Women's Ordination in the LCMS

Started by Buckeye Deaconess, June 10, 2011, 03:02:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

David Garner

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 06:07:12 PM
Quote from: David Garner on July 18, 2011, 05:58:37 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 05:30:08 PMI doubt that they would pass the seminary courses. Thus, they would not meet all the other requirements.

Quite the bit of sophistry there.

Assume they do.  Do you ordain the heretic?


If one is a heretic, they will not meet our requirements for ordination. They will not be ordained. That is what I assume.

So you won't answer the question, or you have answered that because they are a heretic they will not meet your requirements for ordination (which is still a non-answer, but instructive nonetheless)?

Obviously, if the fact that one is a heretic doesn't invalidate the Sacraments or the Word working through that person, your same argument as applied to women falls short.  But since you won't answer that question directly, I'll just decline to continue participating in your game playing.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

peter_speckhard

I have passed lots of courses without believing a word of it. I have passed units on Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, etc. with flying colors. What makes you think an average student couldn't pass any seminary course on church history, systematics, homiletics, or whatever without personally having any faith?

Brian Stoffregen

#1082
Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 18, 2011, 07:00:38 PM
I have passed lots of courses without believing a word of it. I have passed units on Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, etc. with flying colors. What makes you think an average student couldn't pass any seminary course on church history, systematics, homiletics, or whatever without personally having any faith?


That is not the topic under discussion.

The topic under discussion is much more along the lines of a female attending all the seminary classes and believing every word of it; being orthodox in her confession and faith, in her teaching and preaching, that in every way (except genitals) is equal to a male student in abilities to be a pastor. Should the church treat them as equals as Genesis 1, Galatians 3, Acts 2, and some other texts do, and ordain her; or should the church deny her ordination based on 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15? Depending on what verses one uses, the Bible is used to support and prohibit women's ordination.


The biblical evidence for the ELCA and predecessor bodies falls on the side of supporting it. Besides the "equal" passages, we have biblical evidence of women speaking as prophets and praying during the worship services (contrary to the "be silent" command). In fact, I don't know that anyone understands that command to mean that woman cannot say anything in church (even though Paul says, "They are not allowed to speak" 1 Cor 14:34b). They sing. They speak with others. They might even laugh at a joke in a sermon. They are not silent in church.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Daniel L. Gard

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
The topic under discussion is much more along the lines of a female attending all the seminary classes and believing every word of it; being orthodox in her confession and faith, in her teaching and preaching, that in every way (except genitals) is equal to a male student in abilities to be a pastor. Should the church treat them as equals as Genesis 1, Galatians 3, Acts 2, and some other texts do, and ordain her; or should the church deny her ordination based on 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15? Depending on what verses one uses, the Bible is used to support and prohibit women's ordination.


Brian,


With all due respect, I cannot buy into your continued insistence that the Office of the Holy Ministry is defined by function or personality traits. Nor can I buy into your setting one text of Scripture as you interpret it as an either/or over another text of Scripture as you interpret it.

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 05:39:23 PM
No one has questioned Luther over his use of "it works" to argue for infant baptism. (Albeit, it's not the whole argument). But there are all these criticisms of using "it works" as part of the argument for women's ordination. Why?
Is "it works" your whole or primary argument for women's ordination?  "It works" is not Luther's whole argument for infant baptism, so it is not as though we base our acceptance of infant baptism on "it works."  Are we to accept women't ordination on that basis alone?

Obvious, we are going to continue to disagree on this.  For one thing, much but not all of our Biblical basis comes from the pseudepigriphal 1 Timothy and other Pastorals.  How can we base doctrine or practice on pseudo-Paul?  We do not even have the Bible in common anymore.  I could also mention that male only ordination "worked" for well over a thousand years.  Women's ordination is perhaps still too new to come to a firm conclusion as to whether it will work over the long haul for the church.  We have seen many practices recommended over the years because they work for one thing or another, only later to find out that they did not really produce the promised benefit or had other worse side effects.  At one time heroin was praised as a safe pain reliever and general tonic promoting good health, with many testimonials to its beneficial effects.  The TV is littered with nostrums that we are assured with glowing testimonials to work for this or that complaint that have never passed clinical trials.  At one time we were assured that an excellent way to curb child abuse was to make sure that every child was a wanted child.  With the ready availablity of abortion, there is hardly any reason for a child to be born who is not wanted.  Have you noticed the virtual disappearance of child abuse in our society?  Neither have I.

No thanks.  "Try it, you'll like it" the Alka-Seltzer adds suggested.  You know the usual results.

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

SmithL

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 06:07:12 PM

If one is a heretic, they will not meet our requirements for ordination. They will not be ordained. That is what I assume.

