You say we can't allow other expressions of the faith to dictate our theology.  But isn't that what happened with CCM?  How far do you take that: we can do whatever we want as ELCAers, the rest of the church be damned, since we are only folllowing our own theology?  What we do affects others, that is one of those things I learned about ecclesiology.  Have you no sense of how the decisoins that we make affect the whole church?

Lastly, those who oppose women's ordination, and I am not one of those BTW, do not have "open minds and hearts"?  They are uncarting and unfeeling?  They are wrong and you are right?  Is this how you define open minded, agreement with you?

FWIW, I think women should be ordained, even in the Roman Church.  But I would be willing, for the sake of unity, to suspend that value for the greater goal of unity with Rome.  Perhaps then we could move towards women's ordinatoin together.  I'm sure that you don't or won't see this as I do.  But again, I hope you can understand the value and the importance of there being ONE Church.

Erma_S._Wolf

  • Guest
   Speaking only for myself, I never assume that a Roman Catholic priest, LCMS pastor, or Southern Baptist minister approves of women's ordination just because one of them uses my title of "Pastor" when addressing me or introducing me.  I just assume that they are polite.

     For that matter, I always assume that in any grouping of people, (ELCA, LCMS, etc.) that there are people who don't approve of the ordination of women.  I try to be polite and respectful, but at the same time present myself honestly. 

     Carry on, gentlemen.

Pastor Erma Wolf,STS

JEdwards

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #100 on: October 25, 2007, 09:55:43 AM »
The use of the word "priestess" to refer to members of a church's clergy who are women is offensive, rude and more a matter of "shock" value and polemic than anything else.

On the other hand, it is not possible for many of us to refer to a woman as a pastor, for the reasons Peter has eloquently stated. We are convinced that they are not, in fact, pastors, since that is a Biblical impossibility, therefore, there are those of us who find it impossible to refer to a woman as a pastor or address her as "Pastor."
The word "Pastor" simply means "shepherd."  Does the belief that a woman should not have this role preclude the acknowledgement that she does have this role in her own congregation?

For interactions between female clergy and those who oppose women's ordination, would it be fair to expect the application of similar standards as would be expected for interactions between Roman Catholic and Lutheran clergy?  After all, from the Roman Catholic perspective, parallel arguments could be made about Lutheran pastors in general.  Their ordinations are invalid, and they lack the authority to pronounce absolution or preside at the Eucharist.  In China, Catholics who are loyal to the Pope are persecuted for not accepting the jurisdiction of the state-approved bishops.  Certainly, no one should be expected to worship or speak in ways that violate his conscience, but it is always helpful to consider what one's expectations would be were the shoe on the other foot.  

Jon Edwards

Pr. Jerry

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #101 on: October 25, 2007, 10:04:48 AM »
Elsewhere in this forum a member commented that he felt so betrayed and wronged by the LCMS that he will never again set foot on a Concordia campus. Apparently to do so for him would feel like capitulating to a wrong, or at least having to refight an old battle. There is a symbolic power of sorts (and also spiritual danger) in such an attitude and gesture of rejection, even though many people who know and love the Concordias might be offended that someone would think them so awful as to be worthy of such treatment. Many people who have fought the wars over women's ordination and won them at great price or lost them outright feel in the presence of a woman pastor the same way this man would feel walking onto the Concordia campus. One way to deal with those feeelings would be to vow never to meet with a woman pastor. Not a very good option, and probably not logistically possible anyway; pastors do not stay in one place like the Concordia campus does. So what can they do? What gesture is available that doesn't immediately ruin all dialogue by giving grave offense, but still expresses some sort of symbolic resistance or disapproval?

Peter,
It was I who stated that I would not set foot upon the CTS campus(es) again.  Let me be clear, for my own sake if not for the sake of others, that this is my personal sentiment and not a call for "no one else" to ever set foot upon the CTS campus, nor is it a blanket rejection of those who attended either CTS or love the places.  But yes, I feel wronged and betrayed by the reaction of the Seminary's leadership that first invited then rescinded that invitation then implied that somehow the Society to which I belong was deceptive and disrepectful for worshipping upon their territory.  Who exactly is the Society of the Holy Trinity?  It is all of us who have signed the Rule, who have bound ourselves to each other.  To call the Society liars is to call me a liar.  To say that the Society was not respectful of the LCMS is to say that I behaved so.  It is bad enough that some would invoke the ancient heresy of Gnosticism in regards to the Society (hence myself), but it is far worse to have the Seminary's president not rise to the defense of those whom he invited into "his" house.  We abided under the Seminary's request that women not preach in the Chapel.  We used the LSB in all our services.  To my knowledge, all present were reverential in Kramer Chapel and upon the grounds.  But yes, we are a mixed minsterium, I was welcomed to commune at a Eucharist sponosored by an LCMS pastor and congregation in an LCMS space.  But that is the very nature of the STS, it was never hidden or lied to about by anyone.

