Australia's model for incrementally advancing women's ordination is how the Evangelical Lutheran Church gets hollowed out. Don't wait for Germany to get there next.
Yes, even permitting a vote on this is like putting the Trinity or the Two Natures up for grabs. Even allowing a vote to proceed on it is a no-confidence vote against the Holy Scriptures. They should be thrown out of the ILC, and hopefully, the ever-shrinking remnant of the faithful remaining in SELK can find likeminded pastors and congregations with which to reorganize. The German people need to have a Christian alternative to both the abominable state-church, and the corrupted and compromised independent liberal alternative.
No. We should be slow to form fellowship ties and equally slow to break them. If they were to ordain a woman to the pastoral office, that would be grounds to sever fellowship. Time will tell. We have to resist the sectarian temptation as strongly as we resist the temptation to unionism.
I'm with Pastor Cwirla. I'll take it a step further.
I think it's time for the LCMS to speak more clearly in a positive way about non-ordained roles for women in and as Church. Here's the description that passed overwhelmingly in SELK: Committing to promoting women's services in non-ordained roles, such as pastoral assistants, lectors, church council members, deacons, catechists, and lecturers.
The LCMS does not forbid women to serve in the ways described in the SELK. Why not simply agree with their call to promote non-ordained service for women? I know in the LCMS it seems like a long journey from the phrase "not forbid" to "promote." What it would be, though, is a way to say to SELK, "do this, not that" and align the serious roles of the baptized under ordained pastoral authority to provide appropriate opportunities we can take together going forward.
Sorry, Pastor Benke, but women are not permitted in those roles if all of Scripture is all true. The use of "ordained" and "non-ordained" is a fig leaf that pretends the Office of Holy Ministry is what happens for a few minutes around the altar once a week and on special occasions.
The fact that our church body has amplified the confusion around these matters is, of course, unhelpful.
The Ordained and ordered Office of the Holy Ministry is my 24/7 vocation by God's grace through the gift of the Holy Spirit and the call of the congregation. I don't understand "what happens for a few minutes around the altar once a week" as capturing the pastoral vocation at all. That it is reserved for males is a theological given in our fellowship. The lay offices and responsibilities in congregational life do not denigrate the Body of Christ, the gifts of the Spirit (I Cor. 12, etc.) or the baptized duties as wrestler, judge and priest (see W. Elert). In fact the exercise of those duties including the duties assigned in worship through the pastoral office only assist in knitting the Body of Christ together. They're designed to augment the teaching/preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments for the life of the Church in the world.
In this specific instance, we can without apology join the brethren in the SELK in affirming the roles of the laity.
He already says he does, and has for years. He’ll even use Scripture to justify why. The question isn’t what or why, but more of a “How?” insofar as how can it be so without pitting Scripture against Scripture, where plain readings seem clear enough, along with long-held tradition, over against more recent (re)interpretations?
What Glen said. But - what were you talking about when you said the office of the holy ministry is a fig leaf pretending it is what happens for a few minutes around the altar once a week.
I simply don't understand where that comes from or where it's going.
Let me quote one of our modern church fathers about where it's going and where it's from.
“When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of the others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and then only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate the faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.”
----
This is the SELK situation in a nutshell, and LCMS Inc's general approach to controversial issues: "Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy."
This is the church's political position, for sure. Speaking with a strong sense of the mood and inclinations of the laity, they want it to be as simple as what the position of Scripture is on these matters. The Bible does not counsel parsing, patience, and prevarication.
* James 4:4
* 1 John 1:5-7
* Ephesians 5:6-11
* 2 Corinthians 6:14
* 1 Corinthians 10:21
* Matthew 6:24
* 1 John 2:15-17
* Romans 12:2
* 1 Thessalonians 5:5
SELK's almost 50/50 division on the theological standards for female ordination is a desire to belong to the light and the darkness. The LCMS laity, who pay for 99% of everything, and most pastors, are no longer tolerant of or interested in old-timer ideas like the Statement of the Forty Four, which put forward the notion that harmony in general is more important than complete agreement in details of doctrine and practice.
While I unequivocally disapprove of their refusal to ban the practice of female "ordination" I would also remind you of the age old adage "So not let perfection be the enemy of good enough." If or when the time comes to break bonds, let them be broken, but until than we should seek unity in light of actual agreements rather than split over purely theoretical differences.
The fact that the error has not yet occured in practice makes it a theoretical error in my mind. Of course, the ordination of women is an error, I believe the scriptures are abundantly clear on that matter as well as thousands of years of tradition to verify that particular interpretation of scripture is correct.
I am simply not as welling to cut fellowship over an error that they have not yet actually made in practice. As far as I am aware, while they refuse to condemn the practice (which they should absolutely condemn, for the record) they have not actually fallen into the practice of the error. So, until they do actually follow through, I am willing to grant them a level of grace.
47% of SELK pastors have publicly confessed (although via secret ballot) that women are not barred from the OHM. That's not a purely theoretical issue, it's a purely theological error that is sufficiently intolerable to warrant being cut off.
What you suggest is akin to saying that a pastor promoting homosexuality is only guilty of a theoretical sin unless and until he degrades himself by such an act.
One should know something about the background of the situation in the SELK. The discussion on that matter is now for over 50 years (!), beginning shortly after the merger to the SELK. The main problem within the SELK is, that many of the pastors and most of the faculty deny verbal inspiration and the inerrancy of the Bible. For that reason the issue of women's ordination wasn't terminated all these years by a clear Scriptural argumentation. And: What is topic for the SELK is not Biblical truth but unity, it may cost whatever it will. That you should know. Even know women are allowed all things, including leading a congregation, with the exeption of consecrating the Lord's Supper. The SELK is an extreme ecumenist church body, a member of the ACK, the basic organisation of ecumenism, comparable to the National Council of Churches, and has many ecumenist worships with Roman Catholics, Baptists, State Church pastors (also women). I think it is time to tell the SELK in all clarity that all that is impossible and cannot be tolerated. One should discuss with them the Brief Statement from 1932 and also make it a basic for the ILC. I think, that most of the SELK-pastors will reject the Brief Statement.
Thank you, Roland. Yes, the infection is old and deep. It is always quite simple - the Bible is not believed.
Although not new, the fact that the ILC promoted the outcome as a decisive majority vote against women's ordination is a good opportunity to bring these problems back to the attention of the people in America who assume the German church is just like theirs only because it is in the ILC and the LCMS spends lots of money propping it up.
Yes, even permitting a vote on this is like putting the Trinity or the Two Natures up for grabs. Even allowing a vote to proceed on it is a no-confidence vote against the Holy Scriptures. They should be thrown out of the ILC, and hopefully, the ever-shrinking remnant of the faithful remaining in SELK can find likeminded pastors and congregations with which to reorganize. The German people need to have a Christian alternative to both the abominable state-church, and the corrupted and compromised independent liberal alternative.
No. We should be slow to form fellowship ties and equally slow to break them. If they were to ordain a woman to the pastoral office, that would be grounds to sever fellowship. Time will tell. We have to resist the sectarian temptation as strongly as we resist the temptation to unionism.
I'm with Pastor Cwirla. I'll take it a step further.
I think it's time for the LCMS to speak more clearly in a positive way about non-ordained roles for women in and as Church. Here's the description that passed overwhelmingly in SELK: Committing to promoting women's services in non-ordained roles, such as pastoral assistants, lectors, church council members, deacons, catechists, and lecturers.
The LCMS does not forbid women to serve in the ways described in the SELK. Why not simply agree with their call to promote non-ordained service for women? I know in the LCMS it seems like a long journey from the phrase "not forbid" to "promote." What it would be, though, is a way to say to SELK, "do this, not that" and align the serious roles of the baptized under ordained pastoral authority to provide appropriate opportunities we can take together going forward.
Sorry, Pastor Benke, but women are not permitted in those roles if all of Scripture is all true. The use of "ordained" and "non-ordained" is a fig leaf that pretends the Office of Holy Ministry is what happens for a few minutes around the altar once a week and on special occasions.
The fact that our church body has amplified the confusion around these matters is, of course, unhelpful.
The Ordained and ordered Office of the Holy Ministry is my 24/7 vocation by God's grace through the gift of the Holy Spirit and the call of the congregation. I don't understand "what happens for a few minutes around the altar once a week" as capturing the pastoral vocation at all. That it is reserved for males is a theological given in our fellowship. The lay offices and responsibilities in congregational life do not denigrate the Body of Christ, the gifts of the Spirit (I Cor. 12, etc.) or the baptized duties as wrestler, judge and priest (see W. Elert). In fact the exercise of those duties including the duties assigned in worship through the pastoral office only assist in knitting the Body of Christ together. They're designed to augment the teaching/preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments for the life of the Church in the world.
In this specific instance, we can without apology join the brethren in the SELK in affirming the roles of the laity.
Do you advocate for women to occupy these positions?:
* pastoral assistants (what does that entail?)
* lectors
* church council members
* deacons
* catechists (of whom and what?)
* lecturers (Seminaries and CUS pre-sem track?)
He already says he does, and has for years. He’ll even use Scripture to justify why. The question isn’t what or why, but more of a “How?” insofar as how can it be so without pitting Scripture against Scripture, where plain readings seem clear enough, along with long-held tradition, over against more recent (re)interpretations?
Thanks, Glen - long time no hear from! Blessings always
What Glen said. But - what were you talking about when you said the office of the holy ministry is a fig leaf pretending it is what happens for a few minutes around the altar once a week.
I simply don't understand where that comes from or where it's going.
Let me quote one of our modern church fathers about where it's going and where it's from.
“When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of the others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and then only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate the faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.”
----
This is the SELK situation in a nutshell, and LCMS Inc's general approach to controversial issues: "Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy."
Rev. Prof. David Jay Webber
Charles Porterfield Krauth: The American Chemnitz
https://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/krauthchemnitz.pdf
This is the church's political position, for sure. Speaking with a strong sense of the mood and inclinations of the laity, they want it to be as simple as what the position of Scripture is on these matters. The Bible does not counsel parsing, patience, and prevarication.
* James 4:4
* 1 John 1:5-7
* Ephesians 5:6-11
* 2 Corinthians 6:14
* 1 Corinthians 10:21
* Matthew 6:24
* 1 John 2:15-17
* Romans 12:2
* 1 Thessalonians 5:5
SELK's almost 50/50 division on the theological standards for female ordination is a desire to belong to the light and the darkness. The LCMS laity, who pay for 99% of everything, and most pastors, are no longer tolerant of or interested in old-timer ideas like the Statement of the Forty Four, which put forward the notion that harmony in general is more important than complete agreement in details of doctrine and practice.
While I unequivocally disapprove of their refusal to ban the practice of female "ordination" I would also remind you of the age old adage "So not let perfection be the enemy of good enough." If or when the time comes to break bonds, let them be broken, but until than we should seek unity in light of actual agreements rather than split over purely theoretical differences.
What is a theoretical difference in this case?
The fact that the error has not yet occured in practice makes it a theoretical error in my mind. Of course, the ordination of women is an error, I believe the scriptures are abundantly clear on that matter as well as thousands of years of tradition to verify that particular interpretation of scripture is correct.
I am simply not as welling to cut fellowship over an error that they have not yet actually made in practice. As far as I am aware, while they refuse to condemn the practice (which they should absolutely condemn, for the record) they have not actually fallen into the practice of the error. So, until they do actually follow through, I am willing to grant them a level of grace.
47% of SELK pastors have publicly confessed (although via secret ballot) that women are not barred from the OHM. That's not a purely theoretical issue, it's a purely theological error that is sufficiently intolerable to warrant being cut off.
What you suggest is akin to saying that a pastor promoting homosexuality is only guilty of a theoretical sin unless and until he degrades himself by such an act.
Inerrant, inspired, infallible, clear, sufficient, efficacious, and wondrous. Would question any change to what has been in place.
One should know something about the background of the situation in the SELK. The discussion on that matter is now for over 50 years (!), beginning shortly after the merger to the SELK. The main problem within the SELK is, that many of the pastors and most of the faculty deny verbal inspiration and the inerrancy of the Bible. For that reason the issue of women's ordination wasn't terminated all these years by a clear Scriptural argumentation. And: What is topic for the SELK is not Biblical truth but unity, it may cost whatever it will. That you should know. Even know women are allowed all things, including leading a congregation, with the exeption of consecrating the Lord's Supper. The SELK is an extreme ecumenist church body, a member of the ACK, the basic organisation of ecumenism, comparable to the National Council of Churches, and has many ecumenist worships with Roman Catholics, Baptists, State Church pastors (also women). I think it is time to tell the SELK in all clarity that all that is impossible and cannot be tolerated. One should discuss with them the Brief Statement from 1932 and also make it a basic for the ILC. I think, that most of the SELK-pastors will reject the Brief Statement.
Thank you, Roland. Yes, the infection is old and deep. It is always quite simple - the Bible is not believed.
Although not new, the fact that the ILC promoted the outcome as a decisive majority vote against women's ordination is a good opportunity to bring these problems back to the attention of the people in America who assume the German church is just like theirs only because it is in the ILC and the LCMS spends lots of money propping it up.