Did the HERetics at HerChurch somehow meet the requirements for ordination, or did they become HERetics after ordination?

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Daniel L. Gard on July 18, 2011, 08:38:09 PM
With all due respect, I cannot buy into your continued insistence that the Office of the Holy Ministry is defined by function or personality traits.


How do you define it?



QuoteNor can I buy into your setting one text of Scripture as you interpret it as an either/or over another text of Scripture as you interpret it.


I didn't present quite as an either/or; but where one starts.


The ALC/LCA started with the equality verses, then fit the other verses within that understanding; most generally, the prohibitions were culturally conditioned and were not meant by God to last for all time. Quite similar to Paul's comment about head coverings and length of hair.


The LCMS starts with the prohibition verses, and finds ways to have the other passages fit with their understanding.


Now, the result of where one starts ends up being an either/or situation; but not between different passages of scriptures; but between how those passages are used to interpret one another, which leads to either the ELCA's practice or the LCMS's practice.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Birkholz

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 05:39:23 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2011, 03:47:34 PM
Do you mean that they are currently knaves, rogues or heretics, or that they were at one time such but had since repented?  You miss my point, but I suspect that you wanted to miss my point.  The princple is that the efficacy of official pastoral actions does not depend on whether the office holder is truly suitable for the office, by reason of character or other qualification.  Does that mean that since we understand that the sacramental acts of ordained persons are still valid and efficacious, that we therefore should not ask if the person should be ordained or is a proper candidate for ordination - everybody is qualified since their official acts are valid despite their unsuitability? 


The efficacy of a pastoral act doesn't depend on the office holder. However, I believe that over time, God would find a way to rid his church of unfaithful and unrepentant people seeking to function as pastors. Lay people are pretty good at seeing through phoniness.


However, our church body does not let just anybody be ordained. We have requirements that have to be met before the laying on of hands for ordination.


No one has questioned Luther over his use of "it works" to argue for infant baptism. (Albeit, it's not the whole argument). But there are all these criticisms of using "it works" as part of the argument for women's ordination. Why?

There are some who question the "it works" argument for women's ordination, questioning whether it really works or at the very least leaves one in doubt.  See http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaervalidityofordainedwomen.pdf.
Pastor Mark Birkholz
Zion Lutheran Church
Naperville, IL
www.zionnaperville.org

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2011, 08:40:37 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 05:39:23 PM
No one has questioned Luther over his use of "it works" to argue for infant baptism. (Albeit, it's not the whole argument). But there are all these criticisms of using "it works" as part of the argument for women's ordination. Why?
Is "it works" your whole or primary argument for women's ordination?


No. And I wasn't the first to bring that into the argument. I pointed out that it is part of Luther's argument for infant baptism. It was obvious to him that God had given the Holy Spirit to people who were baptized as infants.



QuoteObvious, we are going to continue to disagree on this.  For one thing, much but not all of our Biblical basis comes from the pseudepigriphal 1 Timothy and other Pastorals.


You forgot to add that there is slight evidence that the verses in 1 Corinthians were a later addition and not original with authentic Paul.


QuoteHow can we base doctrine or practice on pseudo-Paul?  We do not even have the Bible in common anymore.


We certainly have a Bible in common. The so-called "liberals" in this forum have stated over and over again that the Bible is the Word of God. Even if we approach the pastorals as being written by pseudo-Paul, they are still part of the written Word of God we have been given. Their authority for our faith and life is no less than the authentic letters of Paul.


QuoteI could also mention that male only ordination "worked" for well over a thousand years. 


And we've had celibacy for priests for a few centuries, too. Do you think that's worked well or not? Should it be our practice? There are times where the demands of a wife and family have cut into the demands of the congregation and vice versa.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Scott6

Quote from: Carol Schmidt on July 18, 2011, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: Scott Yakimow on July 18, 2011, 08:33:29 AM
Quote from: Carol Schmidt on July 18, 2011, 01:46:50 AM

I've printed your links along with conversation surrounding your posts and notice they are all from the same thread five years ago.  Should be interesting to hear how it went back then.  Thanks.  I'll read and get back to you.


Yup, there was that thread and some others, but if my memory serves (and it may not), that is where I laid out a lot of the research for my argument.  The other post of importance would be the one from Chrysostom in 2008 that I linked earlier as that was "independent" correlation of what I was saying re: authentein referring to the authoritative preaching from the bema during worship, like I had said back in 2006.


In any case, I look forward to your response.


And please don't forget about the positive argument.  It is important in any discussion seeking to overturn such a long-standing and near-universal practice to show that the Church has simply been wrong in its reading of Scripture (particularly 1 Tim 2, as that's what we're talking about), that it can't be read that way and that Scripture teaches that God calls women into the pastorate.