So if my presence causes such offense, I will act proactively to avoid causing further scandal.  Not only that, I will remember the treatment that my brothers and sisters and I have experienced and will not seek to re-enter that mess again.  I promise, I will not hold a grudge.  I do not hate or despise CTS-FW, I do thank them for their hospitality while we were there.  I thanked, in person, the refectory staff and the housekeeping staff for a very pleasant stay.  But a grave sin against hospitality has been committed and that also needs to be recognized.  Fortuneately, there is always the possibility for reconciliation.  But a whole lot of damage has been done.

And yes, I will freely admit that I too am all too prone to sin, especially in times of anger.  If I have spoken intemperately (and I'm sure I have), then I beg pardon and forgiveness from my brothers and sisters and I seek due admonition as such.  

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5723
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #102 on: October 25, 2007, 10:34:13 AM »
Elsewhere in this forum a member commented that he felt so betrayed and wronged by the LCMS that he will never again set foot on a Concordia campus. Apparently to do so for him would feel like capitulating to a wrong, or at least having to refight an old battle. There is a symbolic power of sorts (and also spiritual danger) in such an attitude and gesture of rejection, even though many people who know and love the Concordias might be offended that someone would think them so awful as to be worthy of such treatment. Many people who have fought the wars over women's ordination and won them at great price or lost them outright feel in the presence of a woman pastor the same way this man would feel walking onto the Concordia campus. One way to deal with those feeelings would be to vow never to meet with a woman pastor. Not a very good option, and probably not logistically possible anyway; pastors do not stay in one place like the Concordia campus does. So what can they do? What gesture is available that doesn't immediately ruin all dialogue by giving grave offense, but still expresses some sort of symbolic resistance or disapproval?

Peter,
It was I who stated that I would not set foot upon the CTS campus(es) again.  Let me be clear, for my own sake if not for the sake of others, that this is my personal sentiment and not a call for "no one else" to ever set foot upon the CTS campus, nor is it a blanket rejection of those who attended either CTS or love the places.  But yes, I feel wronged and betrayed by the reaction of the Seminary's leadership that first invited then rescinded that invitation then implied that somehow the Society to which I belong was deceptive and disrepectful for worshipping upon their territory.  Who exactly is the Society of the Holy Trinity?  It is all of us who have signed the Rule, who have bound ourselves to each other.  To call the Society liars is to call me a liar.  To say that the Society was not respectful of the LCMS is to say that I behaved so.  It is bad enough that some would invoke the ancient heresy of Gnosticism in regards to the Society (hence myself), but it is far worse to have the Seminary's president not rise to the defense of those whom he invited into "his" house.  We abided under the Seminary's request that women not preach in the Chapel.  We used the LSB in all our services.  To my knowledge, all present were reverential in Kramer Chapel and upon the grounds.  But yes, we are a mixed minsterium, I was welcomed to commune at a Eucharist sponosored by an LCMS pastor and congregation in an LCMS space.  But that is the very nature of the STS, it was never hidden or lied to about by anyone.

So if my presence causes such offense, I will act proactively to avoid causing further scandal.  Not only that, I will remember the treatment that my brothers and sisters and I have experienced and will not seek to re-enter that mess again.  I promise, I will not hold a grudge.  I do not hate or despise CTS-FW, I do thank them for their hospitality while we were there.  I thanked, in person, the refectory staff and the housekeeping staff for a very pleasant stay.  But a grave sin against hospitality has been committed and that also needs to be recognized.  Fortuneately, there is always the possibility for reconciliation.  But a whole lot of damage has been done.

And yes, I will freely admit that I too am all too prone to sin, especially in times of anger.  If I have spoken intemperately (and I'm sure I have), then I beg pardon and forgiveness from my brothers and sisters and I seek due admonition as such.  

