Goodwill may stock equally outrageous clothing, but at least the selection allows for a variety of sensibilities and includes more classic items. It’s also easier on the wallet.
Great point! Modesty should be something we can all agree on.
I suppose it’s appropriate then that I had made a transition to more modest clothing before I was introduced to the practice of head covering.
I’ve found success at thrift stores in finding appropriate clothing for myself. Also, sewing is an excellent hobby that allows the creation of the kinds of clothing that the stores are lacking in. I’ve made a few of my own skirts when I had a harder time finding things that were appropriate and flattering in the store.
(Btw it would be pretty cool if the Ad Crucem store started stocking chapel veils/head coverings…just saying!)
We do sometimes carry veils made by Anna Hart, but she's been busy with family, so those aren't currently available. I have a new seamstress who we onboarded in December, and will get her to create some for us.
I concur that modesty is an often neglected topic among us. Immodesty is certainly a more pressing matter and degrading force in our churches and society than not veiling in the Divine Service.
It should be noted, however, that Paul's argument for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 is primarily about a woman's submission to her head, and should only secondarily be brought into conversations about modesty. In other words, those advocating for headcoverings are (or should) be dealing primarily with headship, not modesty. There's no competition at all between arguing for headcoverings and arguing on a more basic level for modest dress, because these are distinct (but certainly related) issues. Thanks again for all you write!
Yes please! I've wanted modest but nice clothing for a while and run into the same issues. I'd love to support a Lutheran (or even just Christian) operated business.
You would be surprised. Even if that were true, as more Lutheran women take up head covering, this article is a good way to get ahead of the idea that covering the head is the only thing that matters.
If people would know their Confessions, this wouldn't even be a question as to whether women should wear head coverings. As an aside, the same section addresses all of these legalistic crusades that try to make certain Adiaphora mandatory (e.g. hymnal only, organ only, pastor must wear robes, etc.).
Consider the following from the Augsburg Confession, Article 28 -- On Ecclesiastical Power (skip to the last part of you want the Reformers assertion on the issue):
50 Since, therefore, ordinances instituted as things necessary, or with an opinion of meriting grace, are contrary to the Gospel, it follows that it is not lawful for any bishop 51 to institute or exact such services. For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in the churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not necessary to justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians 5:1: Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 52 It is necessary that the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts of worship devised by men.
53 What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them 54 without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11:5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14:30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.
55 It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14:40; comp. Phil. 2:14 . 56 but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given.
I was forwarded your comment that we should be "opposed". I do not wear head coverings. However, I acknowledge that St Paul tells women to do so, and that makes things problematical for me. There are a number of issues in scripture which we don't adhere to, but if we read the Bible, we should perhaps do so. Blood transfusions is the first that comes to mind - we are told to stay away from blood in both the OT and NT, yet we as Christians have transfusions, surely we should unpack these issues instead of denying their existence?
Are these things required for salvation? Of course not. But from the time a Christian is saved until the day they die, we live a life where we seek to be sanctified, how we go about doing that is a discussion worth having. We would be very happy to publish a rebuttal penned by you if you would like to write one.
Kevin, please can you look into why Concordia Matters Official on Facebook is happy to break the 8th about us and then go and block me so that I cannot answer the charges? I submitted a request to join specifically so that I could respond to comments about the article, and instead I was blocked. As you said below:
"I agree that we need more dialogue in our synod, especially among those who disagree. We need to sit down together with the Scriptures and Confessions and in love see what God's will is and not our human interpretations of it."
We cannot achieve that if we block people with whom we disagree.
I asked the admin about readmitting you. Concerning the 8th Commandment, you posted your remarks publically, therefore there is not breaking of the 8th commandment by analyzing and reacting to your words.
No one is attacking you personally, but rather attacking the ideas (especially the one about espousing shutting down and selling the Concordias if they don't tow the line and do things the way that the hardliners want).
The 8th commandment forbids making “private” sins public in order to shame the person, but if an act is public, as when a leader or board makes decisions or when someone speaks or writes publicly, they can be publicly be shown their error, yet always with Christian kindness, love, and in the spirit of building up and not tearing down. If you are not familiar with the selection from Luther's Large Catechism on the Eighth Commandment, here it is:
"284 All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it."
There are examples of public reproof throughout the Scriptures. In Matthew 3:7-10, John the Baptist publicly rebukes the Pharisees and Sadducees for their hypocrisy by saying, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Stephen publicly rebuked the hard-hearted Jews by declaring, “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him” (Acts 7:51-52).
Jesus Himself, in an entire chapter (Matthew 23) publicly rebukes the Pharisees and the teachers of the law before the “crowds and to His disciples” (Matthew 23:1). He starts off His scathing discourse by telling His hearers to obey what the leaders say for good order, but not do what they do: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (23:3).
One of Jesus’ most damning accusations is the following statement in verses 27-28, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”
Go to the Old Testament, randomly pick any of the prophets, and you will find statements of public condemnation of the people and their leaders. I’ll just pick a few from the first chapter of Isaiah.
God, through Isaiah the prophet, publicly rebukes the leadership of Judah: “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah!” (Isaiah 1:10). “Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow” (1:16-17). “Your rulers are rebels, partners with thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them” (1:23).
All this to say that holding people publicly accountable for their actions and their decisions when their actions and decisions are contrary to the will of our God is not a sin. In fact, it is in keeping with the best of Biblical, and therefore Lutheran, tradition. "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light." -- Ephesians 5:11-13
I am confused, you said "they can be publicly be shown their error, yet always with Christian kindness, love, and in the spirit of building up and not tearing down." But, surely it is gossip to not allow a person access to read what is being written when they are being discussed in a negative and uncharitable fashion? What do our confessions say about gossip?
I have no problem with public reproof. If I am wrong show me from scripture how and why. I will repent and work on my shortcomings. I do find it strange that I am being reproved for dressing my daughter with dignity, for worrying about the well being of members of the other sex, and for wanting chastity to once again become a virtue in the church. I wonder what Luther would write about all these issues. Which side would he come down on? From the Confessions you should be able to tell me.
You mention our Lord castigating the Pharisees. I don't know if you are implying that I am pharisaical for wanting virtue in my children. You cannot possibly mean that? Or perhaps you do not have children yet and have not thought through what you are saying. Remember that the people Christ granted faith to sought afterwards to live God fearing lives. The woman accused of adultery He told to go and sin no more. The woman at the well was granted repentance and changed her life. We sing each week with King David, "Create in me a clean heart, O God and renew a right spirit within me..."
All. that aside, the admin of the group messaged, she did not know which Wanita Wood it was who was blocked yesterday, so that has now been cleared up and I have been granted access. I thank you for having intervened for me. I haven't gone to read all the negative comments, I think perhaps it would depress me too much.
In your first paragraph, you mention being shut out and not being able to read comments, but in your last paragraph you admit that I advocated for you and got you reinstated, so how is that gossip? I did not know you were shut out and I put the original post also on your platform as a way to follow Matthew 18.
Concerning the issue of reproof, head coverings, appropriate dress, modesty, etc. are not the issue that I am raising (as I said in previous replies). I definitely want all people to give a good witness in the way that they act and the way that they choose to dress. Yet, these are all Adiaphora and you may choose whatever practices best fit your informed reading of the Scriptures and the Confessions and best suit your preferred manner of life and personal devotion. If you feel like you want to wear a head covering, in the freedom of the Gospel (Gal. 5:1, Col. 2:16-17) you have that freedom. Just don't mandate to other women that they have to do so. It's an Adiaphora.
As an aside, I have an adult daughter so I did have to go through the joys of trying to find modest clothing that my daughter also would be willing to wear to school. In addition, I am a Lutheran high school teacher so I fight this battle with my students every day.
Back to the issue, the problem is the list of recommendations for how leaders can win high offices in the church. Some of these recommendations are not Biblical and certainly not in a spirit of the love of God who wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (most notably the one about shutting down and selling the Concordias if they don't abide by the way you think they should be run and the comment about there shouldn't be a "big tent" of Lutheranism-- implying that there is only one way-- your way-- to practice the faith).
The way to change hearts is to preach the Word and let the Holy Spirit work when and where He wills in the hearts and minds of those who hear that Word (Augsburg Confession V).
If you need me to cite the Confessions on certain issues, let me know which ones you would like references for. As I told your husband, who incidentally hasn't replied since I asked him to give Scriptural and Confessional citations for his assertion that only the pastor can read the Scripture lessons in the Divine Service, all assertions should be backed up by these sources and not just based on human wisdom or opinions.
1. Kevin, no one on the FB page had ever seen me interact with it, because I was not a member. You were all happy to continue complaining about the content. You alone came across to engage with me. I commended you for that.
When someone sent me a message telling me of your FB page, and what was being discussed, I applied for membership and when asked the question for why, I stated specifically that it was to answer the allegations and concerns addressed on the page about this article.
I have not gossiped here about anyone. It is an open forum for all to see, and for all to comment on. That's not how gossip works.
2. I have stated in the article and twice in the comments that I do not wear head coverings. I have also stated that scripture tells us to. I'm certainly not telling any other woman to do something I myself am not doing. Please quote for me where I have said that any other woman needs to either wear head coverings or dress the way I and my daughters dress.
3. You have a daughter you have gone through this exact thing with, so you understand exactly what I have been going through, yet decided to spend a whole lot of your time and searches to argue against something I have not said.
4. I engage with people at my office every day, I give them our book "The Narrow Way simply shown" and invite them to our church. Thank you for the encouragement for me to continue doing that. My reasoning is that if they have a book, you never know when they might be at their lowest point and there on their shelf is the gospel waiting for them. The Narrow Way is a great explanation of Lutheranism. You can find it as a free download on our website.
5. Thank you for your offer to search the Confessions. I did ask you above to search for how we are to deal with gossip and modesty. Perhaps this is what sparked your changing the discussion to it now being about me dictating to other women how to dress.
I apologize if I did not read the article carefully enough to notice that you were not advocating head coverings or encouraging others to do so. This is my mistake and I apologize. I am sorry that this has become the issue that it has become and I see that from your article you were mainly espousing modesty in dress and only using the head covering issue as a jumping off point.
I will say that I have appreciated the moderate tone of your responses. This is one thing our synod desperately needs, namely for people to sit down (whether virtually or preferably in person) and talk through their issues, always treating the other as a brother or sister in Christ. We can disagree amicably and in so doing build up the entire Body of Christ.
This whole issue started when one of our more active members noticed a discussion of your article on another Facebook group that claims to be Lutheran. While claiming to not want to be "political," there has been a double standard there, on other "Lutheran" groups, and even on the synod's own page where issues that are more likely to be supported by those of the high-church liturgical group are allowed to be discussed but when we ask for a discussion about issues that relate to Concordia, Ann Arbor and how the community has been treated they are almost immediately shut down and or deleted. This is where your site got drawn in.
As someone who regularly comments on Concordia Matters about issues of theology, I thought I would address the topic of head coverings so that I could inform members of the group who maybe were wondering about the issue since it was brought up. I really didn't have any concerns about Ad Crucem until someone sent me a link to the article about the recommendations for those seeking political office. This is where my problem lies, not with head covering or with modesty.
I am sorry that you were not immediately able to respond to the comments. That's not how we operate. We welcome discussion and debate and welcome all perspectives as long as people are respectful and act in a Christian manner with their posts and replies. Many of us have been blocked from certain groups and even the synod's Facebook page simply because they don't want any discussion of perspectives that they do not support.
Thank you for your ministry to the church and I pray that you will be able to shine the light of Christ to everyone you meet. Concerning the "recommendations" article, I do wish that some of the points would have been put forth with more sensitivity to those who are equally Confessional and faithful, but do not hold to the beliefs and practices of the current synod leadership.
AC 28:53-57 is really where we ought to focus after we have examined 1st Corinthians 11:2-16. I think the following is an exhaustive list of options for interpretation.
Women in the Church today
1) cannot cover their heads.
2) should not cover their heads
3) can cover their heads.
4) should cover their heads.
5) must cover their heads.
Options 1 and 2 are clearly excluded by the words of Melanchthon. He makes plain that St. Paul established this ordinance in paragraph 54 and that it is proper for churches to keep such ordinances. Lutherans should not (and have not historically) said that women cannot or should not cover their heads in church.
Option 5 is also excluded, at least considered in itself (per se) without any mitigating factors such as Paul had in Corinth. AC 28:50-52 and 57 make clear that women covering their heads is not something they do to earn salvation, nor is it a sin to go uncovered (considered in itself). It can become a sin depending on the reason for which women don't veil. Paul had to rebuke the women in Corinth for not veiling because of secondary circumstances (prophesying while disrespecting the order of creation). Melanchthon gives the qualifier in paragraph 56 that if anyone is offended, then the woman has sinned by not having her hair covered. It's a very different circumstance if a woman doesn't veil because she has never learned the custom or even having learned the custom she struggles with it because very few women practice it vs. a woman who won't veil because she disagrees with male headship.
Keeping in mind 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and AC 28:50-57, your options are really 3 and 4. That is
Women can cover their heads in church.
Or
Women should cover their heads in church.
I believe option 4, that women should cover their heads in church. The reason for this is the broad preservation of this custom in Christendom regardless of denomination into the 20th century, the unique anger and rebellion against this custom given by 2nd wave feminists (look up NOW, Elizabeth Farians, and the Easter Bonnet Rebellion), and the positive statements made in the private writings of Luther, Melanchthon, and Liturgical writings from the LCMS commending the practice in the 19th and 20th century. It is always positively spoken of and encouraged, without being made necessary for salvation. Furthermore, our own confusion in the world regarding gender and headship should only further commend female headcovering to us as a, "laudable custom based on a Scriptural Injunction," to use the language from the General Rubrics of the Lutheran Liturgy published by the Missouri Synod as the Altar Book for The Lutheran Hymnal (1941).
Thank you Pastor. I already stick out like a sore thumb at our church, given that I am foreign and own AdC. I feel that being the sole head coverer would draw more attention to me. If I attended a church where it was the norm, I would most certainly do so.
Concerning blood transfusions, I am not a doctor and I don't know the verses you cite to oppose blood transfusions, but I do know that the same selection from Augsburg Confession 28 mentions how in Acts 15 the Apostles recommended not eating meat with blood in it yet Melanchthon says that no one does it in their day.
Galatians 5:1 and Colossians 2:16-17 are the gold standard when it comes to freedom of practice in Christ. Every other practice needs to be read in the light of these verses (and also Augsburg Confession 7, AC 15, and Solid Declaration 10 in the Confessions).
As you can probably guess, I am very much in support of our Concordias and it is out of line for a group to publically come out and recommend to "Take control of the Concordias and restore them to their original missions. If resistance arises, be ready to sell them off and use the proceeds to fortify the remaining entities or start over."
"If resistance arises?" Seriously? Is this a hostile takeover or are we to be about the mission of God preaching Word and sacrament and letting the Holy Spirit work when and where He wills?
What about the thousands of families of students and staff members who were displaced and forced to alter their lives? What about the prospective students whose dreams were shattered over some group's crusade for "Lutheran purity?"
These actions (and recommendations) have real consequences.
The Concordias exist because of the generosity of donors and the considerable risk the Synod took in underwriting mountains of debt. The least the CUS can do is be grateful and submissive to the parent. It is certainly sad for the personal impacts, but the writing has been on the wall for decades. If we wallow in sentimentalism, we will lose the whole lot, allowing each to become just another version of Concordia University, Montréal. Did the Holy Spirit will pride clubs, harassing professors for opposing wokeness, and illegally declaring unilateral independence from the Synod, etc., etc.?
It's not a purity crusade to demand the LCMS put an end to the Godless nonsense bubbling and frothing at so many of the Concordias. Is it too much to ask that the basic standards being set by CUNE and CUC become the norm instead of the exception?
Your assumption is that the Concordias (apparently except CUNE and CUC) are flaming beds of liberalism ("bubbling and frothing"?) and there are no redeeming qualities. This is simply not true and based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine of Adiaphora. In addition, the "financial emergency" argument has been shown to be untrue.
It is "godless" because you apparently don't support any path other than a narrow understanding of "Lutheranism" as reflected in high-church practices and a "us" vs. "them" mentality.
The reference in the article mentioned about "errant churches" is staggeringly bold and judgmental. You (or whoever from your group) stated in recommendation #8: "Bring errant churches and districts into fellowship or bid them farewell."
Why are they erring? Please show me by the Scriptures and the Confessions how these churches, and districts (I would assume by your remark about the districts that give the most money you are talking about the Michigan District) are erring.
Please back up your assertions with proof from those things which make Lutheranism Lutheran, namely the Scriptures and Confessions.
Sorry, Kevin, but you are throwing out absolutes. I made no absolute claims and never declared the Concordias irredeemable.
It is indisputable that the Concordias have suffered a terrible infusion of capital L Liberalism, which was most apparent at flamed out Portland. Yes, I only support a path that excludes Pride Clubs, DEI, Wokeism, Syncretism, Unionism, and Fourth Commandment Rebellions, to name just a few issues.
Errant churches. I will not name them here, although I have gently raised a terrible problem at a nearby church with my district leadership after seeing if the congregation could right their ship after year. Here's one simple litmus test - lay lectors. If you have them, your church is errant. Scripture and the confessions are clear that our pastors alone are to handle the Word of God during the Divine Service.
Whenever I cite the Confessions as claiming something, I always give the exact reference so that people can debate and challenge me as to whether I have interpreted the words of the Confessions accurately.
Could you please tell me your proof texts for the claim that only an ordained minister can "handle the Word of God during the Divine Service." I am very familiar with the Confessions and I have never read anything that even closely resembles such a claim.
In fact, it goes against one of the core teachings of Lutheranism, namely that the Word of God is for every person, not just the clergy. Why should the Divine Service be any different?
Your claim makes the pastor elevated in a Roman Catholic way so that the man is somehow special because of his ordination. "Ordination" has to do with "order." It doesn't make him somehow closer to God or make it so that now he has special access to God.
This discounting of the laity is insulting to the people of God and is not taught in the Confessions.
If you have proof, please show me. Otherwise, what you claim is heretical.
Good response. I ask for Confessional proof and you check out and leave the discussion.
I should be surprised, but it happens every time that I encounter someone from your camp that preaches these restrictive and burdensome practices. You can make claims all day but you can't back any of them up and you refuse to do so.
I guess as long as you don't put yourself out there, you get to keep teaching whatever you want to teach.
We are not "a group". We are simply a husband and wife who have spent all our extra funds creating something for the church. We have taken a whole lot of time and resources away from our family to do so. In the almost 11 years we have had Ad Crucem, we have never taken a cent out of it but have ploughed a whole lot into it.
It’s always best to engage directly, and for that I commend you. Open dialog and discussion are great, and so very necessary for the church.
Thank you, Wanita. I really don't know anything about you and TJ, and I hope that you are successful in serving the church, but when you put forward a "Winning Election Platform" and suggest some of the things that you suggested, this is not okay. Especially if, as your article suggests that you represent a good portion of the conservative section of our synod. This suggests that your platform is also the platform of those conservative and liturgical voices (but they won't come out and say it publically).
I agree that we need more dialogue in our synod, especially among those who disagree. We need to sit down together with the Scriptures and Confessions and in love see what God's will is and not our human interpretations of it.
Kevin, it is perfectly "okay" for us to project the synthesized views of 15,000 customers, 100,000 unique users on the site (per year), and 40,000 uniques on this channel. Nobody dictates to us or tells us what to say and do. We voice opinions at considerable risk to the business, but our interest is in having a functional confessing Synod for our grandchildren. We do not represent or receive money from entities like LCA, Balance-Concord, ACELC, Gottesdienst, Bugenhagen Conference, Issues Etc., etc. Nobody from Synod calls us or asks for anything unless it's a purchase. Those entities - and the corresponding "Missional" ones have far more actual influence over the Synod than we ever will.
However, we are not ashamed of having the ears of the grassroots confessionals, and they are not ashamed of expressing themselves to and through us. Ad Crucem is almost alone in being the voice of the ordinary brothers and sisters with whom the power players are not in touch.
Your use of the word "confessional" is insulting since it gives the impression that those who do not agree with you are not confessional.
I know the Confessions exceptionally well and I can tell you that the "missional" view is far more in line with the Reformers and the actual text of the Confessions. Pick a topic and I will cite "chapter and verse" from the Confessions for you on that topic supporting the view that the church should be Christ-centered, mission-oriented, and free in the Gospel to practice the devotion that suits the individual and the congregation "of every time and place" (Solid Declaration X).
As I stated in my other post, I welcome the debate. Please show me the Confessional proof that backs up your views. God's peace.
Hello Wanita! Thank you for expressing your reasonable concerns about modest dress. As a mom of sons and with respect for the eyes of men, I was invited to speak to middle and high school boys and girls on this topic (as well as biblical manhood and womanhood) for many years. I chose to speak separately to dads and their sons, and moms and their daughters for the sake of comfortable questions.
Interest was great enough that I wrote a Bible Study for girls titled "Dressing for Life: Secrets of the Great Cover-up." For five years, with the assistance of a pastor's wife, I took a modesty style show on the road through several states. We collected clothing from a 100 year period of time and, while guests enjoyed lunch, I explained (among other things) how and why the swimsuit evolved as well as what the white wedding dress and veil mean. This (and many private discussions with Lutheran women who suffered the death of a child by abortion) led to starting the Titus 2 outreach. Two-day retreats were hosted in homes and churches from Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado to Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
This led to the writing of a book I didn't want to write. "The Failure of Sex Education in the Church: Mistaken Identity, Compromised Purity was published in 2014. I toured with the message of the book, but never without a panel of pastors. I'm a believer in God's wondrous order of creation! If you like, please visit www.titus2-4life.org and www.ouridentitymatters.com. (Or ask Rev. Adrian Sherill and Linda what they think!)
Thank you again, Wanita! May God continue to bless the work and witness of Ad Crucem.
Thanks so much Linda, we admire your work on this subject, and are grateful for your input. Pr Sherrill and Linda speak of you often. If you would like us to carry your book we would be very happy to. Do you still take the show on the road?
So, overall I do sympathize with your plight to find modest clothing and I do think that seeking to wear modest clothing is a good and Christian thing to do. However, I take issue in part with the “why” when it comes to wearing modest clothing. Part of the “why” that you give in your article is that wearing modest clothing is to help our neighbor specifically young men. I would caution against using this as why for wearing modest clothing. First, this sort of logic has developed a soft bigotry of low expectations for men and has been used to excuse sinful behavior by men in American Evangelicalism. Second, it appears to imply that women are visual creatures, which is theologically inaccurate since both Eve and Adam were visually tempted by the Apple. Third, it sets aside the even better argument for modesty, which is when you are dressing modesty you are rebelling against the world that recommends that people use their bodies for power and wealth. Finally, it does imply that by dressing modesty women are more protected from the lust of men. This is tragically untrue, I know several survivors of rape and sexual assault where they were dressed modesty and it did nothing to protect them from lust of men. I do hope that your article will inspire the creation of Lutheran clothing stores that produce modest clothing, or even guide Lutheran seamstresses to Ad Crucem to provide the products that Ad Crucem could facilitate the sale of. Overall I think you company is a blessing to many Christians and I pray for its continued success.
Thanks for the comment Spencer. Agreed, Eve also saw that the fruit was good - women do also use their eyes to evaluate things. However, men are far more visual than women are. Other characteristics are often more attractive to women than just the physical. It doesn't say that in scripture, but life experience. Samson wanted Delilah for sex, Delilah wanted Samson for power. Only Fans is dominated by female performers and the audience is dominated by men.
You remarked that this has resulted in a "soft bigotry of low expectations for men". Not at all, when I speak to my son, my advice is very different from when I speak to my daughters. If my son was to go out in skimpy little shorts, he would be laughed and and ridiculed by girls, but would probably attract some unwanted attention from men who fancy that sort of thing. I did not mention any interaction with my son, because this was a trip with my daughter. I do not have to provide "equal time" when this particular issue took up 10% of the story, and was tangential to the article.
I do not see myself as "rebelling against the world". I see myself as striving to lead a Christian life, to live by example for my husband, my children and those around me, to witness to the world the saving faith found only in Christ. The world is rebelling against Christ, not the other way around.
As for rape, the psychologists tell us that this is often more about power than about sex. It stems from the rebellion against our Lord, it is heinous. Rape happens, and it is awful, but 99.999% of interactions between the sexes on a daily basis are not rape. We do not need to argue from the exception.
Thank you for your encouragement. I hope we do manage to bring some modest, beautiful and affordable products to the church body.
For any who would like to sew and adjust clothing, but think they don't have the skills or resources, here are a few tips.
1) Use thrift store clothing to experiment with adjusting items. Don't start with your current favorites. 2) Find clothes that are a size or two too large to give yourself room to play and extra material to rearrange. 3) Jersey (T-shirt) material is very unlikely to fray, so you can hand sew raw seams and expect them to hold up in the washing machine (as long as you have enough seam allowance). 4) Don't buy a sewing machine right away. It is a big learning curve to use, so you'll actually have nicer results and more control in the beginning if you hand sew. 5) All you need to start are sewing scissors (yes, they should only be used for sewing), measuring tape, needles, thread, and pins. For everything else, you can do without for a while. 6) For pregnant women, buy a pair of ugly/skimpy maternity pants and Frankenstein the belly band onto a nicer pair by cutting out part of the front. I love this one because the stitches can look crazy, but no one sees because you always have a top to cover the belly band. 7) Buy a pack of sew-able snaps to add to tops that need a little extra closure. They provide some security without adding a cami under every top.
P.S. A thought on the head covering topic. One blessing I have enjoyed by wearing a head covering for most services, is how the physical item helps direct my heart and mind away from self-absorption. As a mom of several little ones, it is easy to outwardly appear pious while internally be upset that my husband isn't noticing a child's behavior. I am often tempted to focus on the outward appearance of our family over actually listening to the words. Strangely, when I remember that I'm wearing a head covering it reminds me that A) at this very moment I need to repent of harboring anger toward my husband and B) the primary reason I'm in this pew is because Christ is my head and I am in need of His mercy. So, even if the kids are naughty, I need to seek nourishment from the Word and Sacrament. What does it matter if my kids are perfect if it means that I am mentally absent?
Perhaps a comparison could be made to making the sign of the cross. To do so helps direct our wandering hearts back to the words we are saying. The physical can help us dwell on the spiritual.
Goodwill may stock equally outrageous clothing, but at least the selection allows for a variety of sensibilities and includes more classic items. It’s also easier on the wallet.
Great point! Modesty should be something we can all agree on.
I suppose it’s appropriate then that I had made a transition to more modest clothing before I was introduced to the practice of head covering.
I’ve found success at thrift stores in finding appropriate clothing for myself. Also, sewing is an excellent hobby that allows the creation of the kinds of clothing that the stores are lacking in. I’ve made a few of my own skirts when I had a harder time finding things that were appropriate and flattering in the store.
(Btw it would be pretty cool if the Ad Crucem store started stocking chapel veils/head coverings…just saying!)
We do sometimes carry veils made by Anna Hart, but she's been busy with family, so those aren't currently available. I have a new seamstress who we onboarded in December, and will get her to create some for us.
Awesome!!
Any plans to make more of the small home liturgical banners that I think Anna Hart once made?
Yes, those are in the works for 2025 as part of an exciting new package for the home!
Awesome!! I look forward to seeing (and buying) that.
I concur that modesty is an often neglected topic among us. Immodesty is certainly a more pressing matter and degrading force in our churches and society than not veiling in the Divine Service.
It should be noted, however, that Paul's argument for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 is primarily about a woman's submission to her head, and should only secondarily be brought into conversations about modesty. In other words, those advocating for headcoverings are (or should) be dealing primarily with headship, not modesty. There's no competition at all between arguing for headcoverings and arguing on a more basic level for modest dress, because these are distinct (but certainly related) issues. Thanks again for all you write!
Thanks Pastor, this is most certainly true.
I never hear of a "head covering" debate until I found your posts. Personally I find the premise amusing and troubling.
Thanks Pastor, it's all over Facebook among my friends, and has been for some years. Which aspects are you amused by?
The notion of returning to head covering.
There are many Mormon companies they offer modest clothing and they’re cute too! I just would rather not fill their coffers.
Lutheran seamstresses have a vast opportunity to create businesses to fill this gap. Perhaps we can help anyone interested.
Yes please! I've wanted modest but nice clothing for a while and run into the same issues. I'd love to support a Lutheran (or even just Christian) operated business.
Super Cute Dresses is a Christian owned company. I've been pretty pleased with their dresses.
Thank you, we’ll look them up
I believe those who are considering head covering are by and large drawing modestly. We need to consider who we are talking with.
You would be surprised. Even if that were true, as more Lutheran women take up head covering, this article is a good way to get ahead of the idea that covering the head is the only thing that matters.
We have had a visitor to our church who wore a head covering but also a very short mini skirt.
Well that seems incongruent!
Super Cute Dresses, Darby's Dresses, and the Skirt Lady are good companies to buy from.
117375
If people would know their Confessions, this wouldn't even be a question as to whether women should wear head coverings. As an aside, the same section addresses all of these legalistic crusades that try to make certain Adiaphora mandatory (e.g. hymnal only, organ only, pastor must wear robes, etc.).
Consider the following from the Augsburg Confession, Article 28 -- On Ecclesiastical Power (skip to the last part of you want the Reformers assertion on the issue):
50 Since, therefore, ordinances instituted as things necessary, or with an opinion of meriting grace, are contrary to the Gospel, it follows that it is not lawful for any bishop 51 to institute or exact such services. For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in the churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not necessary to justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians 5:1: Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 52 It is necessary that the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts of worship devised by men.
53 What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them 54 without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11:5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14:30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.
55 It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14:40; comp. Phil. 2:14 . 56 but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given.
I was forwarded your comment that we should be "opposed". I do not wear head coverings. However, I acknowledge that St Paul tells women to do so, and that makes things problematical for me. There are a number of issues in scripture which we don't adhere to, but if we read the Bible, we should perhaps do so. Blood transfusions is the first that comes to mind - we are told to stay away from blood in both the OT and NT, yet we as Christians have transfusions, surely we should unpack these issues instead of denying their existence?
Are these things required for salvation? Of course not. But from the time a Christian is saved until the day they die, we live a life where we seek to be sanctified, how we go about doing that is a discussion worth having. We would be very happy to publish a rebuttal penned by you if you would like to write one.
Kevin, please can you look into why Concordia Matters Official on Facebook is happy to break the 8th about us and then go and block me so that I cannot answer the charges? I submitted a request to join specifically so that I could respond to comments about the article, and instead I was blocked. As you said below:
"I agree that we need more dialogue in our synod, especially among those who disagree. We need to sit down together with the Scriptures and Confessions and in love see what God's will is and not our human interpretations of it."
We cannot achieve that if we block people with whom we disagree.
Hi, Wanita.
I asked the admin about readmitting you. Concerning the 8th Commandment, you posted your remarks publically, therefore there is not breaking of the 8th commandment by analyzing and reacting to your words.
No one is attacking you personally, but rather attacking the ideas (especially the one about espousing shutting down and selling the Concordias if they don't tow the line and do things the way that the hardliners want).
The 8th commandment forbids making “private” sins public in order to shame the person, but if an act is public, as when a leader or board makes decisions or when someone speaks or writes publicly, they can be publicly be shown their error, yet always with Christian kindness, love, and in the spirit of building up and not tearing down. If you are not familiar with the selection from Luther's Large Catechism on the Eighth Commandment, here it is:
"284 All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it."
There are examples of public reproof throughout the Scriptures. In Matthew 3:7-10, John the Baptist publicly rebukes the Pharisees and Sadducees for their hypocrisy by saying, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Stephen publicly rebuked the hard-hearted Jews by declaring, “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him” (Acts 7:51-52).
Jesus Himself, in an entire chapter (Matthew 23) publicly rebukes the Pharisees and the teachers of the law before the “crowds and to His disciples” (Matthew 23:1). He starts off His scathing discourse by telling His hearers to obey what the leaders say for good order, but not do what they do: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (23:3).
One of Jesus’ most damning accusations is the following statement in verses 27-28, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”
Go to the Old Testament, randomly pick any of the prophets, and you will find statements of public condemnation of the people and their leaders. I’ll just pick a few from the first chapter of Isaiah.
God, through Isaiah the prophet, publicly rebukes the leadership of Judah: “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah!” (Isaiah 1:10). “Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow” (1:16-17). “Your rulers are rebels, partners with thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them” (1:23).
All this to say that holding people publicly accountable for their actions and their decisions when their actions and decisions are contrary to the will of our God is not a sin. In fact, it is in keeping with the best of Biblical, and therefore Lutheran, tradition. "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light." -- Ephesians 5:11-13
I am confused, you said "they can be publicly be shown their error, yet always with Christian kindness, love, and in the spirit of building up and not tearing down." But, surely it is gossip to not allow a person access to read what is being written when they are being discussed in a negative and uncharitable fashion? What do our confessions say about gossip?
I have no problem with public reproof. If I am wrong show me from scripture how and why. I will repent and work on my shortcomings. I do find it strange that I am being reproved for dressing my daughter with dignity, for worrying about the well being of members of the other sex, and for wanting chastity to once again become a virtue in the church. I wonder what Luther would write about all these issues. Which side would he come down on? From the Confessions you should be able to tell me.
You mention our Lord castigating the Pharisees. I don't know if you are implying that I am pharisaical for wanting virtue in my children. You cannot possibly mean that? Or perhaps you do not have children yet and have not thought through what you are saying. Remember that the people Christ granted faith to sought afterwards to live God fearing lives. The woman accused of adultery He told to go and sin no more. The woman at the well was granted repentance and changed her life. We sing each week with King David, "Create in me a clean heart, O God and renew a right spirit within me..."
All. that aside, the admin of the group messaged, she did not know which Wanita Wood it was who was blocked yesterday, so that has now been cleared up and I have been granted access. I thank you for having intervened for me. I haven't gone to read all the negative comments, I think perhaps it would depress me too much.
Hi, Wanita.
In your first paragraph, you mention being shut out and not being able to read comments, but in your last paragraph you admit that I advocated for you and got you reinstated, so how is that gossip? I did not know you were shut out and I put the original post also on your platform as a way to follow Matthew 18.
Concerning the issue of reproof, head coverings, appropriate dress, modesty, etc. are not the issue that I am raising (as I said in previous replies). I definitely want all people to give a good witness in the way that they act and the way that they choose to dress. Yet, these are all Adiaphora and you may choose whatever practices best fit your informed reading of the Scriptures and the Confessions and best suit your preferred manner of life and personal devotion. If you feel like you want to wear a head covering, in the freedom of the Gospel (Gal. 5:1, Col. 2:16-17) you have that freedom. Just don't mandate to other women that they have to do so. It's an Adiaphora.
As an aside, I have an adult daughter so I did have to go through the joys of trying to find modest clothing that my daughter also would be willing to wear to school. In addition, I am a Lutheran high school teacher so I fight this battle with my students every day.
Back to the issue, the problem is the list of recommendations for how leaders can win high offices in the church. Some of these recommendations are not Biblical and certainly not in a spirit of the love of God who wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (most notably the one about shutting down and selling the Concordias if they don't abide by the way you think they should be run and the comment about there shouldn't be a "big tent" of Lutheranism-- implying that there is only one way-- your way-- to practice the faith).
The way to change hearts is to preach the Word and let the Holy Spirit work when and where He wills in the hearts and minds of those who hear that Word (Augsburg Confession V).
If you need me to cite the Confessions on certain issues, let me know which ones you would like references for. As I told your husband, who incidentally hasn't replied since I asked him to give Scriptural and Confessional citations for his assertion that only the pastor can read the Scripture lessons in the Divine Service, all assertions should be backed up by these sources and not just based on human wisdom or opinions.
God's blessings.
1. Kevin, no one on the FB page had ever seen me interact with it, because I was not a member. You were all happy to continue complaining about the content. You alone came across to engage with me. I commended you for that.
When someone sent me a message telling me of your FB page, and what was being discussed, I applied for membership and when asked the question for why, I stated specifically that it was to answer the allegations and concerns addressed on the page about this article.
I have not gossiped here about anyone. It is an open forum for all to see, and for all to comment on. That's not how gossip works.
2. I have stated in the article and twice in the comments that I do not wear head coverings. I have also stated that scripture tells us to. I'm certainly not telling any other woman to do something I myself am not doing. Please quote for me where I have said that any other woman needs to either wear head coverings or dress the way I and my daughters dress.
3. You have a daughter you have gone through this exact thing with, so you understand exactly what I have been going through, yet decided to spend a whole lot of your time and searches to argue against something I have not said.
4. I engage with people at my office every day, I give them our book "The Narrow Way simply shown" and invite them to our church. Thank you for the encouragement for me to continue doing that. My reasoning is that if they have a book, you never know when they might be at their lowest point and there on their shelf is the gospel waiting for them. The Narrow Way is a great explanation of Lutheranism. You can find it as a free download on our website.
5. Thank you for your offer to search the Confessions. I did ask you above to search for how we are to deal with gossip and modesty. Perhaps this is what sparked your changing the discussion to it now being about me dictating to other women how to dress.
This was never the discussion.
Hi, Wanita.
I apologize if I did not read the article carefully enough to notice that you were not advocating head coverings or encouraging others to do so. This is my mistake and I apologize. I am sorry that this has become the issue that it has become and I see that from your article you were mainly espousing modesty in dress and only using the head covering issue as a jumping off point.
I will say that I have appreciated the moderate tone of your responses. This is one thing our synod desperately needs, namely for people to sit down (whether virtually or preferably in person) and talk through their issues, always treating the other as a brother or sister in Christ. We can disagree amicably and in so doing build up the entire Body of Christ.
This whole issue started when one of our more active members noticed a discussion of your article on another Facebook group that claims to be Lutheran. While claiming to not want to be "political," there has been a double standard there, on other "Lutheran" groups, and even on the synod's own page where issues that are more likely to be supported by those of the high-church liturgical group are allowed to be discussed but when we ask for a discussion about issues that relate to Concordia, Ann Arbor and how the community has been treated they are almost immediately shut down and or deleted. This is where your site got drawn in.
As someone who regularly comments on Concordia Matters about issues of theology, I thought I would address the topic of head coverings so that I could inform members of the group who maybe were wondering about the issue since it was brought up. I really didn't have any concerns about Ad Crucem until someone sent me a link to the article about the recommendations for those seeking political office. This is where my problem lies, not with head covering or with modesty.
I am sorry that you were not immediately able to respond to the comments. That's not how we operate. We welcome discussion and debate and welcome all perspectives as long as people are respectful and act in a Christian manner with their posts and replies. Many of us have been blocked from certain groups and even the synod's Facebook page simply because they don't want any discussion of perspectives that they do not support.
Thank you for your ministry to the church and I pray that you will be able to shine the light of Christ to everyone you meet. Concerning the "recommendations" article, I do wish that some of the points would have been put forth with more sensitivity to those who are equally Confessional and faithful, but do not hold to the beliefs and practices of the current synod leadership.
God's blessings.
AC 28:53-57 is really where we ought to focus after we have examined 1st Corinthians 11:2-16. I think the following is an exhaustive list of options for interpretation.
Women in the Church today
1) cannot cover their heads.
2) should not cover their heads
3) can cover their heads.
4) should cover their heads.
5) must cover their heads.
Options 1 and 2 are clearly excluded by the words of Melanchthon. He makes plain that St. Paul established this ordinance in paragraph 54 and that it is proper for churches to keep such ordinances. Lutherans should not (and have not historically) said that women cannot or should not cover their heads in church.
Option 5 is also excluded, at least considered in itself (per se) without any mitigating factors such as Paul had in Corinth. AC 28:50-52 and 57 make clear that women covering their heads is not something they do to earn salvation, nor is it a sin to go uncovered (considered in itself). It can become a sin depending on the reason for which women don't veil. Paul had to rebuke the women in Corinth for not veiling because of secondary circumstances (prophesying while disrespecting the order of creation). Melanchthon gives the qualifier in paragraph 56 that if anyone is offended, then the woman has sinned by not having her hair covered. It's a very different circumstance if a woman doesn't veil because she has never learned the custom or even having learned the custom she struggles with it because very few women practice it vs. a woman who won't veil because she disagrees with male headship.
Keeping in mind 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and AC 28:50-57, your options are really 3 and 4. That is
Women can cover their heads in church.
Or
Women should cover their heads in church.
I believe option 4, that women should cover their heads in church. The reason for this is the broad preservation of this custom in Christendom regardless of denomination into the 20th century, the unique anger and rebellion against this custom given by 2nd wave feminists (look up NOW, Elizabeth Farians, and the Easter Bonnet Rebellion), and the positive statements made in the private writings of Luther, Melanchthon, and Liturgical writings from the LCMS commending the practice in the 19th and 20th century. It is always positively spoken of and encouraged, without being made necessary for salvation. Furthermore, our own confusion in the world regarding gender and headship should only further commend female headcovering to us as a, "laudable custom based on a Scriptural Injunction," to use the language from the General Rubrics of the Lutheran Liturgy published by the Missouri Synod as the Altar Book for The Lutheran Hymnal (1941).
Thank you Pastor. I already stick out like a sore thumb at our church, given that I am foreign and own AdC. I feel that being the sole head coverer would draw more attention to me. If I attended a church where it was the norm, I would most certainly do so.
Hi, Wanita.
Concerning blood transfusions, I am not a doctor and I don't know the verses you cite to oppose blood transfusions, but I do know that the same selection from Augsburg Confession 28 mentions how in Acts 15 the Apostles recommended not eating meat with blood in it yet Melanchthon says that no one does it in their day.
Galatians 5:1 and Colossians 2:16-17 are the gold standard when it comes to freedom of practice in Christ. Every other practice needs to be read in the light of these verses (and also Augsburg Confession 7, AC 15, and Solid Declaration 10 in the Confessions).
I made the "opposed" comment in the light of your post concerning how to win synodical elections. https://www.adcrucem.news/p/the-winning-election-platform-for
As you can probably guess, I am very much in support of our Concordias and it is out of line for a group to publically come out and recommend to "Take control of the Concordias and restore them to their original missions. If resistance arises, be ready to sell them off and use the proceeds to fortify the remaining entities or start over."
"If resistance arises?" Seriously? Is this a hostile takeover or are we to be about the mission of God preaching Word and sacrament and letting the Holy Spirit work when and where He wills?
What about the thousands of families of students and staff members who were displaced and forced to alter their lives? What about the prospective students whose dreams were shattered over some group's crusade for "Lutheran purity?"
These actions (and recommendations) have real consequences.
Hi Kevin,
The Concordias exist because of the generosity of donors and the considerable risk the Synod took in underwriting mountains of debt. The least the CUS can do is be grateful and submissive to the parent. It is certainly sad for the personal impacts, but the writing has been on the wall for decades. If we wallow in sentimentalism, we will lose the whole lot, allowing each to become just another version of Concordia University, Montréal. Did the Holy Spirit will pride clubs, harassing professors for opposing wokeness, and illegally declaring unilateral independence from the Synod, etc., etc.?
It's not a purity crusade to demand the LCMS put an end to the Godless nonsense bubbling and frothing at so many of the Concordias. Is it too much to ask that the basic standards being set by CUNE and CUC become the norm instead of the exception?
Best,
Tim
Hi, Tim.
Your assumption is that the Concordias (apparently except CUNE and CUC) are flaming beds of liberalism ("bubbling and frothing"?) and there are no redeeming qualities. This is simply not true and based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine of Adiaphora. In addition, the "financial emergency" argument has been shown to be untrue.
It is "godless" because you apparently don't support any path other than a narrow understanding of "Lutheranism" as reflected in high-church practices and a "us" vs. "them" mentality.
The reference in the article mentioned about "errant churches" is staggeringly bold and judgmental. You (or whoever from your group) stated in recommendation #8: "Bring errant churches and districts into fellowship or bid them farewell."
Why are they erring? Please show me by the Scriptures and the Confessions how these churches, and districts (I would assume by your remark about the districts that give the most money you are talking about the Michigan District) are erring.
Please back up your assertions with proof from those things which make Lutheranism Lutheran, namely the Scriptures and Confessions.
Thank you. God bless.
Sorry, Kevin, but you are throwing out absolutes. I made no absolute claims and never declared the Concordias irredeemable.
It is indisputable that the Concordias have suffered a terrible infusion of capital L Liberalism, which was most apparent at flamed out Portland. Yes, I only support a path that excludes Pride Clubs, DEI, Wokeism, Syncretism, Unionism, and Fourth Commandment Rebellions, to name just a few issues.
Errant churches. I will not name them here, although I have gently raised a terrible problem at a nearby church with my district leadership after seeing if the congregation could right their ship after year. Here's one simple litmus test - lay lectors. If you have them, your church is errant. Scripture and the confessions are clear that our pastors alone are to handle the Word of God during the Divine Service.
Best,
TJ
Hi, TJ.
Whenever I cite the Confessions as claiming something, I always give the exact reference so that people can debate and challenge me as to whether I have interpreted the words of the Confessions accurately.
Could you please tell me your proof texts for the claim that only an ordained minister can "handle the Word of God during the Divine Service." I am very familiar with the Confessions and I have never read anything that even closely resembles such a claim.
In fact, it goes against one of the core teachings of Lutheranism, namely that the Word of God is for every person, not just the clergy. Why should the Divine Service be any different?
Your claim makes the pastor elevated in a Roman Catholic way so that the man is somehow special because of his ordination. "Ordination" has to do with "order." It doesn't make him somehow closer to God or make it so that now he has special access to God.
This discounting of the laity is insulting to the people of God and is not taught in the Confessions.
If you have proof, please show me. Otherwise, what you claim is heretical.
Okay, Kevin, you played the heretic and Catholic card, lol. I see where this is going. Best wishes. Over and out.
Good response. I ask for Confessional proof and you check out and leave the discussion.
I should be surprised, but it happens every time that I encounter someone from your camp that preaches these restrictive and burdensome practices. You can make claims all day but you can't back any of them up and you refuse to do so.
I guess as long as you don't put yourself out there, you get to keep teaching whatever you want to teach.
We are not "a group". We are simply a husband and wife who have spent all our extra funds creating something for the church. We have taken a whole lot of time and resources away from our family to do so. In the almost 11 years we have had Ad Crucem, we have never taken a cent out of it but have ploughed a whole lot into it.
It’s always best to engage directly, and for that I commend you. Open dialog and discussion are great, and so very necessary for the church.
Thank you, Wanita. I really don't know anything about you and TJ, and I hope that you are successful in serving the church, but when you put forward a "Winning Election Platform" and suggest some of the things that you suggested, this is not okay. Especially if, as your article suggests that you represent a good portion of the conservative section of our synod. This suggests that your platform is also the platform of those conservative and liturgical voices (but they won't come out and say it publically).
I agree that we need more dialogue in our synod, especially among those who disagree. We need to sit down together with the Scriptures and Confessions and in love see what God's will is and not our human interpretations of it.
God bless.
Kevin, it is perfectly "okay" for us to project the synthesized views of 15,000 customers, 100,000 unique users on the site (per year), and 40,000 uniques on this channel. Nobody dictates to us or tells us what to say and do. We voice opinions at considerable risk to the business, but our interest is in having a functional confessing Synod for our grandchildren. We do not represent or receive money from entities like LCA, Balance-Concord, ACELC, Gottesdienst, Bugenhagen Conference, Issues Etc., etc. Nobody from Synod calls us or asks for anything unless it's a purchase. Those entities - and the corresponding "Missional" ones have far more actual influence over the Synod than we ever will.
However, we are not ashamed of having the ears of the grassroots confessionals, and they are not ashamed of expressing themselves to and through us. Ad Crucem is almost alone in being the voice of the ordinary brothers and sisters with whom the power players are not in touch.
Your use of the word "confessional" is insulting since it gives the impression that those who do not agree with you are not confessional.
I know the Confessions exceptionally well and I can tell you that the "missional" view is far more in line with the Reformers and the actual text of the Confessions. Pick a topic and I will cite "chapter and verse" from the Confessions for you on that topic supporting the view that the church should be Christ-centered, mission-oriented, and free in the Gospel to practice the devotion that suits the individual and the congregation "of every time and place" (Solid Declaration X).
As I stated in my other post, I welcome the debate. Please show me the Confessional proof that backs up your views. God's peace.
Hello Wanita! Thank you for expressing your reasonable concerns about modest dress. As a mom of sons and with respect for the eyes of men, I was invited to speak to middle and high school boys and girls on this topic (as well as biblical manhood and womanhood) for many years. I chose to speak separately to dads and their sons, and moms and their daughters for the sake of comfortable questions.
Interest was great enough that I wrote a Bible Study for girls titled "Dressing for Life: Secrets of the Great Cover-up." For five years, with the assistance of a pastor's wife, I took a modesty style show on the road through several states. We collected clothing from a 100 year period of time and, while guests enjoyed lunch, I explained (among other things) how and why the swimsuit evolved as well as what the white wedding dress and veil mean. This (and many private discussions with Lutheran women who suffered the death of a child by abortion) led to starting the Titus 2 outreach. Two-day retreats were hosted in homes and churches from Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado to Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
This led to the writing of a book I didn't want to write. "The Failure of Sex Education in the Church: Mistaken Identity, Compromised Purity was published in 2014. I toured with the message of the book, but never without a panel of pastors. I'm a believer in God's wondrous order of creation! If you like, please visit www.titus2-4life.org and www.ouridentitymatters.com. (Or ask Rev. Adrian Sherill and Linda what they think!)
Thank you again, Wanita! May God continue to bless the work and witness of Ad Crucem.
Thanks so much Linda, we admire your work on this subject, and are grateful for your input. Pr Sherrill and Linda speak of you often. If you would like us to carry your book we would be very happy to. Do you still take the show on the road?
So, overall I do sympathize with your plight to find modest clothing and I do think that seeking to wear modest clothing is a good and Christian thing to do. However, I take issue in part with the “why” when it comes to wearing modest clothing. Part of the “why” that you give in your article is that wearing modest clothing is to help our neighbor specifically young men. I would caution against using this as why for wearing modest clothing. First, this sort of logic has developed a soft bigotry of low expectations for men and has been used to excuse sinful behavior by men in American Evangelicalism. Second, it appears to imply that women are visual creatures, which is theologically inaccurate since both Eve and Adam were visually tempted by the Apple. Third, it sets aside the even better argument for modesty, which is when you are dressing modesty you are rebelling against the world that recommends that people use their bodies for power and wealth. Finally, it does imply that by dressing modesty women are more protected from the lust of men. This is tragically untrue, I know several survivors of rape and sexual assault where they were dressed modesty and it did nothing to protect them from lust of men. I do hope that your article will inspire the creation of Lutheran clothing stores that produce modest clothing, or even guide Lutheran seamstresses to Ad Crucem to provide the products that Ad Crucem could facilitate the sale of. Overall I think you company is a blessing to many Christians and I pray for its continued success.
Thanks for the comment Spencer. Agreed, Eve also saw that the fruit was good - women do also use their eyes to evaluate things. However, men are far more visual than women are. Other characteristics are often more attractive to women than just the physical. It doesn't say that in scripture, but life experience. Samson wanted Delilah for sex, Delilah wanted Samson for power. Only Fans is dominated by female performers and the audience is dominated by men.
You remarked that this has resulted in a "soft bigotry of low expectations for men". Not at all, when I speak to my son, my advice is very different from when I speak to my daughters. If my son was to go out in skimpy little shorts, he would be laughed and and ridiculed by girls, but would probably attract some unwanted attention from men who fancy that sort of thing. I did not mention any interaction with my son, because this was a trip with my daughter. I do not have to provide "equal time" when this particular issue took up 10% of the story, and was tangential to the article.
I do not see myself as "rebelling against the world". I see myself as striving to lead a Christian life, to live by example for my husband, my children and those around me, to witness to the world the saving faith found only in Christ. The world is rebelling against Christ, not the other way around.
As for rape, the psychologists tell us that this is often more about power than about sex. It stems from the rebellion against our Lord, it is heinous. Rape happens, and it is awful, but 99.999% of interactions between the sexes on a daily basis are not rape. We do not need to argue from the exception.
Thank you for your encouragement. I hope we do manage to bring some modest, beautiful and affordable products to the church body.
For any who would like to sew and adjust clothing, but think they don't have the skills or resources, here are a few tips.
1) Use thrift store clothing to experiment with adjusting items. Don't start with your current favorites. 2) Find clothes that are a size or two too large to give yourself room to play and extra material to rearrange. 3) Jersey (T-shirt) material is very unlikely to fray, so you can hand sew raw seams and expect them to hold up in the washing machine (as long as you have enough seam allowance). 4) Don't buy a sewing machine right away. It is a big learning curve to use, so you'll actually have nicer results and more control in the beginning if you hand sew. 5) All you need to start are sewing scissors (yes, they should only be used for sewing), measuring tape, needles, thread, and pins. For everything else, you can do without for a while. 6) For pregnant women, buy a pair of ugly/skimpy maternity pants and Frankenstein the belly band onto a nicer pair by cutting out part of the front. I love this one because the stitches can look crazy, but no one sees because you always have a top to cover the belly band. 7) Buy a pack of sew-able snaps to add to tops that need a little extra closure. They provide some security without adding a cami under every top.
P.S. A thought on the head covering topic. One blessing I have enjoyed by wearing a head covering for most services, is how the physical item helps direct my heart and mind away from self-absorption. As a mom of several little ones, it is easy to outwardly appear pious while internally be upset that my husband isn't noticing a child's behavior. I am often tempted to focus on the outward appearance of our family over actually listening to the words. Strangely, when I remember that I'm wearing a head covering it reminds me that A) at this very moment I need to repent of harboring anger toward my husband and B) the primary reason I'm in this pew is because Christ is my head and I am in need of His mercy. So, even if the kids are naughty, I need to seek nourishment from the Word and Sacrament. What does it matter if my kids are perfect if it means that I am mentally absent?
Perhaps a comparison could be made to making the sign of the cross. To do so helps direct our wandering hearts back to the words we are saying. The physical can help us dwell on the spiritual.
That is such a lovely and helpful comment. And such good advice.
Thank you!!
Well written, thank you for your thoughts on the matter!