Til Death Do Us Part - Or the Going Gets Tough - Whichever Comes First

In this May 17, 2005, file photo, Julie, front left, and Hillary Goodridge pose with other gay couples and supporters as they celebrate their first wedding anniversary in Boston. The couple, who led the legal fight for Massachusetts to become the first state to legalize same-sex marriages, filed for divorce Thursday, Jan. 29, 2009. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File)

Mass. couple who led gay marriage fight to divorce

Feb 3, 5:58 PM (ET)

BOSTON (AP) - A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts has filed for divorce. Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

The divorce case was filed last week in Suffolk Probate and Family Court and was not unexpected. The couple announced they were separating in 2006.

Messages left for the Goodridges were not immediately returned Tuesday.

Bailing Water Has 44 Comments on Church Growth

Why can't church be more fun, like Rock and Roll or Latte Lutheran?

Anonymous said...
Mild criticism is not enough. Rejection and repudiation are essential. WELS/ELS people have tossed popcorn at CG for 20 years. Somehow the CG Apostles have survived being stoned to death with popcorn.

Bespoke

January 29, 2009 7:32 AM

---


Anonymous said...
But when all one has theologically is popcorn, what is one to do?

January 29, 2009 9:22 AM

---


Tim Niedfeldt said...
I would be happy to post that sermon in our sermon library...well except for the problems with copying sermons you all have. Any pastor at a "C&C" church would agree and say "Amen" to that sermon. That's because any one of them would be happy to echo the warnings against church growth as it was described in that sermon. It echos all the problems with the evangelical's understanding of worship and seeker services and all that.

There is not a "C&C" church out there who believes their church is is operating in that manner though, for those reasons, using that theology. This section from the sermon describes what a "C&C" church is trying to do.

"Someone, somewhere, at sometime threw the net over you and pulled you into fellowship with God. Someone baptized you at the command of Christ. Someone preached the gospel to you and taught you the Word of God and declared the Lord's absolution to you."

"C&C" churches are creating churches where everyone becomes equipped to be those fishers of men. To be people who find you and preach the gospel, who get you into bible classes, who talkes to you about Jesus at the soccer camp or at the concert in the park. It is the combination of outreach and evangelism done well and in harmony with one another that gets the gospel to the ears of unbelievers.

The thing is...our services for members don't have to be contemporary to have this kind of thing going on. It should be going on at every church no matter how they worship. Every church needs to be throwing their net over people. So how is your church doing it? How does your church reach the unbelievers in your community? I have yet to hear of one evangelism/outreach combo ever offered up on this site that any church could use to reach the unchurched (well besides the obligatory "We preach the gospel in Word and Sacrament" which is another way of saying..."we do nothing but have church services and if a stray unbeliever walks in he has a chance of hearing the Gospel).

I think once you realize that "C&C" although endorsing creative worship styles (and all that contempo vs liturgical stuff) really is not all worship focused like you believe. You make a faulty assumption that Church Growth does these things for these reasons so therefore "C&C" does these things for the same reasons.

Because we believe in the power of God's Word our mission is to find ways to get it to people's ears. Our church has 5 baptisms coming up this month. Some older children and some adults and one baby. These are people who heard the gospel from members of the church while attending a soccer camp hosted by the church. 65 kids got bible lessons every day and 100 parents also got to hear some gospel and the Holy Spirit started his work.

Once you realize that a worship service is not for unbelievers, you will realize that personally spreading the gospel, getting the unchurched into Bible class and letting the Holy Spirit work faith in their hearts is the "C&C" approach.

Our church is in a rented hall with a full length bar along one wall. It can be a detriment to visitors to see a church with a full bar (Perhaps for some it is a plus). We are getting near to capacity now so if a visitor walks in they may find it uncomfortably full to find a seat to their liking. Honestly we'd rather see a visitor have spent a lot of time in the Word already and Bible class and such and understand the mission and style of our church before they come. Otherwise they may just walk away.

I think there is some irony in that in "C&C" they believe that evangelism/outreach/worship/fellowship/education are one package. It all has to be done well and it requires the member to be actively engaged with his church. That is how the Holy spirit will work faith in unbelievers hearts. Yet in non "C&C" church the only focus is on worship to bring people to faith. Where are our seeker services really then? Seems to me more in the church where preaching the gospel in Word and Sacrament only means on Sunday morning in church.

Popcorn is all you got to throw. I like popcorn.

January 29, 2009 11:21 AM

---


Anonymous said...
I wonder how the anti-C&C folks view Paul's ministry because if they apply their rules to Paul, he would be considered outside of our fellowship. I think I remember reading somewhere that St. Paul's favorite munchie was popcorn...I couldn't resist. :)

JK [Joe Krohn, Kudu Don Patterson's friend and ally]

January 29, 2009 11:37 AM

---


Ben said...
"Go and make disciples of all nations..." Wouldn't that be considered Church growth?

Ben

January 29, 2009 12:23 PM

---


Anonymous said...
Ben,

You ask "'Go and make disciples of all nations...' Wouldn't that be considered Church growth?"

Sure, if that is what the text really said.

Jamin

January 29, 2009 4:14 PM

---


Anonymous said...
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

January 29, 2009 9:08 PM

---

Anonymous said...
Manufacture disciples of Church Growth - that has certainly worked well. Nothing else has.

Bespoke

January 29, 2009 10:47 PM

---


Ben said...
Matthew 28:19 (New International Version)

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Referenced from:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+28:19

Ben

January 30, 2009 1:31 PM

---


Anonymous said...
Yes, Ben, the Reformed manufacture disciples, so their Reformed Bible must also make disciples. The Reformed reject the Sacraments, so the Sacraments must disappear from the NIV and its clones. The Reformed want to be hip, so the NIV must be a feminist book.

Bespoke

January 30, 2009 8:25 PM

---


California on my mind said...
Go and make disciples...Go ye therefore and teach...

The anti-Church Growth crowd likes to argue the Greek word means teach and not make disciples of, but make disciples is a translation even Kretzmann and Lenski used in their commentaries, long before there was a Church Growth Movement. There's nothing wrong with using the make disciples of translation, but a person dare not forget how that's done. Jesus says it's accomplished by baptizing and teaching. That is real church growth, the Bible way.

January 30, 2009 8:26 PM

---


Freddy Finkelstein said...
Interestingly, over the past couple of days, Issues, Etc. has produced some programs that are directly relevant to John's post and to some of the responses that have resulted from it, above.

The "Pastor's Roundtable" segment, yesterday (1/29), was the conclusion of a discussion series on the Lord's Prayer. They spent a great deal of time discussing and defining the “The Kingdom,” “The Power,” and “The Glory,” focusing on Who establishes this Kingdom, Who nurtures it and makes it grow, via what Means He works, and for what purpose. They specifically address Church Growth theology and methodologies, particularly the idea that such methods may serve to “augment” the Holy Spirit's work, and they reject that notion.

When we speak of the “Great Commission” in Matt. 28, we speak of Christ's exhortation to the Church that it use the Means of Grace, specifically the Sacrament of Baptism and the public proclamation of God's Word. That's it. Not programs, not music, not worldly methods and measures by any stretch of the imagination. We have nothing to add to the Holy Spirit's work. He makes the Church grow, when and where He wills it to grow, and He works through the Means of Grace to make this happen. Period.

Here is the link: http://207.57.94.117/podcast/154012909H1.mp3

Additionally, in yesterday's “Biblical Examples of Preaching” (1/29), the focus of attention during the second half of this segment was that of addressing false doctrine in the course of public preaching, even the role of fierce polemic against the errors which plague the Church, and which threaten the spiritual well being of Christians who fall under error's influence. Using the example of Jesus in Matt. 23 (the “seven woes”), Who in this account publicly exposes the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees, and excoriates them, yesterday's discussion addressed the need to preach Law directly and firmly, especially when it is specifically needed – that is, when bald and specific errors attack the Church and God's people and threatens to overshadow the Gospel, specific and public application of Law is in order. “Winsome” preaching is the same in this case as in all others, it is issued from Love – love for God, love for God's Word, and love for God's people.

One aspect of Rev. Webber's sermon (at the head of John's blog entry, above) that I especially appreciated, was his willingness to call out the error of Church Growth by name, to define it and differentiate from true Scriptural teaching. While not at all what I would call polemic, it was still quite effective. Part of the challenge for laymen is in knowing what errors they are to avoid -- some errors are obvious, others are rather subtle. Church Growth theology is both subtle and insidious to those who don't know what to look for. Rev. Webber helps by identifying the error and explaining why it is false. I think more pastors should follow his lead.

Here is the link: http://207.57.94.117/podcast/154012909H2S3.mp3

In today's follow-on segment of “Biblical Examples of Preaching” (1/30), most of the focus was on Peter's sermon in Acts 4, which has direct application to the question, “Are our pastors afraid to address error in public? What do they have to fear?” When Peter accused the Jews in Acts 3, saying, “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses,” he was standing in the Temple courts! He placed himself, and those with him, in mortal danger – and he knew this full well. In fact, they were arrested shortly thereafter. Yet despite this, they continued to stand against the influence of error and refused to be silenced. My understanding is that there are political machinations at work in WELS that would serve to attenuate the witness of our pastors regarding the errors of Church Growth. We very much need them to stand with the boldness of St. Peter.