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


Well stated, Jerry. This thread is actually mute as concerns the STS. Our trusted leadership has decided that we will not be coming back to an LCMS campus. Two aspects of this episode can give us somethings to ponder.

l.  All of our previous General Retreats and almost all of our local retreats are and have been held at Roman Catholic facilities. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the legitimacy of ELCA ordained ministry. Neither does it believe it proper to ordain women. In that respect they are exactly like the LCMS. Never has the STS experienced a shred of negativity in Roman Catholic facilities. We thought that would be the case at Ft. Wayne. It wasn't. It was what it was. And we're going back to Catholic facilities. Their tolerance is dependable.

2.  The STS was anything but cavalier. We compromised and, much to our inconvenience, moved around from chapel to auditorum after learning suddenly about sensitivites. A litle tolerance works.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19810
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #103 on: October 25, 2007, 10:35:37 AM »
   Speaking only for myself, I never assume that a Roman Catholic priest, LCMS pastor, or Southern Baptist minister approves of women's ordination just because one of them uses my title of "Pastor" when addressing me or introducing me.  I just assume that they are polite.

     For that matter, I always assume that in any grouping of people, (ELCA, LCMS, etc.) that there are people who don't approve of the ordination of women.  I try to be polite and respectful, but at the same time present myself honestly. 

     Carry on, gentlemen.

Pastor Erma Wolf,STS
And if we ever met in person, I personally would have no problem introducing you to someone as "Pastor Wolf" precisely because that would be the normal and accepted form of address unless we were at a conference called specifically to consider the question of whether women could be pastors, in which case everyone would understand the difficulty. But I know many people who would not call you "Pastor Wolf" but would cast about for another word and perhaps end up sounding rude or confrontational, and my point was these people aren't necessarily rude; they're looking for the right word from a (perfectly valid) viewpoint within which "pastor" can only apply to a man, just like "father".

And Erma, though you are gracious (here in this forum and presumably everywhere else) and take into account people's viewpoints, many of the people who might not want to call you "pastor" are not thinking merely of your feelings when they address you, but also of the feelings (as mentioned upstream) of people who are losing their reputations and livelihoods over this issue. It is more than a greeting, it is a public witness. They don't want to betray an ally, so to speak. It would be like President Kieschnick greeting the pope. I don't know exactly how Catholics greet the pope, but I imagine there is a whole agreed-upon code by which non-Catholics can properly greet the pope without acknowledging the validity of his papal claims the way a Catholic would. And I imagine (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this --Irl, I'm looking at you here. Little help?) it is not President Kieschnick greeting the pope the way a Catholic would, but the pope graciously not demanding his full papal titles from someone who doesn't believe in them. They have that code because it is important as a witness-- other LCMS people are watching to see what their president would call the pope. Yet there is no such code for this much smaller issue of women's ordination, and that is what people are looking to establish. They want to be polite and repspectful to you, but they do want to be misunderstood (by you or anyone else) as acknowledging that pastors can be women. You don't take them to mean that, but others might. Is there a way for a woman pastor to graciously not demand her full pastoral title from someone who doesn't believe in it, without then considering that person impolite? I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just saying that considering everyone impolite who doesn't want to use "pastor" is not the answer either.
 

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3638
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #104 on: October 25, 2007, 10:53:19 AM »
All of our previous General Retreats and almost all of our local retreats are and have been held at Roman Catholic facilities. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the legitimacy of ELCA ordained ministry. Neither does it believe it proper to ordain women. In that respect they are exactly like the LCMS. Never has the STS experienced a shred of negativity in Roman Catholic facilities. We thought that would be the case at Ft. Wayne. It wasn't. It was what it was. And we're going back to Catholic facilities. Their tolerance is dependable.
I believe it was last year that the archbishop of Canterbury was in Rome and received permission from the Vatican to celebrate the Eucharist at the high altar of a Roman basilica (of course not St. Peter or St. John Lateran, but you can't throw a stone and not hit a basilica in the Eternal City).  There was blogosphere carping from the usual traditionalist suspects, surely reinforced by some sniping Curial types, about old arguments (invalidity of Anglican orders, Protestant Mass, etc)--but it seems quite obvious that this wasn't going to happen in the diocese of the bishop of Rome without his consent, and he's not exactly a liberal on issues of syncretism and unionism.

Sterling Spatz
« Last Edit: October 25, 2007, 10:55:55 AM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter