From Bailing Water:
Interested observer said...
You quoted the ELS position: "Therefore women shall not read the Scripture lessons in the divine service, preach the sermon, adminster Baptism or distribute the Lord's Supper, for these things are intimately related to the pastoral office (1 Timothy 4:13-14, 1 Corinthians 4:1)."
All of the duties described involve authoritative preaching or ministry. The WELS position says women may not serve in the public ministry when it involves exercising authority over me. I see no difference at all in these two statements. Where is the contradiction, please?
December 4, 2007 9:52 PM
Carl M. said...
Interested Observer,
The Wisconsin Synod has said that women may commune women and men (if someone else "fences" the altar). The ELS says women may not commune men or women.
The Wisconsin Synod says women may read the readings, the ELS says they may not.
The Wisconsin Synod says women may be in the pastoral office serving men (such as performing baptisms, counseling and so forth) as long as they do not "excercise authority" over them. The ELS says women may not be in the pastoral office.
Carl M.
December 4, 2007 10:41 PM
Anonymous said...
Have you read one of the most recent WLQs? Good article by Tom Nass about this whole subject. You are misrepresenting the WELS position.
December 4, 2007 10:46 PM
Interested observerf said...
Carl M: I have never seen anything anywhere in the Wisconsin Synod where women are allowed to commune "women and men" or where women are allowed to read the Scriptures in a mixed public worship service. Neither have you. You are either terribly ignorant or intentionally misrepresenting WELS doctrine.
December 4, 2007 10:49 PM
Interested Observer said...
Carl M: You said, "The Wisconsin Synod says women may be in the pastoral office serving men (such as performing baptisms, counseling and so forth) as long as they do not "excercise authority" over them."
Show me any statement, any document, any WELS leader or teacher that says this. You will not be able to.
This is simply, unequivocally, not true.
December 4, 2007 10:53 PM
Carl M. said...
No, I read very carefully, you ought to as well. Read the Wiscosnin Synod's COP declaration on women communing others. They say there is nothing wrong with it, but it "wouldn't be wise" because people would not understand. The same with women lectors. Wisconsin Synod cautions against such practices are always based on giving offense not in that the practice is inherently wrong.
Carl M.
December 4, 2007 10:54 PM
Intgerested Observer said...
Carl,
No, you need the read the statement again. It was talking only about women communing women, not women and men as you claimed.
December 4, 2007 11:04 PM
Carl M. said...
No, they say that it is not an exercise of autority (if someone else fences the table) and women may commune men, though it wouldn't be "wise." And it has happened. Ask Pastor Herman John.
Regardless, it doesn't matter for the WS already calls women into the Office of the Holy Ministry and they may serve as pastor as long as they don't exercise authority over men (and we have seen how that is twisted and turned). This runs contrary to the Scriptures.
Carl M.
December 4, 2007 11:20 PM
Interested observer said...
Carl: Where on earth are you getting this "fencing the table" terminology? Are you just making it up? And again, the statement of the COP nowhere -- absolutely nowhere -- says that women may commune men. Produce the exactg wording from the COP statement to back up your claim. You will not be able to do so, because it does not say what you claim. If you can't be honest about this, you need to be quiet. Your words are changing from being uninformed to simply lies.
December 4, 2007 11:29 PM
Carl M. said...
No, you produce what you claim to be true.
And be careful because simply because Nass or whoever says women can commune women,but it is not wise, doesn't mean they have not said, women can commune men, but it would not be wise.
"Fencing the table" is a common term used in theologicil circles that means admitting or preventing people from communing.
Carl M.
December 4, 2007 11:36 PM
Carl M. said...
From the WELS Q/A
"WELS does not consider women who lawfully assume certain duties of the pastoral office to be pastors, does not call them pastors, and does not intend to call them pastors."
Now, if it walks like a duck....
Carl M.
December 5, 2007 12:14 AM
Anonymous said...
Is it true that the WELS synod calls women into the Office of the Holy Ministry?
December 5, 2007 12:19 AM
Anonymous said...
WELS doesn't have an OHM, but yes, women are allowed to perform ministry functions as long as they don't involve authority (in very elastic terms) over men.
December 5, 2007 6:48 AM
AP said...
"Where is the contradiction, please?"
Here is the contradiction. WELS says "women may participate in all the offices and activities of public gospel ministry where the service does not involve authority over men." Thus, when deciding which roles women may have in the ministry, WELS says, they can do anything so long as it doesn't involve exercising authority over men--hence it is okay for women to commune women (but we don't do it now because it might offend our brothers in the ELS.) By this logic, women could be pastors too, so long as they were only pastors to other women. In other words, the only thing that keeps women out of the pastoral ministry in the WELS is the exercise of authority over men.
The ELS also says that only men can be pastors because women can't have authority over men, but takes it one step further by saying that regardless of who they are exercising authority over, women can't be pastors or do the things that pastors do (preach and admister the sacrament) becuase God has restricted the pastor ministry to qualified men. But I'm not the only one to notice this discrepancy. This is a big issue right now for some in the ELS. Look at DP Janke's Fall report to the WELS AZ/CA district--this isn't something I made up. Any ELS folks care to back me up on this?
AP
December 5, 2007 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...
AP,
I agree that it is a theoretical difference in approach, but I'm not sure that this is a practical difference that would even manifest itself in the real world. I guess you could come up with some hypothetical about a shipwreck in the middle of the Pacific and only women survive and they start a church on their deserted island and have a woman "pastor". But outside of that, I'm not sure the theoretical difference between the WELS and ELS would ever impact anything in the real world.
December 5, 2007 10:59 AM
AP said...
"I agree that it is a theoretical difference in approach, but I'm not sure that this is a practical difference that would even manifest itself in the real world."
Allow me to explain why I see it as more than that. The way I read the WELS position, the only thing in the Bible that prevents women from being pastors is the issue of authority.
ELS says, yes, women shouldn't excercise authority over men, but that there is another reason women shouldn't be pastors--God has restricted the office of the pastoral ministry to qualified men.
So, the WELS and ELS say the Bible says different things about who may be in the ministry. That is more than just a "theoretical difference in approach."
AP
December 5, 2007 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...
"ELS says, yes, women shouldn't excercise authority over men, but that there is another reason women shouldn't be pastors--God has restricted the office of the pastoral ministry to qualified men."
But is that really an entirely different reason? It's really just the same reason from two different sides:
1. Women can't be pastors because they can't be in authority over men.
2. Scripture says pastors must be men, because men are the ones to be in authority.
Seems like basically the same reason, seen from two different sides.
December 5, 2007 11:15 AM
AP said...
"Scripture says pastors must be men, because men are the ones to be in authority."
That isn't what it says though. It says that Pastors must be men because scripture says they must be men. The WELS adds another "because" to it, which has the effect of qualifying the statement before the "because," which leads to some in the WELS saying, "women can do the same things as pastors as long as we don't call them pastors and they aren't exercising authority over men."
AP
December 5, 2007 12:12 PM
OJN said...
As AP has clearly noted, there is a profound difference between the WELS and ELS position on the Ministry, one that many within the ELS are deeply concerned about, but don't talk about publicly, which is good, but ultimately they will have to and some are ready to. I hate to sound so cryptic but I know of a prominent ELS pastor who has said the above. They are hoping that the WELS gets its act together on this issue. The WELS "fully human" in the Nicene Creed portended this fissure, some in the ELS saw this, some in the WELS as well.
FWIW (and that may not be much)
OJN
December 5, 2007 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...
A few posts back AP wrote: "ELS says, yes, women shouldn't excercise authority over men, but that there is another reason women shouldn't be pastors--God has restricted the office of the pastoral ministry to qualified men." This in itself brings up an issue that no one has yet mentioned: that by saying "God has restricted the office" the ELS is saying that there is a concrete office of the Pastoral Ministry that is mandated by God. I believe that this is something that the WELS statement on ministry does not affirm.
December 7, 2007 11:37 AM
***
GJ - Wawautosa allows the Wisconsin sect to make up whatever they want because they are the only ones capable of interpreting the Scriptures. Also, they hold themselves above the Book of Concord, not bound by it. That may sound like Gnosticism to some.
In fact, their seminary professor John Brug supported the ordination of women at least a decade ago, in The Popes Speak, aka Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly. A number of conference papers have stated the same concept: there is nothing in the Scriptures against women's ordination. As I said before, Lutherans are now used to rationalistic propositions and finding some citation to support it.
There is a divide between the ELS clergy and the WELS leaders on this topic and many others. Sometimes the ELS has been loosey-goosey. Now WELS is on the cutting edge of apostasy. The ELS clergy can complain all they want. Schmeling and Pope John will do exactly what they are told by Wayne Mueller and others.
The not wise gambit is clever because it allows the sect to push the cracked door open a few more inches each year. Watch Church and Change or the Episcopal Church to learn what will happen next. Soon the new Wisconsin sect pastor will be introduced with his wife (or Life Partner) as the new "ministry team." They will be young and cute and "so excited about our future ministry here."
MLC has called itself the sect's College of Ministry for years. No objections. Male teachers have been ordained. Sure, that was dumber than licking a pump handle in New Ulm in January, but they are still doing it. Lawrence Olson (D.Min., Fuller Seminary) has been running a parish minister program for men and women for years. In time the distinctions will collapse.
***
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Women Ministers in WELS":
This from a WELS pastor in Washington State when confronted with allowing the women in the congregation to read the liturgy during the Sunday morning divine service:
"........Second, as far as antiphonal forms in worship, I saw your statement that our synod accepting the practice means nothing to you unless they can back it up with Scripture. The proper way to look at any activity done in our New Testament time of freedom from ceremonial law is that we can enjoy our NT freedom in any ways that are not condemned by the Word of God. For example, many of our churches use a bell to signal the start of worship. You could very easily say, “Since they can’t back up the use of a bell with a Bible verse, it’s wrong.” In fact, you and I might even go back into world history and find some pagans that used to use bells in some paganistic way and try to equate that to a Christian church that uses one. This is not the proper way to look at the subject.
Thirdly, 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and 1 Tim. 2:11,12 command that a woman is not to be teaching or instructing men with her sermon in formal worship. If you look closely at 1 Cor. 14, the context is that she should not “prophesy” with the result that her prophecy is “weighed” by the listeners (literally in Greek, “judged”). 1 Cor. 14 does not refer to an antiphonal reading, because we do not “judge” what God tells us like we “judge” a message that an individual is giving. It is talking about an individual’s preaching instruction. Certainly in a case where a woman is not up front reading (such as in an antiphonal form), these verses are not violated.
You did include a “Q and A” on lectors from the synod website, and I’ll be honest with you, Brett, that lectors are an area that you correctly have indicated our synod needs to exercise great caution with. I certainly agree with you that we need to think carefully about this. The gist of the thinking is that since 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 exclude women from delivering their preaching instruction to men, some in our circles might want to use women as readers but not preachers. However, the difference I see between antiphonal singing/reading and functioning as a lector is that a woman is in a physical position (up front) that some might perceive as un-submissive. If I were attending church with a woman functioning as a lector, I admit that I would be uncomfortable with that position. I can’t see myself ever making use of women lectors. At best, those who might like to make use of this practice are in a very gray area. At worst, it could be done in a wrong way (as the Q and A answer stated).
Lastly, please keep in mind that if you do want to hold to the position you described in your e-mails, we would have to condemn:
Women soloists
Women’s choirs
Antiphonal singing
As far as I know, these have not caused you offense in the past, but these are all ways women proclaim law and gospel in and to the worship assembly, and are also ways that our synod has accepted as not only in line with Scripture, but also edifying to our people."
The WELS is following Rome by removing the relationship between doctrine and practice. They say this is the doctrine and then they say that the application of the doctrine can be a myriad of things and all without violating the doctrine.
Brett Meyer
***
GJ - The tap-dancing Wawautosi act quoted above is typical Wisconsin justification for anything they do. Note the ceremonial law gambit. They use an essay by Carl Lawrenz on ceremonial law (in the Book of Concord?) to serve as the expansion clause for their new/old fads. They do not admit following Rome (three-year lectionary, gay-friendly liturgical colors) or ELCA (women teaching men, women in authority over men, Lavender Mafia). They are expressing their New Testament freedom.