Here is the link: http://207.57.94.117/podcast/155013009H2S2.mp3

I recognize that such is happening in various quarters of the WELS, even within the ranks of Church and Change. We are told that C&C rejects Church Growth, but discussions within their private forums, which are now being made public, make it clear that their leadership has long been enamoured with false teachers and the teachings of Church Growth -- and that they have insisted on the basis of principle that actively receiving false teachers, and publicly promoting their teachings, is not a Fellowship issue, but is adiaphora. Just today, a poster over on Ichabod copied statements from Rev. Aaron Frey (WELS), issued to the leadership of C&C (and others, it seems), that constitute a clear call to repentance and the rejection of Church Growth theology and the false teachers who promote it. We need more of this from our pastors. The laity is waking up, the issues are public now -- we might as well have it out in the open.

(Of course, it should be noted that the comments were posted to Ichabod anonymously and attributed to Rev. Frey, so maybe those who are on the C&C list can confirm the authenticity and authorship of these comments.)

Here is the link: Comments to Ichabod blog post Will the Words Be Spoken?

Freddy Finkelstein

January 30, 2009 9:10 PM

---


Anonymous said...
Ben,

The NIV translation is wrong. The object of the verb is not "disciples" but "all nations". The apostles were commissioned to "disciple" (i.e. "authoritatively teach") the nations, not to make disciples of all nations. Big difference.

Jamin

January 30, 2009 9:52 PM

---


Freddy Finkelstein said...
Matt 28:18-20, reads, {18} And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All Power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. {19} Go, ye, therefore, and teach [or, 'make disciples of'] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: {20} Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”

The thrust of “teach” or “make disciples of” isn't that we are responsible for a specific result, it's that disciples are made when we carry out what we are commanded by Jesus to do. Whether we use the word “teach” or use the phrase “make disciples,” the words that follow qualify these terms, and define for us precisely how we are expected to carry out this task: Baptize and Teach – the public use of the Means of Grace.

If this sounds simplistic, or even fantastical, I'll submit that Jesus knew full well that His disciples would think the same, and so offers his assurances in the preamble to the Great Commission in v18, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” The authority of Christ stands behind His command to use the Means of Grace, and the power of God attends our use of them. This could not be more clear from this reference.

But this is not the only place in Scripture which points directly to the power and authority of Christ with reference to the use of the Means of Grace. Interestingly, the assurance of God's authority and power in the use of the Means is repeated by St. Peter, who heard the Great Commission firsthand, and who later states, “...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him” (1 Pet. 3:21-22). And to what is Peter attaching the power and authority of the resurrected Christ? Read from the beginning of v21, “Baptism does now also save us... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc...” St. Peter, in this reference, applies the power and authority of Christ to the efficacy of the Means of Grace – specifically, to Baptism. Baptism does save, and St. Peter assures us of this by pointing to the authority of the One who instituted it, Who also pointed to His own authority and power when He commissioned the Church with its use. If the words of Jesus and of St. Peter sound fantastical (and to our human reason, they certainly do), we have the clear promise of Jesus Christ regarding the efficacy of Baptism as a Means of Grace, and by His resurrection, we can have full assurance that He has both the authority to make such promises and the power to keep them.

On the other hand, Church Growth theology/methodology represents the replacement of the Means of Grace – i.e., the Means via which God works to build His Church, in His way and according to His timing – with the use of man's means – i.e., new buildings, contemporary music, the creation of programs of various forms, etc. – all of which stand behind strategies to market the congregation. The objective is an increase in number, in man's time, according to man's narrow concerns. In the most charitable construction, such methods, if they are not intended to replace the Means, are thought to augment the Means. Even so, such regard for the Means constitutes something far less than a faithful and simple trust in God's promises and in His Work through His Means. It represents an anxious apprehension regarding their efficacy.

But Church Growth is more than just a collection of methods. It is a way of thinking about man's effort that makes him a contributor to God's work rather than a Joyful participant in and beneficiary of it. It is a way of thinking about Christian Vocation, that removes it from the context of everyday tasks and virtually limits it to service within the congregation. It is a way of thinking about other Christians that identifies the “spiritually mature” with respect to weaker brothers, generally based on their works of contribution or other outward expression, creating levels of Christians in the congregation and creating a hierarchy of ministerial authority outside the context of the Divine Call. It is a way of thinking about the Means of Grace that leads one to accuse those who trust their efficacy of complacency, of regarding the Means (particularly the Sacraments) as mere opus operatum, and that consequently calls for effort from Christians which, by virtue of the effort, would bring about results Christians would naturally expect from the Holy Spirit by Means of Word and Sacrament – results which they, in fact, work to produce on their own, and which they later refer to as the Holy Spirit's work. Such working does not constitute evangelical zeal, but instead, presumptuous and impatient demands laid by man upon God the Holy Spirit. Church Growth is a theology of glory. It represents a gross overemphasis on Sanctification, and a twisting of it into a teaching of man's service for God. It is present day Pietism, pure and simple. It must be avoided.

True Christians have evangelical zeal. They don't need a command from Christ to know that the Gospel needs to be shared, rather, they are compelled to do so by virtue of the infinite gifts that are freely and assuredly theirs by faith. But thank God He did give us a command, a law that we may use as a guide as we carry out our tasks in this regard. Of all the means our minds may contrive of and work to justify, only His Means are efficacious.

Freddy Finkelstein

January 31, 2009 10:49 AM

---


Anonymous said...
For those who might not have a good Internet connection, so that downloading the audio file might be difficult, the text of Rev. Webber's sermon (in HTML) is on this web page:

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/redeemer.sermons2009jan.html

January 31, 2009 10:53 AM

---


Anonymous said...
"There's nothing wrong with using the make disciples of translation."

Except for the fact that is not what the verb means. If you wish to translate the verb as "disciple" rather than the essence of what the verb is to English hearers, "to teach," fine, but then you must translate the words, "disciple all nations" which is a different thought than to "make disciples of all nations" which is not the sense of what the verb and its direct object convey. You ignore the fact that the direct object is "all nations" and not as the construction in the NIV would have you believe "disciples."

By the way, a disciple is a believer. Therefore you are saying our Lord told his apostles "to make believers of all nations." No. The corollary is Mark 16's "preach the Gospel." That is the commission to the apostles, to preach, or to disciple or to teach, and the Spirit converts where and when it pleases Him.

January 31, 2009 10:57 AM

---


Anonymous said...
Help me understand this. Surely it ultimately comes down to "preach the Word." But I don't think we should simply preach the Word in Greek and Hebrew -- no one would hear the message. So language - that is one thing we are contemporary about. What else can we/should we be contemporary about and what guides that decision?

January 31, 2009 5:12 PM

---


Rick said...
anonymous (January 31, 2009 5:12 PM),

Your premise that use of other languages is "contemporary" is false. The use of other languages dates back to Pentecost: "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them." (Acts 2:4).

The faith God gave us "was once for all entrusted to the saints." (Jude 3). That faith is transmitted through the word of God alone. There is no other way. The faith does not change. The word does not change. The truth does not change. The true Church is not contemporary, she is eternal.

"To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance'" (Matthew 11:16-17).

Rick

February 1, 2009 12:37 PM

---


Anonymous said...
The true Church is contemporary. The church is real and exists today.

You do not need to be afraid to be contemporary in every aspect. We certainly can be contemporary in our language. We do not need to use the archaic "thee"s and "thou"s but can use the more contemporary "you." Most churches are contemporary in their gathering. They come together in churches built in recent decades with modern facilities; heat, electricity, often audio amplification, etc. Unless you're Amish?

February 1, 2009 10:15 PM

---


Anonymous said...
"The true Church is contemporary. The church is real and exists today."

In a sense this is true, but we must also remember that the true Church is ancient, rooted in history.

Just think of how many times in the New Testament we are encouraged to remember those who have gone before, imitate them, honor and respect and obey them, etc. Most of these encouragements come from St. Paul himself, whose writings have been manhandled to make Paul seem like a radical church growth supporter.

It's been said that our generation is the first in the history of the Church who have been selfish enough to put our own contemporary fads ahead of the tradition and wisdom of the previous generations. That's sad and scary.

The apostolic church went to great pains to emphasize the fact that it was not some new, contemporary thing, but rather that it was the true representation of the historic faith of Abraham. Read Stephen's speech for an example of this.

The Lutheran church also went to great pains to emphasize that it was not some new, radical group, but rather that it was the true descendant of the historic, apostolic, catholic church.

If those who went before us made a point of stressing the historical and traditional nature of the Church, then why do so many today claim that the Church must become radical and contemporary? Do we honestly believe that CG gurus are wiser than the apostles?

February 2, 2009 9:44 AM

---


Benjamin Tomczak said...
The last few comments here help us see why the term "contemporary" isn't very helpful in our discussions. Even the most liturgical among us won't object to the fact that that not everything stopped when Luther died.

Likewise, that means "traditional," in and of itself, isn't always the most satisfying term. Because for some traditional means "what's been done since I was born" and for others it refers to what's been done since there have been Lutherans, and for yet others, what the Popes and Councils tell me, and for others, what the Bible says and only what's explicitly described and allowed in the Bible.

The terms "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" aren't super helpful either, because even the so-called "contemporary" (and we'll use that term here since it's still commonly accepted) styles of worship have a liturgy, that is, an order, a rite, an organized ritual.

I don't know that at the moment I have an answer to what terms we should use in place of "traditional" and "contemporary" and "liturgical" and "non-liturgical."

It's unfortunate that in America the term "evangelical" has been hijacked so that we can't use that as a descriptor of our worship and focus on worship that is evangelical or non-evangelical (by Evangelical I would mean, gospel-oriented, Christ-centered, means of grace administering.)

******************************

On a separate note, the second lessons for the season of Epiphany are from 1 Corinthians 6-9 this year. That means talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols and being all things to all people.

Two points that struck me in my text study that apply to many of the discussions we have here in regards to worship styles, forms, liturgy, preaching, evangelism and outreach, etc.

1) In chapter 8, Paul indicates that eating idol meat is a totally free thing. It doesn't make you better if you eat it or don't eat it. The determining factor in whether or not you eat it is the effect your eating has on your brother. If you're doing a free thing causing a brother or sister with a weak conscience on an issue to stumble and fall, that is, to sin by doing something they wouldn't normally do, then stop doing it. Paul says he would never eat meat again if eating meat would cause his brother to sin.

(NB: This only applies to situations where actual freedom has been imparted by God, that is, where He has not commanded or forbidden a certain behavior, i.e., true adiaphora).

2) In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul says, famously, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." A more wooden translation reflecting the Greek goes something like this: "To everyone I have become everything, so that certainly some I will save."

Usually, this text is used to support any and every use of freedom that is possible. And, in a sense, that's true. Paul says since I'm free, I enslave myself to everyone for the goal of winning them. To Jews, I'm like a Jew. To non-Jews I can be like a non-Jew. To the weak, I'm like the weak.

But notice the context. Paul speaks these words in the context of giving up one of his freedoms -- being paid to proclaim the Gospel. Among Jews, he gives up the right, to worship on the Lord's Day, and goes to Synagogue on Sunday, so as to win them. Among non-Jews, He gives up his right to eat kosher, so as to win them. Among the weak, he gives up the right to eat idol meat, so as to win them.

While these verses can be applied to our freedom to do things, they are also applied to our freedom to refrain from doing things. And as chapter 8 makes clear, that is a freedom often practiced among Christians. The strong (those who know they are free to do x, y, or z) will slow down for the sake of the less strong. Whether the "Strong" in this case are those pushing for more variety and different styles, more instruments, different instruments, the contemporary, less formal, or more casual, or whatever else you want to call it, in worship or those pushing for more of a return to liturgical, traditional, catholic, ceremonial, and ritual forms.

We look at our brothers and sisters around us and say, "How can I love them by what I do?" Luther did this in the 1520s, when instead of following Karlstadt and immediately forcing the Sacrament in both kinds upon people (even though Biblically correct), he advised patiently teaching and instructing so that they would not be sinning in their taking of the Sacrament.

(We note also that a time did come when Luther said, "Enough. We've taught enough. The Gospel has been made clear. It's not a matter of weak consciences anymore.")

I'm afraid that people on both sides have ignored the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 8-9, even under the mantle of saying, "I'm being all things to all people!"

Note the conservative nature of Paul's use of freedom in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-9, right alongside the radical nature of our freedom announced by the Lord to the apostles throughout the Gospels ("The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath," "It's not what goes into a man that makes him unclean..."), to Peter on that rooftop (Acts 9-10), and by Paul to the Colossians ("Let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival...").

Note also that this freedom was almost always in the context of freedom from self-righteous law-keeping. It was a sola gratia, sola fide freedom, not a "I'm doing it because I'm free and can do it" kind of freedom.

Note also that this same interesting relationship between radicalism and conservatism is embodied in the Confessions. The treatment of Confession is radically freed from the tyrannical abuses of the past, so to is the Sacrament, the use of vows, the Mass, prayer, and repentance.

And yet, as others have pointed out, the Reformers went to long lengths to show that they had not separated themselves in their freedom from the Holy Christian Church by their practice of the Mass, their use of the rites and rituals of the Church Universal, and then, most importantly, in their teachings and beliefs, as they stood next to Scripture and the ancient fathers. Article X of the Formula of Concord too lays out this both radical and conservative form as they agree that local churches are free in the rites, forms, and rituals they use, and may change things to suit their circumstances, and yet, they do this slowly, carefully, without offending those around them.

And the truth is that Luther too embodied both this radical and conservative formula. He saw the need and desired to keep so many of the "traditional" things. Yet he was also able to write to others about not getting hung up on rite and ritual. Rather than seeing this merely as "young Luther" or "old Luther," we can resolve this tension by acknowledging that it's not either/or but both/and. To be Scriptural and Confessional, that is, to be truly Lutheran, is to be both radical and conservative. The key is that Lutherans know when to be which.

Pr. Benjamin Tomczak

February 2, 2009 10:05 AM

---


Anonymous said...
I'm still not convinced by any of the confessional crusaders that anything is being done wrong in 'comtemporary' settings. We are all free to worship as we wish as long as it is Biblical. So worship as you wish according to your own preferences. Make sure you are not taking offense when none was given. Contemporary is no more a mandate than what traditional is. It is different and not meant to take the place of. It is merely an addition to.

JK

February 2, 2009 10:26 PM

---


Anonymous said...
"We are all free to worship as we wish as long as it is Biblical."

No! This is what you don't understand. We are bound by the Confessions that we have sworn to uphold. Thus, if you use "contemporary" worship, you are going against the Confessions, and cannot, by definition, be Lutheran.

Besides, as another person said a few comments ago, the Bible makes it very clear that we are to respect and obey the generations of believers who have gone before us. "Contemporary" worship spits on the form of worship and form of belief that has been passed down to us by 2000+ years of faithful Christians. Thus, not only is "contemporary" worship not Confessional, it's not Biblical either.

February 3, 2009 7:07 AM

---


Anonymous said...
My understanding has been that all WELS pastors and all WELS congregations are united in doctrine and practice. At least that is what was taught to me in adult instructions. This is all very confusing to me now. Can someone explain to me how this is still unity in doctrine and practice?
Thank-you.

February 3, 2009 8:34 AM

---


Anonymous said...
This statement is in the WELS "This We Believe" that my pastor gave me before I was confirmed as an adult:


"12. We reject as false ecumenicity any views that look for the true unity of the church in some form of external or organizational union, and we oppose all movements toward such union made at the expense of a clear confession of all the teachings of Scripture. We reject the contention that religious fellowship may be practiced without agreement in doctrine and practice. There must be agreement in the confession of scriptural doctrines, and also one’s actions or practice must show that error is not tolerated."

So I am very confused with what looks to me like disunity in practice.
Thank-you.

February 3, 2009 8:41 AM

---


Anonymous said...
"Thus, if you use "contemporary" worship, you are going against the Confessions, and cannot, by definition, be Lutheran."

How so?

February 3, 2009 8:54 AM

---


Anonymous said...
"How so?"

The Confessions clearly state that the Lutheran church is catholic and liturgical. Contemporary worship, by its very nature, is both anti-catholic and anti-liturgical. Thus, Confessional Lutheranism and contemporary worship are opposed to each other. A congregation which practices contemporary worship cannot be considered a Confessional Lutheran congregation, since they have violated what the Confessions say.

It would make things so much easier if the contemporary congregations in the WELS, rather than pussy-footing around the Confessions and giving them lip service, would simply say, "No, we reject what the Confessions say about worship. We are not a Confessional Lutheran church." They already deny the Confessions in practice, why not be honest about it?

February 3, 2009 9:28 AM

---


Anonymous said...
"The Confessions clearly state that the Lutheran church is catholic and liturgical. Contemporary worship, by its very nature, is both anti-catholic and anti-liturgical."

How so?

(You are reasoning in a circle, by the way.)

February 3, 2009 10:09 AM

---


Anonymous said...
The Confessions don't reject it. Show me where you think it says that. You are making the Confessions above scripture when you say what you do about worship. You are causing division and making a judgement on the heart. This is a sin. Jesus also warns against taking oaths. We already have he Bible.

From Matthew 5:

Oaths
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

JK

February 3, 2009 10:32 AM

---


Anonymous said...
"How so?"

I'm not sure I understand what information you are looking for. You want me to quote the parts of the Confessions that assert that the Lutheran church is catholic and liturgical? If so, I'd suggest that you read and study the Confessions on your own. Supporters of contemporary worship generally have a very weak grasp on the Confessions.

But let's start with this: "Wrongly are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass." This statement is made in the Confessions to silence those accusing the Lutheran church of being a bunch of radicals who were just making up their own worship forms. The Lutherans wanted to make clear that they still used the Mass--that they were still catholic and liturgical. Unfortunately, if we were writing the Confessions today, we would have to say, "Rightly are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass."

"(You are reasoning in a circle, by the way.)"

How so? Reasoning from Scripture and the Confessions is never circular, unless you don't see the Confessions as binding.

February 3, 2009 11:10 AM

---


Anonymous said...
JK, I think you need to study the Scriptures a bit more. Scripture most certainly does NOT warn against taking oaths. It warns about taking frivolous oaths. Are you seriously suggesting that a pastor's ordination vow, in which he swears to uphold Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, is a frivolous oath? Sadly, it seems that you do. (You had better go warn your pastor that he has been living a life of sin since the day of his ordination.)

Well, at least we now have solid proof that the contemporary crowd rejects the Lutheran Confessions. Not only does JK not have a quia subscription to the Confessions, he feels any subscription to the Confessions is sinful! Yikes.

February 3, 2009 11:16 AM

---


Anonymous said...
WELS does not regard the Confessions (Book of Concord) above Scripture. The official Doctrinal Statement reads: "As a synod we do not formulate doctrinal declarations on a regular basis. We confess the full inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures and their binding authority in all matters of doctrine. The three ecumenical creeds, the primary creedal statements of historic Christianity, summarize well our faith. In addition, we wholeheartedly subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions (contained in the Book of Concord of 1580) because they are correct expositions of biblical truth. Since our Christian and Evangelical Lutheran forefathers have bequeathed us such accurate and comprehensive doctrinal affirmations, we seldom feel the need to draft additional ones."

The key sentence is:
"In addition, we wholeheartedly subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions (contained in the Book of Concord of 1580) BECAUSE THEY ARE CORRECT EXPOSITIONS OF BIBLICAL TRUTH."

According to WELS doctrine the Lutheran Confessions are neither above nor below Scripture...but correct expositions.

I don't think that leaves room for debating. Please correct me if I am wrong. I was confirmed into WELS as an adult and what was once clear for me is now confusing me.

February 3, 2009 11:54 AM

---


Anonymous said...
Please do not regard JK as representative of the "contemporary crowd" or of WELS belief in general. It is clear from his posts that he does not have a strong theological grasp of WELS doctrine.

February 3, 2009 12:39 PM

[He represents everything Church and Change stands for. Ask Don Patterson.]

---


Anonymous said...
But what exactly is "the Mass"? Our concept of a church service already varies in many aspects from "the Mass" of 1580. Reading Scripture and the Sacraments (the means of Grace)? That many contemporary services have (as many as traditional services do). Or must "the Mass" have the songs of the Church - the Agnus Dei, Gloria, Sanctus, etc... What parts of the liturgy are required to make "the Mass" confessional??? I don't think the confessions answer this.

February 3, 2009 12:47 PM

---


Rick said...
First, we start with "contemporary" praise songs that do not proclaim the gospel. Then, we begin preaching sermons about time management, relationship counseling, and psychological well-being. Finally, we drop our plea for mercy (Kyrie) from the liturgy, and water down our confession of sins into vague statements about how we aren't trying hard enough. And we do it all to attract the unchurched, but at what cost?

Paul declares his freedom, but then proclaims himself a slave. (1Co 9:19). A slave to what? The Jewish law? The consciences of the weak? No. He is a slave to the gospel. Paul sought to "become all things to all men" for "the sake of the gospel." (1Co 9:23). Paul also writes in verse 16, "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"

Lutherans are supposed to proclaim the gospel in a way that is true, clear, loud, and pure. Our Confessions declare this in word and deed from beginning to end: The Word of God alone saves. If we intentionally obscure that fact in any way to attract the unchurched, then we cannot claim to be Christian much less "Confessional."

February 3, 2009 12:53 PM

---

Anonymous said...
"According to WELS doctrine the Lutheran Confessions are neither above nor below Scripture...but correct expositions."

Exactly. That's why rejecting what the Confessions say about worship is tantamount to rejecting God's Word. In other words, you can't claim to be worshiping according to the Bible if you don't worship according to the Confessions.

February 3, 2009 1:00 PM

---


Anonymous said...
"It is clear from his posts that he does not have a strong theological grasp of WELS doctrine."

Perhaps that's because he worships in a rock and roll, church growth church which has no need for doctrine.

February 3, 2009 1:02 PM

---

Anonymous said...
I'm not questioning WELS doctrine or the validity of the Lutheran Confessions. I am questioning certain attitudes and motives regarding them.

Unfortunately I can't copy and paste from a .pdf but if you go to article 7 of the Augsburg Confession, you will see you are in error. The Confessions do not say we have to have uniform worship.

I am not questioning the oaths of our called workers or regard the oaths as frivilous. But the attitudes of some folks on here as they interpret the confessions and the oath are just wrong and taken out of context.

JK

February 3, 2009 2:09 PM

---


Anonymous said...
What exactly is meant in the WELS Doctrinal Statement which claims WELS congregations and pastors are united in doctrine and practice?

Not too many years ago we knew exactly what to expect when we walked into any WELS congregation and we were comfortable worshiping in any WELS congregation. It is no longer that way because the practices are no longer in unity. There is a very large gap in the practices among WELS congregations now.

My question remains then - why does WELS Doctrinal Statement say the congregations are united in doctrine and practice? What am I missing here?

Is it possible that it will be voted at the next convention that WELS will now just be united in doctrine but not in practice? Is that okay? I'm just trying to get a grasp on this because I thought I knew what I was joining when I became WELS but now it seems like a different church.
Thank-you.

February 3, 2009 3:10 PM

---

Anonymous said...
"Unfortunately I can't copy and paste from a .pdf but if you go to article 7 of the Augsburg Confession, you will see you are in error. The Confessions do not say we have to have uniform worship."

Ugh. I knew JK was going to go there. What's being discussed in this article are minor variations in the way that the Mass (the Western Rite) was conducted from place to place. The same thing happens today with liturgical churches: for example, you go to one church and the choir sings the Verse of the Day, you go to another and the pastor speaks the Verse of the Day, etc. Those are the kind of variations that the Confessions speak about.

You have to remember that when the Confessions were written, the Roman Church insisted on absolute uniformity in the way that the Mass was celebrated. This article simply says that there may be small variations.

What this article does NOT say is that congregations are free to stop using the liturgy and invent an entirely new form of worship. That would have been scandalous in those days (and still should be today)! The Anabaptists did just that, rejecting the Western Rite, in order to show that they were not connected to the 1500+ history of the Church. Both the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans roundly denounced what the Anabaptists were doing.

"I am not questioning the oaths of our called workers or regard the oaths as frivilous."

Really? Then why did you quote Scripture and claim that taking oaths is sinful? Sorry, you can't just ignore what you said so easily. Perhaps you ought to apologize to every pastor reading this blog for the false accusations of sin you made against them.

"But the attitudes of some folks on here as they interpret the confessions and the oath are just wrong and taken out of context."

Well, as I pointed out above, you are the one guilty of interpreting the Confessions wrongly and taking them out of context.

February 3, 2009 3:11 PM

---


Anonymous said...
"My question remains then - why does WELS Doctrinal Statement say the congregations are united in doctrine and practice? What am I missing here?"

You're not missing anything here. You have a very valid concern. You're absolutely right when you observe that the WELS is not united in practice. I'm also becoming more and more convinced that we aren't united in doctrine either.

The only comfort that I can give you is that President Schroeder seems committed to addressing this problem. Only time will tell if he is successful in doing this.

February 3, 2009 3:27 PM

---


Not Alone +++ PAS said...
Regarding AC VII, it does not say that uniformity in worship is not necessary for the true unity of the Church. It says that uniformity in the ceremonies instituted by men are not necessary.

This is a very different thing. In agreement with the Scriptures AC VII says that uniformity of worship MUST be maintained, defined as the pure preaching of the Gospel and the pure administration of the Sacraments.

This uniformity cannot be maintained while discarding the elements of the leiturgia. For these elements of the service are necessary for the pure administration of the Gospel and Sacraments.

Certain things cannot be changed without changing the very nature of the divine service.

What is often labeled as the "style" of worship is not innate. Style impacts what is conveyed.

Moreover, changes in style change what is actually preached and confessed. By changing the style without consideration of the rest of the Church, one declares that the impact upon others does not matter and that what one wants for self is more important than what is good for all.

Thus, even in the same stupid congregation there may be three or even four styles of worship, thereby guaranteeing choices to be made and divisions formed within the congregation. People say, "This is my service" and "That is their service" and "I won't ever have anything to do with their service" and "This is what is best for . . . ME."

February 3, 2009 4:07 PM

---


Not Alone +++ PAS said...
Regarding Dr. Webber's sermon, I am very happy to have heard and read it. However, there is a serious error in the sermon, which I have addressed on my blog separately for anyone who cares to consider it.

Nevertheless, thanks for drawing attention to his sermon. He says many wonderful things well worthy of notice.

February 3, 2009 4:10 PM

---


Anonymous said...
Being united in practice doesn't mean that we do things in the same way but that we put doctrine into action.

Let's use the Lord's Supper as a case in point. WELS Churches believe from the Bible that in the Sacrament of Holy Communion Jesus gives us his very body and blood for forgiveness and that those who don't believe or don't understand or who believe something other than we believe will not be communed at our altars out of love for the truth of God's Word and love for their souls.

Unity in practice means that WELS churches will celebrate Holy Communion and that they will do so in a way that guards the truth of God's Word and the souls of people.

Unity in practice doesn't meant that every WELS church offers Communion on the first and third Sundays of the month using only the Chalice on the first Sunday and individual cups on the third Sunday, using King Solomon concord grape wine and whole wheat wafers, not gluten free wafers because that's how my church does it or because there is a Synod rule. Making rules where God does not is putting words into God's mouth and binding consciences where God's Word does not bind them.

To fail to offer Holy Communion or not observe Close Communion would be not acting in unity of practice. How an individual congregation decides to offer Communion, in what manner of distribution, the frequency of distribution and other matters pertaining to Communion is left in Christian freedom to the discretion of the congregation.

Interestingly, to insist on one way of doing Communion, on the same Sunday of the month, utilizing the same manner of distribution just because that's how your church does it is also a break in the unity of practice.

Now draw that out to other issues. Practice doesn't mean that we necessarily do things in the same way but how doctrines are put into action. Unity of practice is being faithful to God's Word. Unity of practice is not WELS people who are traveling being sure that they will be comfortable when they attend a sister church with "comfortable" meaning that the church somewhere else will be just like the church back home.

February 3, 2009 4:49 PM

---


I believe that President Schroeder has laid down the gauntlet. Behing every confessional Church is a confessional pastor.

Here is a recent sermon by Rev. Webber denouncing the CG movement:

http://www.lutheransource.net/Redeemer/jan2509.wav

I wonder if other WELS or ELS pastors are following the lead of Pres. Schroeder and speaking out against Church Growth from the pulpit.

As we look to continue this grass roots movement I ask laymen (or pastors) to please post any sermons or articles speaking out againg church growth (church and change).
posted by John at 10:06 PM on Jan 28, 2009

Godspell Review - From My Film Course

John the Baptist (l) and Jesus (r.) dancing. The Jesus actor became the ship builder in Titanic and the crying male friend in Sleepless in Seattle. The Toronto actors included Gilda Radner and Paul Schaefer.

Godspell
Gregory L. Jackson
Regent University

Those who recall the 1960s, fondly or with regret, cannot forget the national interest caused by Godspell, the first Jesus film to break the pattern of the Biblical saga. Set in New York City, the movie opens with John the Baptist gathering disciples and baptizing Jesus, who is dressed as a clown and sports a heart on his forehead. Some might see Godspell as a hippy Jesus, an expression of the moment, but the movie really represents the culmination of Bultmann’s agenda in Biblical studies (Holding, 2009). This is Jesus from the 1960s demythologizing and remythologizing Bible, a moral teacher who died on the cross and did not rise from the dead (Deacy, 2007). Rather than portraying great agony over his identity, as Jesus Christ Superstar or The Last Temptation of Christ did later, Godspell presented Jesus in a perfectly appealing way for liberals from New York City, where it began. The film could be enjoyed by the Jesus people of that era or by mainline clergy, who hailed it at the Toronto premiere. An Episcopal priest, A. D. Brown cautioned that "it might have been thought of as blasphemy 20 years ago (Toronto Globe and Mail, 1972)."

Godspell is a delightful romp, full of dancing and singing, with several classics (Day by Day, Turn Back O Man) sung in creative, funny, or appealing ways. The musical began as John Trebelak’s master’s thesis project at Carnegie-Mellon University, 1970. The original lyrics were all from the Episcopal hymnal. After an experimental run at Café LaMaMa, the production moved to the off Broadway Cherry Lane Theatre in 1971. Steven Schwartz, from Carnegie Mellon, was hired to write a new score, adding original songs to the modernized hymns. Godspell moved to Broadway in 1976, ran for 576 performances, and became a movie in 1973 (Patches and Face Paint, 2009). Local theatre productions in Los Angeles, Boston, and Toronto doubtless added to the excitement of the film’s premiere.

Godspell is advertised as a version of Matthew’s Gospel, but that premise is true only if one accepts the Bultmann program, better explained by a teen in the 1970s. She described her lack of interest in a Bible study: “We don’t care who Jesus was then. We only care who Jesus is today!” So Godspell offered a Jefferson Bible approach to Jesus – a gentle teacher of moral tales, a human being, a unique individual. The film is a-historical; that is, history does not matter at all for the narration. Strangely, Jesus has men and women disciples, four each. Also, John the Baptist continues to follow Jesus, in spite of his beheading in the Gospel, then turns into Judas Iscariot, betraying Jesus but forgiven. Jesus is a gentle clown figure, very winsome with a great singing voice and dancing talent. A stranger would have trouble imagining why Jesus was betrayed and killed, since he is such an appealing figure in the film. Thus the foundation of the film cannot support the ending. The Last Supper and crucifixion are strange endings for the happy-go-lucky clowns, who carry out the dead body of their leader.

Baugh compared Godspell to Jesus Christ Superstar in this way: Superstar is a Passion Play. Godspell ends with the Last Supper and Passion, but as brief scenes disconnected to the first part of the film (Baugh, 1997, p. 43). Godspell is impressionistic, unassuming, with a low budget and no-name actors. Baugh argues that Jesus is presented as the divine Son of God in the film, and some scenes can be taken that way: the prologue, the prayer in the Garden, the Last Supper. However, if one sticks with impressions given, this Messianic figure is fun rather than polarizing. Apart from his dialogue with the Pharisee monster, who is activated by his followers, Jesus is non-threatening. The Parable of the Last Judgment has him separating the sheep from the goats, then inviting the goats up into the Kingdom. Judgment Day is Universalistic, because God is just too nice to condemn anyone.

Godspell is really a forerunner of the Church Growth Movement, which continues to teach the liberal program: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross (Niebuhr, 1937, p. 193)." One can also see the influence of Hinduism in portraying Jesus as the Lord of the Dance, a figure borrowed from India, where Shiva’s title is Nataraja – Lord of the Dance. The juxtaposition of Jesus as a dancing clown and as the crucified Messiah struggles as awkwardly in Godspell as it does in the modern hymn (1963), Lord of the Dance:

I danced on a Friday and the sky turned black;
It’s hard to dance with the devil on your back;
They buried my body and they thought I’d gone,
But I am the dance and I still go on.
Dance, then, wherever you may be;
I am the Lord of the Dance, said he.
And I’ll lead you all wherever you may be,
And I’ll lead you all in the dance, said he (Carter, 1963).

Godspell represents a welcome break from the overly somber and melodramatic Jesus films of the past, but the Gospel message is lost in the amusing digressions from the actual narrative, the new mythology of a dancing god. A simple portrayal of the verbatim record in the Gospel is going to have a greater impact than a joyful, mystical, impressionistic experience.

References
Baugh, L. (1997). Imagining the Divine, Jesus and Christ-figures in Film. Franklin, Wisconsin: Sheed and Ward.
Carter, S. B. (1963). Lord of the dance. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://nethymnal.org/htm/l/o/r/lordoftd.htm
Deacy, C. (2007). From Bultmann to Burton, Demythologizing the Big Fish. In R. K. Johnston (Ed.), Reframing Theology and Film (pp. 238-260). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Holding, J. P. (2009). Rudolph Bultmann. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from http://www.tektonics.org/af/bultmann01.html
Niebuhr, H. R. (1937). The Kingdom of God in America. New York: Harper and Row.
Patches and Face Paint, (2009). Godspell, Original Cast. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from http://patchesandfacepaint.tripod.com/offbroadway.html
Toronto Globe and Mail, (1972, May 26, 1972). Clergymen seem to like Godspell. Toronto Globe and Mail. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from http://www.godspell.ca/reviews.htm

My Proof-reader Speakz

ELZ news from the Prez - February 2009

Congratulations
Vicar Kyle Madson and his wife Alicia were blessed with a baby girl, Adela Claire, on January 19.

Prayer Requests
We ask that you would please keep Rev. David Meyer and family in your prayers. David had successful vascular surgery in order to bypass an aneurism in his upper chest on January 16. We pray that the Lord enables him to have a full recovery.

We pray also for Pastor John Vogt, his wife Sandy and family. Both John’s father and mother were called home to heaven in the month of January; his father on January 13 and his mother on January 23.

Continue to ask the Lord’s blessing and healing upon Pastor Harvey Abrahamson’s wife, Ruth. Ruth now has returned home from Rochester, MN, following a surgery for removal of cancer.

We have learned recently that Pastor Dan Sabrowsky died during the month of January. Please keep his family in your prayers. During retirement, Pastor Sabrowsky had been living in Washington state.

March Colloquy
Rev. Joseph Burkhardt, who serves at Ascension Lutheran in St. Helens, Oregon, is requesting colloquy for reinstatement as a clergyman of the synod. Ascension Lutheran is requesting membership in the ELS. Tentatively a date of March 24, 2009, has been set aside for the colloquy. Any information concerning the colloquy should be sent to the Office of the President.

(The first part of this message was taken directly from the President's Newsletter. The following comments are made by Norman Teigen, the owner of this blog.) The Prez also includes a statement in his February Newsletter from WELS President Schroeder. The WELZ Prez announced the WELZ Conference of Presidents (how many Presidents are there in the WELZ?) is convening an ad hoc committee to address the issue of the "synod's faithfulness to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions" and some "new and different approaches and methods" of doing church work.

The story behind this is that there is a movement within the WELZ called 'Church and Change' which wants to take a new look at how church matters are handled. This has caused a stir within the WELZ and is so pervasive (apparently) that it has made the officialdom sit up and take notice. The movement must have something to it, otherwise the officialdom could and would ignore it.

The church has always struggled between orthodoxy and meeting the world. There is nothing new in any of this.

Church Door Symposium

Leadership for WELS Women: Recognize Their Existence,
Value and Equip Them, Use Them or Lose Them

By Katherine Wendland

This article is derived from the transcript of a presentation made by Mrs. Wendland at the first annual Church Door
Symposium held February 29 and March 1, 2004, at Wisconsin Lutheran College.

Good afternoon. This presentation is going to be different from what most of us are used to and it’s intentional. For one thing, I had three introductions but I couldn’t decide which one to use. Therefore, I’ll be incorporating all of them. Women do that. We don’t like to exclude things. We like to gather things in and not let anyone or anything get left out.

About five years ago, I was listening to a sermon in Africa and its presentation really struck me. Pastor Hachibamba began by saying, “Sometimes when you hear a sermon, you’ll have a theme and then you’ll have parts and it’s all nice and logical. I’m not going to do that.” He said, “Sometimes when you hear a sermon, you could describe it as spiral. You’ll touch on a point and then you’ll come around and pick it up again and expand and pick it up again and expand.” He said, “I’m not going to do that either.” He went through about three or four of those. Then he said, “Sometimes a sermon is preached in which it starts out with a lot of information, comes to a point and then makes the application expanding out again. That’s what I’m going to do today.” To this day, years later, I remember that sermon text and what that sermon was about because he told us ahead of time what he was going to do.

Introduction number one: I’m going to explain ahead of time what I’m going to do. This is going to be a presentation which is very “female.” This will be similar to reading Ecclesiastes or the Gospel of John. Those who have studied either of these books or simply read them, knows that from the start it feels as if one is spinning. The spinning continues until it feels one just might spin out of control. That’s what this presentation is going to be like because that’s the way women think. It’s going to be more reflective and thematic as opposed to being exegetic. I’m not going to be looking at individual words or things. I’m looking at the big picture. That’s the way we women think. There’s going to be more emphasis on perception of the facts than on facts in isolation from perception. This is a big point, and when we get to it, I’m going to expand it further.

Finally, there’s going to be a noted contrast to the straight-line, “flat-line” thinking that most of our WELS men and leaders are comfortable with. I have to explain a bit. “Flat-line.” I’m a nurse. One is supposed to be seeing a bleep, bleep, bleep on the heart monitor. When it’s flat, the heart is not working. The person is dead! That’s not good! The style I’m using is not going to be better than or worse than the “flat-line,” It’s going to be different. It’s going to be pointing out key differences in men and women thought patters. Women tend to think in constantly spiraling circular patterns. We have a word for that in my profession, too. It’s called torsa de pointe. It reflects a semi-erratic electrical conduction that’s incapable of pumping blood which also kills people. If we want to maintain life, when we’re working together in mixed groups of men and women, we need to simulate a life sustaining pattern of electrical activity reflecting a heart beat and regular flat-line intervals. Either extreme can’t support life.

I be using a “flat-line/torsa de pointe” combination in this presentation, but it’s probably going to be more torsa de pointe than flat-line. My prayer is for presentation to encourage debate and exploration on this issue. I’m not standing here to say the way it ought to be and to argue why it should be a certain way because I don’t know how it should be. But I do intend to put some issues out there to help our men develop insight into where Christian women are coming from. And hopefully, like putting this paper together helped me, we women will be able to better articulate where we’re coming from. Failure to clearly articulate our thoughts in words our Christian brothers can follow is a big part of the problem. That was introduction number one.

Introduction number two: A woman speaking to a mixed group on women leadership isn’t common in the WELS. Has it ever happened before? Actually having a woman talking about women’s leadership to a group of WELS leaders? I’m not aware of it, if it has. To initiate something like this is very uncharacteristic of me. In my life, I have found myself in leadership positions. I have found myself speaking at retreats. I have found myself in administrative positions. I have found myself working overseas in the American embassy and Canadian High Commission health units. Not once did I seek any of those positions. Not once did I go after them or say, “I want to do this and I’m going to lobby for it and I’m going to get it.”

The only other time I pursued something was when I began a woman led women’s Bible study ten years ago. What pushed me in that instance was two-fold. First, I know what it takes for me to focus and to make sure that I am in Scripture regularly, and for me that means to teach. If I’m not teaching, I’ll put it off and I won’t quite get to it. Second, I had really tuned in to my younger sisters and sisters-in-law. These are the women who are raising the next generation. As my sister said, “You know, if the pastor doesn’t have everything in the first and last sentences of his sermon, I get nothing.” From the time our young moms go to church with their oldest child until the youngest child has graduated from high school, through the sermon, through the service, she is involved with them. She can’t be getting much out of the sermon. At that time, women in our congregation who had young children were discouraged from being at Bible class because the children were distracting to others. What was happening was these mothers, who are responsible for the care of their children, weren’t being spiritually fed, - it’s outflow all the time for them. The only way to change the situation was to have a woman led Bible study where they could feel comfortable with their nursing babies, could sit down and work together. That situation is what it took to get me to step forward and say, “I have to do this.” Today is only the second time in my life I’ve stepped forward without an invitation and said, “I have to do this.” But the reason is coming later.

Introduction number three: This was actually going to be in the conclusion. However, I tend to talk too long so the conclusion gets dropped. I didn’t want to do that because this point is important, so important it needs to be up front. Much of what I’m presenting could come across as being negative or complaining. It isn’t. The reason it isn’t is because the men and the leaders of the WELS have already opened the door for women in leadership. I need to thank them. If it weren’t for the Commission on Adult Discipleship, the Parish Planning people, or the Christian men in my family - my father and my husband, among others - I wouldn’t be here today. They have already opened the door and have affirmed that I, as a Christian woman, have something to offer. That is what’s giving me the courage to be here. So I want to start by saying “thank you” to those in our WELS leadership who have recognized that 50% of our church body has been under-utilized. These men are just as anxious as we women to open the door so we’re all working together. Christian men and women working together in Kingdom work is the point of this presentation.

All authority to deal with women and leadership roles in the WELS rests with the men. This is a truth. We hear a lot about empowering women in our world today. The truth is you can’t empower women. I hear a similar mantra in Central Africa. Empower women because that’s how you’re going to take care of the AIDS epidemic. Empower women? You can’t empower women. No matter what you say, the man standing next to a woman is bigger and stronger. You can’t give someone strength. You can’t empower the women in our synod either. No matter how you look at it, this authority, this headship role, the power in the church has been given to men. God made them for it. He made their brains for it. He made their physiques for it. You can’t give power to women. So the only way that current situation can change in our synod is if our Christian brothers pick it up, open the doors, walk ahead of us, and are then also behind us. Obstacles to moving forward will be presented by our women as much as by some of our men. Why that is I’ll discuss a little bit later in this presentation.

It’s time for some “flat-line” thinking. The following is an outline of the rest of the presentation. Point one: In a woman’s mind, leadership and authority are not synonyms. Women don’t lead by exercising authority. If we look at our homes, at the women in our homes, how do we women lead? We don’t lead by saying “because I said so,” unless we’re dealing with a little kid. Women lead by encouraging, by enticing, by being a colleague or a friend. That’s the way we women lead. When women are talking about leadership, about wanting a leadership position, about looking for a leadership position, or about being a leader in their congregations, they are not talking about wanting to exercise authority. So we don’t need to be told we can’t do what we’re not asking to do. Women see leadership and authority as very distinct and separate entities.

Point two: Women in today’s WELS churches are leaders, just as they are in their own homes. This has been true for the entire history of the WELS and of the Christian Church. Recognize the truth of this fact. We’re not going to be debating whether or not women ought to be leaders in the Church. The fact is women are leaders in the Church. As a group we’re just not seeing them, not recognizing them. Recognize, value and develop the leadership abilities of the gifted women the Lord has given the WELS. They are there. Learn to see them. Don’t be looking past them.

Why don’t we see them? Here is another difference between men and women and the way our brains work. When men are pointed in a certain direction it’s like a heat-seeking missile. They cannot see anything other than what they’ve “locked in” on and that’s good. That serves the Church very well. When the truth of Scripture is at stake we don’t want to be deterred from it. To be locked in on the truth is exactly what the Church needs. That’s why men are in the authority positions in the Church. However, when you’re locked on to authority in the church, sometimes other forms of leadership aren’t seen. It’s not that women’s leadership doesn’t exist it’s simply not recognized as women’s leadership styles are different.

Point three: WELS women leaders: use them or lose them. So, now that we’ve established where we’re headed, let’s go back to the beginning. In a woman’s mind leadership and authority are not synonyms. In a woman’s mind the definition of a leader is something like this: A leader is someone who notices that every time she stops suddenly, someone is crashing into her from the rear. We discover we are leaders. We don’t seek to be leaders. Those of us who have had this “crashing-into-the-rear” experience have been noticing it from the time we were little kids. We can’t even tell you why. Utilizing this definition, how many mothers are not leaders? How many of them can stop suddenly and not have this cascade of little kids run into them from the back?

Mothers are leaders. An article in USA Today less than a year ago about leadership made the point that stay-at-home moms were honing their leadership skills, which actually prepared them for leadership roles in the secular world. Using our definition of leadership, we learn to find women leaders by looking for those women who take a step in one direction and sure enough, there is a crowd behind them. They take a step in another direction and, sure enough, there’s a crowd behind them.

What is a leader then? How is it separate from exercising authority? When we look it up in the dictionary, it’s really pretty clear. A leader is someone who is out front. It is the opposite of a follower. If you’re not a follower, you likely grew up like I did with a mother who said, “If everyone else jumps in the lake are you going to?” You thereby learned to not be a follower. You learned to think for yourself. If one isn’t a follower, it’s then likely she’s one out in front. So, that would make you a woman leader, who leads by enticing, coercing, encouraging.

Exercising authority, on the other hand, has to do with causing someone else to obey. Causing, enforcing. Those are the words that come with exercising authority. Women don’t like exercising authority. Three of my sisters are married to men who are gone for long periods of time in connection with their work. One is gone for a week at a time working on the railroad. Another one’s husband was in the Marine Corps, gone for as much as six months at a time. When the men are gone, these women can’t wait for their husbands to get back home. When the men are gone, the wives have to be exercising authority. It is that point that makes them tired, fatigued. Having to exercise authority makes the father, the husband, a welcome sight in the eyes of the mother. When he comes back he can take care of wielding authority in the home.

Women don’t like exercising authority. I don’t like forcing somebody else to do something. That’s not comfortable for me. So when one speaks of women in leadership position one must realize women are not only not seeking to exercise authority, they don’t like it. They don’t want it.

Now let’s consider women leaders. Christian women tend to discover that people are following them. They rarely seek a following. It’s true in our homes as well as in the church and society. In our minds leadership is a gift and talent from God. The Bible is filled with passages that support this. These passages are listed on the handout. What’s interesting to me, however, is that when gifts are listed, they are not listed according to “men do this” and “women do that.” These are gifts given to the Body of Christ. The only thing that is really distinctive in Scripture is that Christian women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. But this isn’t a problem as we don’t like exercising authority at all. To do so over Christian men would be particularly upsetting to us.

There are however, many Scriptural examples of women who lead without exercising authority. In all of the reading I have done, most of it written by men, which deals with leadership and exercising authority, I don’t see many references to these women. Women like Eve, Miriam, Rebecca, Deborah, Jael, Naomi, Hannah, Abigail, Bathsheba, Huldah, the wife of noble character in Proverbs 31, Jesus’ mother, Mary, Martha, Priscilla, the Jewish women of Acts, Philip’s daughters, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche, to name a few, are all leaders. All were pretty powerful leaders. When I had my husband take a look at this, the one that he added was Abigail. His point was that Abigail taught David how to lead by the way she worked with Nabal, her foolish husband. She encouraged David to not follow through on what he was planning to do to Nabal and to choose instead a better course of action. According to my husband, Abigail actually taught David how to lead.

Consider Rebecca and Bathsheba. Consider the methods used by each to secure a long-standing promise impacting the Messianic lineage. Rebecca had been told that Jacob was the one through whom the promise would transfer. But fast-forward about seventy years, and Isaac was intent on giving that blessing to Esau. It was Rebecca who urged Jacob, “No, it isn’t right. It’s not going to happen.” Together they deceived Isaac. In Rebecca’s mind the Messianic line had been promised to Jacob. She made sure it was his.

A little later we find Bathsheba facing a similar situation. David was old and sick. It had been promised that Solomon would be the next king. However, David, for some reason, was unaware of the fact that Adonijah had gone up into the hills, was celebrating, declaring himself to be king. Nathan came to Bathsheba and said, “This isn’t according to the promise David made to you. Therefore, you go in and talk to David. Tell him what is going on. He’s not seeing it.” I don’t know what he was “locked-in” on. He already had one son who had conspired against him and led an uprising. But David wasn’t seeing that a second one was doing the same thing. Bathsheba went in and talked to him saying, “If you don’t act now, Solomon is not going to get the kingship you promised him.” Nathan came in when she finished speaking - they had pre-arraigned this - and said the same thing. That very day Solomon was crowned so news of Solomon’s coronation reached those in the hills as they were trying to take over that kingdom. Bathsheba exercised some very good leadership. What she was doing was clinging to a promise that had been made. She was going to make sure it occurred the way the Lord had promised.

There are other Bible examples of women who showed leadership. Miriam is on the list. Miriam is an example of both good female leadership and an attempt to exercise authority over men. Miriam was a leader of the women. Miriam was composing songs and hymns and was doing just fine until she conspired with Aaron to try to take Moses’ authority. The Lord was not amused by her actions and she ended up with leprosy “outside of the camp.” Interestingly - and I think this is something I ask my Christian brothers to keep in mind - when she was “outside the camp” Moses was the one who interceded on her behalf. Moses was the one who said, “We’re not moving on until Miriam is able to join us.” So even though she was clearly in the wrong and clearly was disciplined for being in the wrong, it was Moses, the one she had wronged, who interceded for her.

Let’s contrast Deborah and Jael, an example of good female leadership, with Jezebel and Athaliah, an example of women also exercising authority. We often hear about Deborah as judge and then get into all this discussion about whether or not she was supposed to be a judge, was she exercising authority, was Barak in the wrong. When I read that section of Scripture, those questions don’t concern me. I’m much more interested in whether or not Deborah was doing what the Lord wanted her to do. It’s obvious that she was. It is also obvious that she was very aware that the appearance of exercising authority should not rest with her. She was the one who said to Barak, “No, I shouldn’t go into battle with you because the glory is going to go to a woman.” He said, “I want you there.” The glory did end up going to a woman, but it wasn’t Deborah. It was Jael. You can certainly see the leadership demonstrated by Deborah and the spirit in which she operated. She was doing whatever God had given her to do to serve His people. Jael then saw Sisera coming, knew that he was the enemy of God’s people and said in her very nice woman’s enticing voice, “Come into my tent. Have a glass of milk. Have a nice little sleep.” When he fell asleep, she took the tent stake and put it through his skull. She would not have had the courage to do that if Deborah hadn’t led well, let her know that when you’re talking about protecting God’s people and doing God’s work, this is OK.

Now let’s contrast it with Jezebel. Jezebel was also a woman who was certainly a leader and she certainly exercised authority. When one reads Scripture it was Jezebel who killed the prophets. It was Jezebel who was after Elijah. It was Jezebel who pushed Ahab to get Naboth’s vineyard. So what’s the connection with Athiliah? Athiliah would have either been Jezebel’s daughter or stepdaughter. Athiliah is the only woman who became queen over Judah. The way she did that – she was really a skunk – was to try to “destroy the royal house,” i.e. kill her grandchildren. God ordained that she miss one, Joash.

The Scriptural examples we have which combine female leadership and with exercising authority, are not exactly positive, to say the least. When talking to women about leadership and authority we need to focus on those examples of women who led without exercising authority and the results of such leadership. Then compare them to those women who led and exercised authority and study the results of their actions. It becomes pretty clear as to how the Lord wants women to lead.

Women in today’s WELS churches are leaders just as they are in their own homes. This has been true for the entire history of the Christian church. Recognize this fact. I wonder if any of this group heard, as I did, who it was in Professor Siggelkow’s family who said, “I don’t want my children to be raised in this Reformed structure.” It was his great-grandmother. In my own background, it was my Lutheran great-grandmother who said to the man she married, “My children are not going to be raised with the falsehood of Rome. They are going to be raised Lutheran.” From that ancestry, one of my uncles counted there are something like nine or ten pastors and a whole group of schoolteachers. But again, it was my great-grandmother who took the lead in the matter.

Women have been leaders in the church. Look at the world around us including our own homes. All who are married know that in the house, the tone that the wife sets is really powerful as far as what’s going on in that home. If she’s happy, the house is happy. If she’s not happy, the house isn’t happy. Women are very much leaders. They are the ones who are shaping the next generation. What they teach their children about respecting their fathers, about the church, makes them very powerful leaders in their own homes.

If the church doesn’t provide leaders for WELS young women to follow, our society will. That’s a scary thought, but very true. Everyone grows up looking for someone to follow. If our young girls are growing up in a group that says, “Christian women aren’t leaders. Don’t follow them,” who will they be following? Society? Why do some of our young, Christian women, and I repeat, young, Christian women, not understand why a pro-abortion stance isn’t right? Why do they not understand it? Who have they been following? Have they been led to believe that a woman in the church isn’t worth following and that she isn’t worth listening to? I don’t know. I think that in the minds and the eyes of our young women, we have to elevate our Christian women leaders and not try to keep them down. The next generation of women is going to be following somebody. If they’ve been told, “Don’t follow that Christian woman leader,” they’re going to follow somebody else.

Look at your congregations. See those women who have followers. These are your leaders whether they are in an official position or not. See them. Watch out for women like me. Everywhere I go, people end up behind me. I have had young women say to me - it scares me and it ought to scare the rest of you - “You are my hero. I want to be like you.” That scares me because whatever I do, whether it is following Scripture or whether it is not following Scripture, that group is going to be behind me. There are leadership qualities one inherits from one’s parents. Leadership is a gift. There are some learned leadership qualities, especially some of the “technical” things. But for a long time in my mind, talented, gifted people are those, when asked, “How do you do that?” reply, “I don’t know. It just happens.” The talented, gifted women leaders among us are the ones who, like me, when asked, “Why are so many following you?” reply, “I don’t know. It just happens.” These women are in our WELS congregations in rich measure. See them. Understand them. Listen to them. Because wherever they go, there’s going to be a shift. These are the women who, when they walk into a room with a discussion going on, heads turn toward them. And when they say something, the group generally says, “Yeah, that’s a good idea.” They’re the ones who when they come onto the scene, will draw everyone else’s attention.

Once the women leaders have been identified, we as a church need to better value and develop the leadership abilities of these gifted women the Lord has given the WELS. As the Zambians say, “Don’t talk to us short.” In the US, when we talk to someone short, it refers to being short tempered. That’s not what the Zambians mean. They mean, “Don’t talk to us like children.” Often, in a good sense, women and children have been used in the same phrase. We hear, “Women and children first.” “Take care of the women and children.” The words are used together so often that in some minds, “women and children,” become synonyms. We aren’t children. We don’t think like children. We don’t act like children. We need to be valued as adults. “Don’t talk to us short.” When talking to a child, phrases like, “because I said so,” “because I’m your father,” or “because I’m your mother,” will suffice as explanation. However, when talking to another adult, much more explanation is required. Don’t merely try to “talk us out of” our view points either. Listen to and value what women bring to the discussion. So, treat us like adults and “don’t talk to us short.”

Women make up about 50% of any church body. They represent 50% of the gifts the Lord has bestowed on His church to carry out His work. Men and women are different and yet complementary to each other with men in the headship position. Men rely heavily on facts. This is a really important distinction. Women rely heavily on perception and intuition. Men accept a perception as truth only if supported by facts. Women accept a perception as truth until and unless it’s proven false by facts. This is a huge difference in the way we approach things. Women rely on something called intuition or perceived reality. The dictionary defines intuition as, “a conclusion that is arrived at without supporting data.” Women do that a lot. How? Why are men not very good at it? It has to do with the way the LORD created male and female brains. This created difference has become quite clear in recent years. In the brain there are two halves. The one half really excels with things like logic and fact orientation. The other one is more artistically sensitive. There is communication between the two halves, but before a male is born, a surge of testosterone shrinks one half of the brain and destroys some of the connections. This is good because it explains why men are able to focus on one thing without being sidetracked. Women, however, have a lot of “crosstalk” between the two brain hemispheres. Not only do we have a lot of “crosstalk” and awareness of what’s going on around us, but it’s attached to emotion. The emotional part of a woman’s brain is much bigger than a man’s.

What does that mean when trying to understand intuition? It means that when I see something that has gone on, I will, without consciously thinking about it, relate it to another time when that same set of circumstances has occurred. Additionally, the emotion that occurred the first time is triggered the second time. This is very valuable in the nursing/medical field. That’s where I learned to understand intuition. I need to explain that a bit more. Good intensive care nurses, good emergency room nurses, good nurses in general, experienced nurses, will often be able to perceive, and will be able to tell a physician, when someone is going to get sick. In the body there is a mechanism identified as homeostasis. If one starts to seriously bleed, a lot of people don’t realize this, the blood pressure doesn’t drop immediately because your body sends into action all these coping mechanisms to keep the blood pressure up. As a matter of fact, there is generally a slight rise in blood pressure. The percentage of red blood cells measured, called the hematocrit, doesn’t drop for two to four hours after the bleeding’s begun. Liver failure isn’t apparent until 90% of the liver isn’t functioning. This is also true with kidney failure. There is this whole time span between when something serious has occurred and the facts substantiate that it has occurred.

Good nurses, experienced nurses, because they have seen it before, will pick up on pre-crisis signals. Most physicians, when notified, “So and so is going to crash,” will ask, “What’s wrong? How’s the blood pressure?” If answered, “The BP is still OK, but they’re going to crash,” the good physicians will come in before the crisis develops. That’s intuition operating in a way that it is really useful. The physicians are operating in a complementary way with the nurses in that they don’t demand the facts before they come to help. They trust the intuition of the nurses. How does that apply to us? The role that emotion plays - and this goes right into why I pursued this opportunity to speak to this group - is that I’m worried. My intuition tells me that this issue in the WELS is approaching a crisis state and it has potential for doing great harm. The discussion I heard earlier today about the role of demonstrating deeds of love in WELS mission outreach is a good example of something for which women are well suited. Women are especially suited for such areas of ministry because they’re relationship oriented. Women rather quickly identify where needs are. When ministering cross-culturally, women “sense” physical needs more quickly than men. So we really can’t afford to lose the gifts of WELS women at this time in our history can we?

Ten years ago, if someone said the WELS was in danger of losing large numbers of valuable Christian women, I would’ve discounted the idea as an overreaction. At that time, the women who were leaving our church didn’t like the phrasing about submitting. They were rebelling against the fact that men have headship. What I’m seeing now is a division among our God-fearing, committed Christian women. They’re going into two different camps, and that worries me. In the one camp we find the women who have been studying Scripture yearn to use their talents, which include leadership and administration, in the service of the Church. They’re compelled by Scripture to use their talents in the service of the Church. However, this group is too often told by that same Church, “No, you can’t.” So the problem for them comes down to this. God is saying, “Use your talents for me,” and the Church is saying, “No, you can’t.” What are these women to do?

In the other camp we find women - and these are mostly 40, 50, 60-year-old women - who have been present during most of this 40 year controversy about the role of women in the WELS. They come from the 1960s when the WLES rightly identified exercising authority over men as contrary to Scripture and told our women not to follow the pagan world on “women’s lib” issues. What women in this age group have heard repeatedly is to use leadership skills is a sin; to use administrative skills is a sin. Many of these women are conscience bound to not use talents, if they are “the wrong” talents.

So now we find two groups of WELS women – and remember, these are our committed, Christian women, one group getting frustrated because they feel conscience-bound to use their gifts in the work of the church, and the other group anxiety ridden because they think they’re sinning if they are using them. We have to deal with this and deal with it now.

I’ve been leading a women’s Bible study for over 10 years. We started in Genesis and we’re working our way through the Bible. Because of my foreign mission work, I’m aware of what goes on in other churches. I am convinced more and more that the Lord through the WELS has protected the true orthodoxy of Scripture. Our Confessions agree and line up with Scripture every time. Our use of the sacraments agrees with Scripture every time. “I’m saved by grace alone.” It agrees and lines up with Scripture every time. To relate this to what Isaiah said, the truth of Scripture is too great a gift for a group of 400,000 people. We need to mobilize our men and women and get this message out. There’s a whole world out there dying to hear it.

How do we mobilize our women? To begin with, equip our women to be good Christian leaders. Remember that they’re leading because they’re those defined as having followers. If they aren’t equipped with Scripture and aren’t Spirit driven, where are they going and how many are going with them? Stop telling Christian women to stop leading! Recognize that they are leading and equip them to be good Christian leaders.

Jesus Christ is the best example for any Christian to follow. However, on the subject of leadership roles for women it’s very difficult to use His example because I can’t look at Jesus without seeing authority and leadership right together. When we use Scriptural leadership models for women we need to use Scriptural models of leadership without authority. Women can’t lead like Jesus did. We don’t lead by exercising authority. We have to lead like the godly women led. I would suggest that the great “she” of Scripture, the Church, together with the many positive biblical women examples be utilized as models for women.

Notice, I said that we women should be doing the studying together with an equipped leader. A Bible study by a man on women’s issues often misses the points that women are looking for. Men are just not coming from the same place. The words men use don’t mean the same thing to the women that they do to men. We need to equip our women leaders with armor that fits us. Remember when David went to fight Goliath? Remember the equipment he was given? He was given Saul’s armor, the king’s equipment. It didn’t fit. It didn’t work. He took it off. Women can’t use men’s spiritual equipment either. Our Christian brothers have to work with us so that we can be equipped in a way which assists and serves us.

Our men and women leaders need to work together to address this situation. We need “flat-line” thinking to balance all of the “heart action.” The same automatic triggering of emotion that warns us of danger can also suck us accepting something false. If a woman’s first experience with something was good, anything that resembles that experience tends to be swallowed pretty easily unless some “flat-liner” says, “No, there’s a problem here.” We need to have our men and women working and thinking together to get it straight.

Here again is my conclusion: WELS Women Leaders in the Church: Use them or lose them. I feel the WELS is approaching a crisis on this issue. Listen to us. It’s not a command. It’s a plea. Attitudes have already pushed some women leaders to use their talents outside of the church, as they feel unwelcome in the church. But what is the real question? Not whether or not some WELS women are leaders. They’re there. Recognize them, value them, equip them, use them or lose them. The tough question, which we need to work together on, is this, “What leadership positions can be and, perhaps, are best filled by someone with a woman’s perspective and talents?” That would have to be a question for another symposium. But it is a question which must eventually be answered. There’s one other thing I want to share with you. There is a nursery rhyme that keeps coming into my head. When my niece was four years old, she loved this thing about Little Bunny Foo Foo hopping through the forest, scooping up the field mice, and bopping ‘em on the head. Down came the Good Fairy and she said, “Little Bunny Foo Foo, I don’t want to see you scooping up the field mice, bopping ‘em on the head.” Do you know why this is connected in my head? There are some Bunny Foo Foos out there who have been scooping up your women field mice and bopping ‘em on the head. Those field mice are trying to do what the Lord wants them to do. The field mice can’t do anything about the Bunny Foo Foos. It’s our Christian brothers who have to be the Good Fairies and say, “Little Bunny Foo Foo, I don’t want to see you scooping up the field mice and bopping ‘em on the head.” What happens among the field mice when what seems to us as random scooping and bopping, is the one group of field mice is going to say, “I’m not going to get bopped. I’m getting away from those Bunny Foo Foos.” The other group is going to say, “Freeze. Maybe he won’t see us.” What results is 50% of our church body which is rendered ineffective.

Last point: In today’s world can the WELS afford to have half of its talent bank ineffective?

---

Feminism

The first section of Nathan Pope’s Feminism: Understanding and Balancing Its Impact on Marriage, Family, and Church includes a thorough, scholarly, and insightful look at the Christian origins of feminism in the United States. The early chapters include the most comprehensive definitions and delineation of the various forms of feminism that I have ever seen. It is also in this 174-page section that Pope frequently quotes his “Group of Four,” which includes Christian women he knows well. I relate easily to this group’s anecdotal summaries to support a point Pope is making.

Perhaps because I was looking forward to application of “feminism,” both good and bad, to the church, it was disappointing to find such an overwhelming emphasis on women and church governance in the second section of this book. Pope follows the pattern of most of the previous writings on this issue and fails to answer the questions many women in WELS are asking. Sadly, he no longer quotes his “Group of Four.”

His main point in this section is that women are not to exercise authority over men in their marriages or in the church. Although he defines “authority” well, he unfortunately often uses “leadership” as a synonym, which is confusing when trying to apply principles to my life as a Christian woman.

The questions most Christian women have relative to feminism deal not with governance or authority over men, but with how we can use talents from the Lord in our homes, lives, and church for the furthering of his kingdom. Only four or five pages of the 92 pages in this section deal with these questions, and only superficially at that. Although I have questions and would like clarification of some statements in this second section, the problem here isn’t so much what’s written as what’s missing.

Kathy Wendland
St. Peter, Mishicot, Wisconsin