The original Girls Gone Wild is here.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Father Hollywood <==Mequon grads, left click for source. Thnx.
Girls Gone Wild, WELS Edition
In spite of the Wisconsin Synod's reputation for "conservative" rigor, WELS has a rather "liberal" view when it comes to women officiating at the Eucharist.
According to this Q&A from the WELS's own website, there have been at least two instances where laywomen in the WELS have said the Lord' Words of Institution over bread and wine and served it, claiming that it was the body and blood of the Lord. The practice was in no way condemned by the WELS hierarchy, but rather, the practice is current under a "moratorium" in order to "keep from offending our brothers."
This error has come about by the intersection of an error on the doctrine of the ministry combined with a legalistic view of the role of women.
First, WELS does not believe the pastoral office has been divinely established, and further teaches that "The Bible establishes all of public gospel ministry but does not establish a pastoral office as such or vest certain duties exclusive to that office" (Emphasis added).
From this starting point, WELS adds the next premise that the differences between male and female are limited to a legalistic "thou shalt not," as the article puts it:
"Since the Bible does not assign specific duties to the pastor, WELS approaches the matter of women communing women from Scripture's man and women role relationship principle. WELS doctrinal statements on the role of man and woman say that a woman may have any part in public ministry that does not assume teaching authority over a man. That, of course, would include women communing women" (emphasis added).And this has moved beyond the theoretical into the practical:
"WELS has had only two instances of women communing women, and our Conference of Presidents has since issued an indefinite moratorium on such practice to keep from offending our brothers until the matter is mutually resolved" (emphasis added).The "it's only happened twice" defense reminds me of the Monty Python sketch claiming that the British Navy now has cannibalism "relatively under control."
[GJ - Note that Father Hollywood wrote this column, which I have quoted verbatim. If you want to condemn him for making a Monty Python comparison, contact him and leave your real name.]
In other words, the theology of male and female boils down to an oversimplified and law-based overarching principle that women are free to do anything and everything in the Lord's economy so long as she does not exercise authority over a man in doing so - when in fact, the role of women is much richer than the "anything other than..." approach of the WELS. Accepting these two premises and following them to their logical end yields the result of women saying the Words of Institution over bread and wine, and distributing the elements to each other as if they were the true body and blood.
This is roughly the equivalent of my asserting that since I'm an American citizen, I can sign my name on a bill and make it a law, or that I can authorize people to go up into the Statue of Liberty's crown, or may indeed put stars on my lapels and order military personnel about. I can do no such thing. It is a matter of authority. Pastors are ambassadors of Christ, and speak by His authority, standing in His stead and by His command. The American ambassador to Canada speaks with the authority of the government of the United States. Of course, I am free to visit the Parliament in Ottawa, but unlike the word of the ambassador, my word bears no authority. Any statements I make have no force behind them, as I have not been placed into any such office by those who have such authority to delegate.
This is quite different than the Roman Catholic assertion that at a man's ordination, a metaphysical change in his person has happened. But this is also quite different than the Protestant assertion that ordination is nothing more than a quaint ceremony. Sometimes the president of the United States is called "the most powerful man in the world." Not so. I'd be willing to wager than any middle linebacker in the NFL could take out President Obama in any kind of a strength competition or fight. What the president has is not personal "power," but rather delegated personal "authority" that he exercises "by virtue of his office." Not even someone more "powerful" than the president can make laws and issue commands to the military. If someone were to attempt to do so lacking authority, it would be a mutiny and a rebellion.
The examples in Scripture of those who assumed and usurped authority not given by the Lord do not end well. Korah's rebellion comes to mind.
And lest we become too smug in the LCMS, I think we should be on guard. We do have deaconesses who are described as "ministers," some even serving in institutional chaplaincies, providing spiritual care to both men and women. I have even seen this work described as being "pastoral" - though there is great care not to turn this adjective into a noun. At some point, the earlier understanding that deaconesses would only teach women and children has been superseded in the LCMS, as deaconesses are now permitted to teach men as well as women and children. What authority they have and do not have seems to be on a sliding scale of gray, and varies with whomever is asked.
But the problem goes well beyond the malleable role of the deaconess. I recently heard firsthand of a "laying on of hands" in the LCMS that involved not only clergy, but the congregational elders (after all, see 1 Tim 4:4...) and the female congregational president as well. I know that sometimes clergy wives are even involved in these ceremonials.
We also have an oxymoronic "office" in the LCMS called "lay minister." Male "lay ministers" have been given "license" for "Word and Sacrament ministry" by district presidents. Female "lay ministers" take the same classes and hold the same synodical designation, yet (to my knowledge) there have not been instances of female "lay ministers" either preaching or presiding over an alleged Sacrament of the Altar. But I do think this toe-to-the-line of the Wisconsonian view of the office of the ministry and the roles of the sexes leaves the possibility open.
One of the most foolish things anyone can ever say is: "It can't happen here."
We in the LCMS have a similar rather limited theology of the sexes as the WELS. We tend to focus on the narrow and myopic legalistic issue of "what women are allowed, and are not allowed, to do" (functionalism) rather than the deeper and eternal issue of what men and women were created to do (ontology). Function ought to flow from ontology rather than trying to reverse-engineer the situation in the opposite direction.
I suspect there are some in our midst who indeed would make the argument that women have the divine authority to bless bread and wine (even as they have the power to physically say the words), that they can indeed also have the churchly permission ("call") to do so as long as no men take the "sacrament" from her hand, and so long as she does not lay claim to the title of "pastor." And there are some that will, no doubt, make a couple arguments in favor of women consecrating based on:
1) The charge of "Donatism." This is the ancient heresy that the validity of the sacrament is based on the moral standing of the officiant. However, sex has nothing to do with moral fitness. It is rather an ontological distinction. For example, men are not denied the privilege of carrying a child in the womb based on a moral reason, it's rather a question of reality and vocation. Just as a good and righteous American citizen can write his name at the end of a bill passed by Congress, the fact is that his righteous signature is not effective whereas that of even a wicked president is - by virtue of authority. A person's sex has nothing at all to do with Donatism.
In fact, the Donatism charge can even go the other way. For example, a very pious and morally upright lay woman can say all the right words over bread and wine without having any authority from God, neither from Scripture nor from the Church, and yet a wicked ordained male pastor with a valid call can do the same thing - and there is no doubt whatsoever of the validity of the sacraments he officiates over.
This is because the issue is authority, not moral fitness.
In fact, there was an interesting conversation between some LCMS seminary professors over this very issue. You can read the initial article about the "validity of churchly acts of ordained [sic] women" here and the rebuttal against the charge of "Neo-Donatism" here.
2) Emergency baptism. The argument goes that if women can "confect the sacrament," so to speak, regarding an emergency baptism, then it follows that she can similarly officiate over celebrations of the Holy Eucharist. But this is a leap of logic that presumes that all sacraments are equal and that we are not bound to any authority in these matters apart from our own modern whims. The crux of the matter is that emergency baptism is just that - a life and death situation. The Church has long established this form of Holy Baptism, and has never denied the fairer sex the extraordinary authority to administer the Holy Sacrament in matters of extremity. However, the same cannot be said for other sacramental and churchly acts. For there are no emergency marriages or confirmations or communions. Our confessions cite the scenario attributed to St. Augustine in which one dying man baptizes the other, and the newly-baptized administers the Sacrament of Holy Absolution to his fellow. There is no mention of any other sacrament or church rite. Most certainly there is no precedent for emergency lay Communion.
Just as female ordination inevitably leads to the blessing of same-sex marriages, I also believe that a functional view of the ministry inexorably leads to women functioning (if not outright claiming to be) pastors. Until we in the LCMS come to grips with the idea of ontology (both of ministers and of the sexes), we will continue to follow in the train of our conservative brethren, even though the tracks have taken a radical turn to the left.
HT: Dr. William J. Tighe
6 comments:
-
Rev. Eric J Brown said...
- What would you say is the connection between "Authority" and Ontology? When I think of these issues, I tend to think of authority first (rather than ontology), but I would wager that there is a fine and strong connection. How might you describe it though?
- Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:57:00 PM
-
Past Elder said...
- This post has been removed by the author.
- Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:57:00 PM
-
Past Elder said...
- Interesting that when I was in WELS, it maintained the view of the OHM just as you describe, and saw LCMS as waffling on the authority thing by allowing women voters in congregations, which as far as I know are still not allowed in WELS. As I read and learned more, it was the view of the OHM that was one of three factors that led me to change synods, because, as you point out, without the OHM the rest of it surely follows at some point. (The other two factors, for anyone curious, were local matters and it seeming that almost every blogger I found who understood Lutheranism as I do was LCMS, including our host, though we may part ways re secular music and church polity.)
- Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:01:00 PM
-
Father Hollywood said...
- Dear Eric: I think authority flows from ontology. For example, the husband has authority in the family because of who he is ontologically - a man. The Lord orders authority in the family not in a functional way (the head of the household being determined by who happens to be functioning as the head on a particular day), but in an ontological way (by virtue of the husband's maleness).
- Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:05:00 PM
-
Father Hollywood said...
- Dear PE: I think the female suffrage was a case of the church imitating the world. I think it is an example of viewing the Kingdom of God in terms of "rights" instead of seeking ways to serve. This same impetus is what led to women's "ordination" among our former brethren. Sometimes I think the modern Church is embarrassed by looking different than the world.
- Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:11:00 PM
-
Thomas Pietsch said...
- Father Hollywood, I've been reading and enjoying your blog for some time now, but can't remember if I've ever commented. This post, however, has piqued my interest. I'm a vicar in the Lutheran Church of Australia by the way. I wonder whether Lutherans also believe in an ontological change that is effected at ordination. Just as a baptism changes our ontology, so too does ordination change the ontology of the pastor. We don't re-ordain. Here's Augustine: 'For the sacrament of baptism is what the person possesses who is baptized; and the sacrament of conferring baptism is what he possesses who is ordained. And as the baptized person, if he depart from the unity of the church, does not thereby lose the sacrament of baptism, so also he who is ordained, if he depart from the unity of the church, does not lose the sacrament of conferring baptism.' That said, Lutherans do emphasise that it is Christ who is the consecrator in a way that Roman Catholics do not. Can we have ontological/metaphysical change as well? Regarding the Donatism charge, I think it can be completely reversed. In the LCA a lay person can be commissioned for Word and sacrament ministry, but cannot be called 'Pastor' or vote at Pastors' Conference. It is regrettable, then, that the fault line between those ordained and those who are not comes down to a title and voting rights, and not the Word and sacraments that are the foundation of the office of ministry according to AC XIV. What therefore occurs is a distinction between consecrators of the eucharist - those who are 'Pastors' are those who are not - which is at the very heart of the Donatist controversy. I don't think I'm alone in saying that if I had the choice between going to a lay minister or an ordained pastor I would always choose the latter. So this practice encourage Donatism - distinguishing between eucharists according to the minister. Regarding your last point on the argument that comes from 'emergency baptism', I'm torn between two differing explanations of the tradition preventing 'emergency communion'. Gerhard wrote that holy communion is not 'especially necessary' for salvation as is baptism. Therefore an emergency situation cannot exist. Robert Jenson, on the other hand, thinks that holy communion is too important for an emergency celebration. He writes that while preaching is public and indiscriminate (anyone can receive it), and Baptism and Confession are private and discriminating (they do not directly involve the corporate community), the Eucharist is both discriminating and public. And so a celebration of the eucharist can only involve those publicly ordained into the public office. Communion belongs to the church, not to individuals. So there are two explanations for preventing emergency communion - one because of its lack of importance (to justification) and once because of its great importance (to ecclesiology)! Pax tecum
***
GJ - The only foothold that could be purchased on the rocky ground of WELS logic would be Luther's comment on women preaching to women (allowed). The modern equivalent would be women leading one another in Bible studies and devotions, at their meetings. However, Martin Luther College promoted the concept of women leading men in this area and actively persecuted traditional Lutherans who objected. WELS has defended women teaching men, sponsoring national conferences where that was initiated without bad consequences. One example was the Tiefel pan-denominational worship conference at Carthage (ELCA) College.
Norm Berg promoted open communion in mission congregations. One wit calls it "Don't ask, don't tell" open communion.
The divorced and remarried pastors are gonzo for women's rights, probably because second wifey insists on it.
When all the WELS leaders train at feminist Fuller and feminazi Willow Creek, the products are bound to reflect that education.
If the ELS Board of Doctrine got their chasubles in a bunch over women consecrating in WELS, why not address Church and Chicanery in the Little Sect on the Prairie? Why throw rocks across the ravine when the same ideology is nestled safely in the bosom of Minnesota?
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Girls Gone Wild - Not About the MLC Video":
Here are some quotes from Luther which speak to the subject of women's roles in the church.
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/LutherGenderMinistry.pdf
"Rather, priesthood and power have to be there first, brought from baptism and common to all Christians through the faith which builds them upon Christ the true high priest, as St. Peter says here. But to exercise such power and to put it to work is not every man’s business. Only he who is called by the common assembly, or the man representing the assembly’s order and will, does this work in the stead of and as the representative of the common assembly and power." Page 3, second full paragraph
"Mostly the functions of a priest are these: to teach, to preach and proclaim the Word of God, to baptize, to consecrate or administer the Eucharist, to bind and loose sins, to pray for others, to sacrifice, and to judge of all doctrine and spirits. Certainly these are splendid and royal duties. But the first and foremost of all on which everything else depends, is the teaching of the Word of God. For we teach with the Word, we consecrate with the Word, we bind and absolve sins by the Word, we baptize with the Word, we sacrifice with the Word, we judge all things by the Word. Therefore when we grant the Word to anyone, we cannot deny anything to him pertaining to the exercise of his priesthood." Page 7, first full paragraph
"Now you might say: “What kind of situation will arise if it is true that we are all priests and should all preach [1 Peter 2:5]? Should no distinction be made among the people, and should the women, too, be priests?” Answer: In the New Testament no priest has to be tonsured. Not that this is evil in itself, for one surely has the right to have the head shaved clean. But one should not make a distinction between those who do so and the common Christian. Faith cannot tolerate this. Thus those who are now called priests would all be laymen like the others, and only a few officiants would be elected by the congregation to do the preaching. Thus there is only an external difference because of the office to which one is called by the congregation. Before God, however, there is no distinction, and only a few are selected from the whole group to administer the office in the stead of the congregation. They all have the office, but nobody has any more authority than the other person has. Therefore nobody should come forward of his own accord and preach in the congregation. No, one person must be chosen from the whole group and appointed."Page 8, first full paragraph
"As St. Paul says in Gal. 3:28, you must pay no attention to distinctions when you want to look at Christians. You must not say: “This is a man or a woman; this is a servant or a master; this person is old or young.” They are all alike and only a spiritual people. Therefore they are all priests. All may proclaim God’s Word, except that, as St. Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 14:34, women should not speak in the congregation. They should let the men preach, because God commands them to be obedient to their husbands. God does not interfere with the arrangement. But he makes no distinction in the matter of authority." Page 8, first full paragraph
"But in the New Testament the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul, ordained that women should be silent in the churches and assemblies [I Cor. 14:34], and said that this is the Lord’s commandment. Yet he knew that previously Joel [2:28 f.] had proclaimed that God would pour out his Spirit also on handmaidens. Furthermore, the four daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21[:9]). But in the congregations or churches where there is a ministry women are to be silent and not preach [I Tim. 2:12]. Otherwise they may pray, sing, praise, and say “Amen,” and read at home, teach one another, exhort, comfort, and interpret the Scriptures as best they can." Page 15, first paragraph
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