This is going to take some time.  Because your arguments are spread back 5 years (and I have not yet looked back to find your 2008 post), it will be helpful, if you have the time, to present your argument in one reading, as concisely as possible for now.  I will make an attempt at doing the same.  We can concurrently continue discussion, which will probably be helpful in the development of each case. 

For now, I'll begin with the first two posts you linked to from 2006, where you make your argument for reading  διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν as a hendiadys.  I understand your argument, that διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν must both be read as either positive or negative, but not one positive and the other negative.  I don't think that's entirely out of the realm of possibility, but I do think you jump to unnecessary conclusions regarding the consequence of not reading both words as positive.  A possible reading where both words are negative might be, "...to lecture in a dominating way..."  To talk down to, use speech that is dismissive and silencing of the other.

You also stated that your "position [re: hendiadys] is a minority one on this point."  (10/13/2006 comment #49)  What occurs to me in your discussion of Kostenberger's study (10/14/2006 comment #56) is that where a hapax legomenon appears the question is, What's different here?  Something was happening in the congregation that was unusual, so even if "Paul never mixed positive and negative terms" in other places, he also never used the word αὐθεντεῖν in any other place.

Even with the additional "48 instances of this construction" in "nearly all extant Greek literature" used to support his conclusion, this is a very small population and I would think that the specific infinitives along with the context in which they were written would also need to be studied.


Hi Carol,


I'm just tagging your post by replying to it so that I can respond later.


As to quick summaries sans supporting material, I think I've given a number of them, but let me try again: didaskein and authentein combine to refer the authoritative teaching that is presented in worship, and as 1 Tim 2 has worship in view, women are not permitted to engage in the distinctive activity (and so office) of the pastor b/c the man was created first, and the man was not deceived but the woman was.


I'm pretty sure that 1 sentence gets the jist of my view.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Larry Smith on July 18, 2011, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 06:07:12 PM

If one is a heretic, they will not meet our requirements for ordination. They will not be ordained. That is what I assume.

Did the HERetics at HerChurch somehow meet the requirements for ordination, or did they become HERetics after ordination?


No one with any authority to do so have declared them heretics.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

TravisW

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 11:45:56 PM
Quote from: Larry Smith on July 18, 2011, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 06:07:12 PM

If one is a heretic, they will not meet our requirements for ordination. They will not be ordained. That is what I assume.

Did the HERetics at HerChurch somehow meet the requirements for ordination, or did they become HERetics after ordination?


No one with any authority to do so have declared them heretics.

I did. 

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Birkholz on July 18, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
There are some who question the "it works" argument for women's ordination, questioning whether it really works or at the very least leaves one in doubt.  See http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaervalidityofordainedwomen.pdf.


I don't see that much that David P. Scaer predicted would happen in 1989 because of ordained woman has actually happened. His arguments sounds a lot like those who argued that the Jesus couldn't be the Messiah, because the Messiah would not come from Nazareth.


If he were to attend a service with a female minister, would he hear the gospel proclaimed? If he didn't, would it be because the preacher didn't proclaim it or because his heart was too hard to receive the Word of God? While I'm pretty sure that he would never receive communion that had been consecrated by a female presider. However, I can imagine a minister with hair cut and robed and with a voice that left the gender ambiguous. Should he believe that it was a male presider, later to discover "him" wearing a dress during the fellowship hour, would he have received the body and blood of Christ? Would Jesus be present to him with salvation?


He seems a bit like someone arguing that woman cannot be doctors without ever seeing or even talking to a female doctor. His mind is made up. But should the situation arise where the best surgeon for his operation was a woman, would he accept her authority over him? How would any LCMS traditionalist deal with a female in a position of authority over some part of their lives, e.g., a doctor, dentist, etc.?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: TravisW on July 19, 2011, 12:00:12 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 11:45:56 PM
Quote from: Larry Smith on July 18, 2011, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 06:07:12 PM

If one is a heretic, they will not meet our requirements for ordination. They will not be ordained. That is what I assume.

Did the HERetics at HerChurch somehow meet the requirements for ordination, or did they become HERetics after ordination?


No one with any authority to do so have declared them heretics.

I did.


And how did your declaration affect the whole church, or even the ELCA?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

George Erdner

Quote from: TravisW on July 19, 2011, 12:00:12 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 11:45:56 PM
Quote from: Larry Smith on July 18, 2011, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2011, 06:07:12 PM

If one is a heretic, they will not meet our requirements for ordination. They will not be ordained. That is what I assume.

Did the HERetics at HerChurch somehow meet the requirements for ordination, or did they become HERetics after ordination?


No one with any authority to do so have declared them heretics.

I did.

How much authority does it take to recognize such an obvious truth?

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk