THE GOSPEL, SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

Introduction

1 The issue of whether women may or may not be ordained may be reduced to two simple questions:

First, do we or do we not have a mandate to ordain men only? We believe that both Scripture and the church universal have always said ‘Yes!’ 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2, along with the church fathers and mothers, have always maintained that men only are to be ordained.

Second, do we or do we not have a mandate to ordain women? We believe that both Scripture and the church universal have always said ‘No!’ There are no Biblical passages that mandate the ordination of women. One can scour the whole of Scripture but one will not find a single text that commands us to ordain women. The CTICR majority which called for the ordination of women recognised that we have no mandate to ordain women. Thus their resolution to the 2000 Synod simply said that Scripture permits or allows women to be ordained. Significantly it does not say that Scripture mandates or commands the ordination of women. All it can say is that such ordination is ‘appropriate’, that it is ‘fittingly modelled by … women’, who are ‘able to represent Christ’ in a way ‘which would not have been culturally acceptable in earlier ages’. It talks about women’s ordination as a ‘legitimate conclusion’ (Final Report of the CTICR on the Ordination of Women).

2 Because there is no mandate to ordain women, the line of attack against those who speak of a male-only pastorate is to say that there is no mandate in Scripture to ordain men only. And because there is no such mandate, it is right and proper to ordain women also. That is the way the Final Report of the CTICR on the Ordination of Women dealt with the issue.

(a) This report said that the two key texts, 1 Cor 14:33b-40 and 1 Tim 2:11-15, are unclear and not certain; they give ‘no clear indication that these commands are binding on the church outside their original context’. Hence these texts cannot be used today as a mandate for a male only pastorate. (For a brilliant response to all these arguments, see Greg Lockwood, ‘The Women’s Ordination Debate in the LCA’, 1999.)

Brief Reply:

The church universal has always maintained that these passages are clear and that they contain mandates which rule out women’s ordination.

(b) The report says that the two key texts do not speak to the issue of women’s ordination but try to protect the mission of the church by stopping women from acting in a high-handed manner which would have caused offence especially to the Jewish converts and potential converts.

Brief Reply:

Paul is not trying to quell over-exuberant women from doing that which was proper for them to do, if only they would do it in more genteel fashion! He is rather marshalling weighty arguments to say it is improper for them to preach God’s word in the worship assembly. The church universal has always interpreted these passages in this way. Besides, can you imagine Paul making an impassioned plea for a position he knows is wrong simply so that he won’t cause offence to Jews? Can you imagine Paul watering down the Gospel so he won’t cause offence to the Judaizers! (The Judaizers refused to eat with non Jews and insisted that they be circumcised. They believed that non Jews should live like Jews.) He certainly didn’t argue against the truth of the Gospel when he castigated the Judaizers!

(c) The report also referred to Galatians 3:28, ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’. It said that since women have an equal standing with men before God, ‘the ordination of women is an appropriate application of this principle of equality’.

Brief Reply:

Gal 3:28 does not specifically speak to the issue of ordination at all. It certainly does not mandate the ordination of women. True, men and women have the same status before God as his adopted children. But their equality and unity before God does not mean they have the same roles and callings as men and women. In the family, for example, the role of woman is quite distinct from that of the husband.

3 It is also said by the proponents of women’s ordination that the Gospel overcomes the law. We can draw conclusions concerning the ordination of women from the Gospel rather than from the law. (For a fuller response see B and C below.)

Brief Reply:

In the realm of justification the Gospel fulfills the law of God, but it does not overcome the law. The law is still needed to lead the sinner to Christ. We cannot use the Gospel to countermand the mandate of Christ concerning the role of women in the worshipping assembly.

4 The central point of this discussion paper is that Scripture alone, and not the Gospel, determines whether women may or may not be ordained. Any doctrinal conclusions, however, must not contradict the Gospel. Church tradition is important in that it helps us to interpret Scripture. The tradition of the church has always interpreted Scripture to exclude women from the ordained ministry.

A The Gospel and Scripture

1 Scripture and the Gospel have different roles. They must not be pitted against each other. The Gospel has its source in Scripture; its content is derived from Scripture. Therefore the Gospel cannot judge, stand over or negate doctrines that are drawn from Scripture. We cannot claim the Gospel and deny other doctrines in Scripture. At the same time nothing in Scripture can be opposed to the Gospel, Christ or justification by faith. No doctrine drawn from Scripture can contradict the Gospel.

The universal church has always believed that a male only pastorate does not

contradict the Gospel.

2 The Gospel provides direction for theology; it provides a compass that points us in the direction our interpretation of Scripture must go. If a doctrine we believe is based on Scripture opposes the Gospel, then it is a false doctrine. For example, if we conclude from Scripture that we are saved by faith and works, we oppose the Gospel, for we are saved by grace alone, by Christ alone, by faith alone.

3 We cannot derive doctrines from the Gospel. Doctrine is drawn from Scripture and not from the Gospel. [‘Nothing can be proclaimed as Word of God which is not taught in Scripture’ (Theses of Agreement A 8,2 A17)]. Therefore creation, the fall, the Trinity, marriage, the Lord’s Supper etc, cannot be derived from the Gospel, but only from clear texts. For this reason clear passages of Scripture and not the Gospel determine who may be ordained. The Gospel does not speak to the issue of whether the church has the authority to ordain women; the Gospel does not tell us whether women may be ordained or not.

4 The Gospel does not permit us to change God’s Word and call it a celebration of the freedom that we enjoy under the Gospel. The Gospel is not normative for theology in the sense that beginning with it as a fundamental premise, other items of the Christian system of doctrine are developed as provisional, historically conditioned responses to a given situation which will need to be revised for another situation.

5 A development of doctrine methodology is also ruled out because doctrine is ‘unchanging, constant truth’ (Formula of Concord Solid Declaration Rule and Norm, 20), which ‘is and ought to [must] remain the unanimous understanding and judgment of our churches’ (FC SD Rule and Norm, 16). Although the revealed, divine truth does not change or develop, our terminology or formulations may develop – and this precisely in order to keep the content unchanged.

At the same time we cannot dispense with non Gospel texts of Scripture or develop them in line with the latest worldview as long as the Gospel itself is not controverted. These texts are still authoritative.

6 We also believe it is wrong to develop the doctrine of ordination to call for what has always been forbidden – the ordination of women. But this is precisely what the CTICR report to the 2000 Synod wanted us to do. The report states:

‘It is clear that the conclusion would introduce a change in the doctrine as stated in the Theses of Agreement (VI 11). If this conclusion were adopted by Synod, it would not be merely a change in practice; it would change the public teaching of the LCA from prohibiting women from the public office to allowing them to be ordained as pastors. The commission fully understands that this would involve a major shift for the LCA, and therefore wishes to help members work through the implications. Difficulties encountered in doing this should not deter us from acting if Scripture allows us to ordain women as pastors’.

Remarkably, LCA theologians who espouse the ordination of women say that the church was right for 2000 years to ordain men only. They never say that the church was wrong to teach and practice the ordination of men only! But to continue ordaining men only is now wrong! How can something which is right for so many years suddenly become wrong? One suspects that this has to do with the culture and social setting in which we find ourselves and not Scripture. This suspicion is confirmed when we read in Final Report of the CTICR on the Ordination of Women, ‘It means that some Lutherans have come to learn from Scripture possibilities for the life of the church which would not have been culturally acceptable in earlier ages’. Truly the cat is out of the bag! (Interestingly, Greg Lockwood says that our culture is not that far removed from that of the first century. With its priestesses, the first century would have been an ideal backdrop for women pastors, if Paul had believed it to be in accordance with the will of Christ.)

The development of doctrine argument doesn’t work either. You cannot develop a doctrine so you end up with a doctrine that is exactly opposite to your starting point. For example, it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity developed in its formulation. But the end result never contradicted its starting point. The doctrine did not develop to a stage where we had one God and one person only, or where we had three gods. Either a male-only clergy was right and is still right, or it was wrong and still is wrong but will be redressed (pardon the pun!) by allowing women to be ordained.

B Are the Scriptural Commands Still Relevant Today or are They Time-bound

and Therefore Culturally Determined?

What About the Role of Tradition in the Interpretation of Scripture?

1 It should be noted that not all scriptural commands carry the same weight.

(a) ‘The commands of Paul carried more weight than the Christian teachers in Corinth, even though both claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor 7:40).

(b) ‘Likewise the commands of the Lord carried more weight than those of his apostle, who could demand obedience only when he himself had a command from the Lord.

(c) ‘Any command from the Lord is therefore most authoritative for the church and every Christian’. (John Kleinig)

2 When Biblical authors wanted to show that their message went beyond culture and time, they usually appealed to divine authority. Their message was transcultural and universal.

3 Luther had no doubt that the Bible was timeless and universal. He writes, ‘If we grant that any one epistle of Paul, or any passage, does not apply to the church universal, then the entire authority of Paul is rendered invalid. For the Corinthians will say that what he teaches about faith to the Romans does not apply to them. What more blasphemous and insane raving could possibly be devised than this madness! God forbid! God forbid that there should be one jot or tittle in all of Paul which the entire church universal should not follow and keep!' (What Luther Says, 276).

4 What Luther says is simply a reflection of the church universal throughout its history. As we shall note below the church universal has never had any hesitation in confessing that scriptural restrictions on women teaching in the worship assembly were to be always and everywhere obeyed and for all time. Christ’s command in 1 Cor 14:37 and Paul’s command in 1 Tim 2 have always been seen by the church to be applicable today with regard to a male only pastorate. The onus of proof is on those who would change this interpretation of Scripture, or refashion Scripture so that what was never there is now found to be there after all. As Luther says, ‘Concerning anything not found in Scripture, you should say, as the apostle here does (Heb 1:5) when did God ever make that statement?’ (What Luther Says, 259).

5 When a custom is involved, as it is with head coverings, Paul does not appeal to a command of the Lord. But even here the principle of male headship and female subordination underlying that custom is still valid. The same is true of footwashing. The custom is not mandatory, but the principle of loving service is.

6 The church’s arguments for a male only pastorate are based on Biblical commands; they are not the result of the culture of the day and thus limited to the first century. As Luther affirms, ‘in the New Testament the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul, ordained that women should be silent in the churches and assemblies [I Cor 4:34], and said that this is the Lord’s commandment. Yet he knew that previously Joel [2:28 f.] had proclaimed that God would pour out his Spirit also on handmaidens. Furthermore, the four daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21[:9]). But in the congregations or churches where there is a ministry women are to be silent and not preach [I Tim. 2:12]. Otherwise they may pray, sing, praise, and say “Amen,” and read at home, teach one another, exhort, comfort, and interpret the Scriptures as best they can’(‘Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers’, Luther’s Works 40:390-91).

7 Can we ignore the command of the Lord because it is given only once in Scripture? No, for the command to baptise is given only once (Mt 28:19).

8 The following are a brief summary of why we believe the Biblical testimony for a male-only pastorate is still applicable today. It would be wise for all of us to know the key texts well and what they say. Helpful books are available for this purpose.

(a) Paul expected the command of Jesus to be obeyed by all Christians and every church. The church for 60 generations has interpreted 1 Corinthians 14 to exclude women from the ordained ministry. Here Paul says that ‘women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak [preach], but must be in submission as the Law says’, 1 Cor 14:34. To do otherwise is to come under Paul’s scathing rebuke, 1 Cor 14:36, ‘Did the Word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?’ Indeed, spiritually minded people would know that this is ‘the Lord’s command’, 1 Cor 14:37. Paul even goes so far as to say that if you ignore this command of the Lord, you will yourself ‘be ignored’, 1 Cor 14:38, either in the congregation or on the last day. What a serious offence to ignore the command of the Lord. It is hardly likely Paul would make this harsh judgment if the Lord’s command was only temporary.

(b) Paul gives a similar command in 1 Timothy. Here he says that a woman is not ‘to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent’ (1 Tim 2:12). Paul is referring to the worship assembly and not to government, business, the work place, social clubs and the like. Nor is he excluding women from singing, reading Scripture lessons or teaching in the Sunday School! In 1 Tim 3:15 Paul says that his teaching will enable Timothy to know how people ‘must’ conduct themselves in the house of God. Paul’s commands are divine obligations. Again, such strong language points beyond Paul’s time and culture.

(c) Paul refers back to the original order of creation when he says that he does not ‘permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man’ in the worship setting. The Gospel has not repealed the order of creation where these commands are based. Therefore this order of creation is still in place today and the command still stands.

(d) Paul refers to the fall for support of his teaching that woman is to be in submission to the male teachers of the church (1 Tim 2). This shows that Paul’s teaching about women transcends any one culture or generation.

(e) In 1 Tim 6:14 Paul says that his commandment is to be kept ‘until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ’. Paul wanted it known that his commands were not time bound, and this includes his command in 1 Tim 2:12, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man’. It is most likely that 1 Tim 3:1a belongs to what precedes it rather than to what follows. If this is the case, Paul is saying that his instructions concerning women ‘is a faithful (or trustworthy) word’. This would be akin to Luther’s statement at the end of each article of the Creed, ‘This is most certainly true’.

(f) Paul’s instructions concerning women are for all the churches, not simply for the Corinthian church (1 Cor 1:2; 14:33). He would hardly include other churches if his instructions were meant for a particular culture and situation in Corinth. In addition, Paul’s stance in 1 Cor 14 is counter-culture. So one can not say that Paul’s injunctions are determined by the culture of the day in Corinth.

(g) In summary, Paul’s injunctions concerning women – submission, not to teach or have authority over a man, be silent – are very strongly worded. His reasons for these commands give no hint that they are time bound or culturally determined. These commands are meant for all the churches, it’s what the Law says, it’s disgraceful for a woman to disregard this teaching, it’s a mark of a spiritually gifted person to accept this teaching, it’s the command of the Lord Jesus, it’s ignored at great peril in that such a person will be ignored by the Lord. Paul is hardly talking about some trifling custom or cultural peculiarity that was meant for the Corinthian congregation only and then only for a brief time. One might add that if Jesus wanted women for the pastoral office, he would not have permitted Paul to speak so strongly against it, even to the point of giving Paul a special prohibiting command!

(h) The push to ordain women is not a 21^st century phenomenon. It already reared its head in the second century! A so-called prophet, Montanus, founded a Christian sect. The Montanists, as they were called, were very legalistic. For example they forbade second marriages, ordered fasts and would not permit their adherents to flee persecution. They believed they had a hot line to the Holy Spirit and so refused to accept the authority of the catholic church. Their arrogant, legalistic bent led to their demise.

However, they believed that the Holy Spirit had told them to ordain women in honor of Eve. In response the church said, ‘No, this is not from the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or the apostles. This is heresy’. In varying cultures and times the church adhered to this same stance, and has always seen the prohibition of women pastors as continuing until the return of Christ. It would be strange for the Holy Spirit to contradict himself and speak in a way diametrically opposed to his initial utterances.

9 The Reformation and Catholic Tradition

(a) We Lutherans have not always been comfortable talking about the tradition of the church. This is understandable as sometimes the tradition of the church has deviated from the teaching of Scripture. For example, tradition, not Scripture, has

led the Roman Catholic Church to introduce doctrines such as the immaculate conception of Mary (that is, Mary was sinless when she conceived Jesus), prayers to the saints, purgatory, indulgences (these were the permission to reduce or remove the punishment imposed by the church on someone who was guilty of a specific sin. They were also used in this way to help someone who was supposedly suffering in purgatory. They are still in vogue today but obtained without the payment of money), the assumption of Mary (that is, Mary is said to have ascended into heaven without dying) and the like.

(b) However, the tradition of the pure catholic church was highly desired by the sixteenth-century Lutheran Reformers. They were not sectarian innovators who set out to create a new church. Rather, they acknowledged, and rejoiced in, their continuity with the church of the apostles and ancient Christian Fathers.

(c) The Reformers formally and unreservedly endorsed the Ecumenical Creeds with the following declaration: ‘Immediately after the time of the apostles - in fact, already during their lifetime - false teachers and heretics invaded the church. Against these the ancient church formulated symbols (that is, brief and explicit confessions) which were accepted as the unanimous, catholic, Christian faith and confessions of the orthodox and true church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. We pledge ourselves to these, and we hereby reject all heresies and teachings which have been introduced into the church of God contrary to them’. (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Rule & Norm: 3, p. 465)

(d) It was the Reformers’ conviction that ‘the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged’, and they therefore agreed with St. Augustine ‘that one should not obey even regularly elected bishops if they err or if they teach or command something contrary to the divine Holy Scriptures." (Epitome, Rule & Norm: 1; Augsburg Confession 28:28)

(e) The Reformers knew that the Fathers of the church, like themselves, were men who ‘could err and be deceived’, and that ‘The writings of the holy Fathers show that even they sometimes built stubble on the foundation’ of the apostles and prophets. (Apology 24:95; 7/8:21) But they also believed that ‘good, useful and pure books, such as interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, and expositions of doctrinal articles’, should definitely not be rejected or ignored. (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule & Norm: 10, p. 506) Such ‘writings of ancient and modern teachers, whatever their names, should not be put on a par with Holy Scripture’, but they may and should be received ‘as witnesses to the fashion in which the doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved in post-apostolic times’. (Epitome, Rule & Norm: 2)

(f) In keeping with this principle, the Reformers were able to say, for example: ‘we teach nothing about original sin that is contrary to the Scripture or the church catholic, but we have cleansed and brought to light important teachings of the Scriptures and the Fathers that had been obscured by the sophistic arguments of modern theologians’. (Apology 2:32) In regard to the ‘chief article' of the Christian faith, they likewise were able to say: ‘what we have said agrees with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, with the holy Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and many others, and with the whole church of Christ, which certainly confesses that Christ is the propitiator and the justifier’. (Apology 4:389) And it was clear to the Reformers that the Lord had preserved his Means of Grace within the church also in more recent centuries, for ‘God has confirmed Baptism through the gift of his Holy Spirit, as we have perceived in some of the fathers, such as St. Bernard, [John] Gerson, John Hus, and others’. (Large Catechism 4:50)

(g) Appended to the Book of Concord is a long list of quotations from the church councils and fathers (about 133 of them!). Here the confessors say:

‘They are printed in goodly number as an appendix at the end of this book, in

regard to particular points, for the purpose of furnishing a correct and thorough account to the Christian readers, whereby they may perceive and readily discover that in the aforesaid book, nothing new has been introduced either in matter or in expression, that is, neither as regards the doctrine nor the manner of teaching it, but that we have taught and spoken concerning this mystery just as, first of all, the Holy Scriptures and afterwards the ancient pure Church have done’.

(h) We can summarize the reasons for the Confessors’ persistent use of church councils and the fathers:

(1) They want to remain within the tradition of the ancient pure church not only in teaching but even in terminology.

(2) They desire to show the unbroken tradition of teaching. Chemnitz, ‘We also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted’.

(3) They desire to identify with the ancient pure church and its interpretation of Scripture.

(4) They want to establish authority for their own teaching.

(5) They want to use the fathers to refute errors.

(6) They want with the help of the fathers to establish a normative interpretation for certain key doctrines and passages.

(i) The following list shows the Confessions’ usage of the fathers in support of their doctrine.

Augsburg Confession	14	citations or references to the fathers
Apology of Augsburg C.	29	references
Smalcald Articles	5	references
Large Catechism	5	references
Formula of Concord Epitome	6	citations or references to the fathers
FC Solid Declaration	24	including references to the creeds
Catalog of Testimonies	8	citations from the canons of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, along with 133 references to, or citations from, church councils or fathers

10 What The Church Catholic and the Confessors Said About the Ordination of Women

For the reasons given above the LCA should listen to tradition as a proper interpretation of Scripture when it is reflected in the Lutheran Confessions and been taught in the church universal since its inception. Such a doctrine is the ordination of men only.

The following is a sample of what the church and the church fathers and mothers have said over the centuries.

(a) The Didascalia (first half of 3rd century.)

This liturgy reflects the Syrian liturgy. It prohibits women from the teaching office and baptisms. It appeals to the behavior of Jesus. ‘For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed . . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the Twelve, out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us’ (Didascalia 3:6:1-2 [A.D. 225]).

(b) The Apostolic Constitution (AD 400)

This constitution revises and expands the liturgy of the Didascalia. ‘We do not allow women to teach for we have no such command from the Lord... For it is ignorant heathen ungodliness that leads to the ordination of priestesses for female deities, but not the command of Christ’. ‘If in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ’.

(c) Apostolic Church Order (4th century, Egypt.)

This order says that the presider at the Eucharist, as the central aspect of priestly service, is to be a male only. This role is denied to women by the will of Christ.

(d) Church Councils Opposed to the Ordination of Women

The Council of Nicaea (AD 325)

This council is mainly responsible for the Nicene Creed. It said that Deaconesses are ‘surely to be numbered among the laity’ (canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

The Council of Laodicea (c AD 365. NB ‘c’ means ‘about’)

It said that ‘[T]he so-called 'presbyteresses' or 'presidentesses' are not to be ordained in the Church' (canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

The Council of Saragossa (AD 380)

This council opposed the ordination of women.

The Council of Nimes (AD 396)

This council opposed the ordination of women.

The Council of Chalcedon (AD 431)

This council opposed the ordination of women.

The Council of Orange (AD 441)

This council opposed the ordination of women.

The Council of Epaon (AD 517)

This council said that ‘We completely reject the consecration of widows,

whom they call deaconesses’.

The Council of Orleans (AD 533)

This council opposed the ordination of women.

The Sixth Council of Paris (AD c829)

This council said ‘That women should not go to the altar is fully found in … the Council of Laodicea… Absolutely every time the Fathers of the Church has occasion to speak of such things, they strongly reject them, never approve’.

(e) Patriarchs/Popes Opposed to the Ordination of Women

Photius (9th century Patriarch of Constantinople.) ‘A woman does not become a priestess’.

Pope Innocent III (13th century.)

This Pope said that even abbesses are not to preach or hear confession for the Lord entrusted the keys to the apostles.

(f) Church Fathers Opposed to the Ordination of Women

Ignatius (c35 - c107)

The bishop presents God the Father to the people. He also is to be regarded ‘as the Lord (Jesus) himself'.

Clement of Rome (c96)

‘Jesus himself gave precise instructions to his apostles how other proven men were to take over their duties once they died’

Irenaeus (c130 - c200)

He condemned women who ‘felt themselves driven to celebrate the Eucharist by the Holy Spirit’ (Harper 102)

Tertullian (c160 - c220)

A woman may not ‘claim for herself any functions proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office’. Women who preach are heretical. (‘Heretical’ means a teaching opposed to that of Scripture and the church; likewise a heresy means a teaching opposed to Scripture and the church.)

Hippolytus (c170 - c236)

‘When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all’ (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]).

Origen (c185 - c254)

He used 1 Cor 14:34. It is a command which has to be obeyed. He mentions the four daughters of Philip who prophesied but who did not speak (teach) in the churches.

Epiphanius of Salamis (c315 - 403)

‘It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess’ (ibid.).

‘From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses’ (ibid.).

‘If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . .But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood

on her] good’ (ibid., 79:3).

St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white. ‘Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference’, “For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female”, [Gal.3:28]’.

Chrysostom (c347 - 407)

Decisive for him are the example of Jesus and the teaching of Paul. He said, ‘When there is question of the headship of the church … let the entire female sex retire… and the majority of men also… Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it’. Even so he had several hundred deaconesses in his church (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]).

Augustine (354 - 430)

He says that to uphold a female priesthood is ‘heresy’

John of Damascus (c675 - c749)

Calls the female priesthood ‘heresy’ It contradicts the binding faith of the church.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74)

His final argument against the ordination of women is 1 Cor 14:37 – it is the command of Christ.

(g) Church Mothers Opposed to the Ordination of Women:

Hildegard of Bingen (1098 - 1179)

She was a Benedictine abbess and best described as a visionary prophetess. As a sign, she tells us, the priest must be male, or better a virgin male, not because Christ is male, but because the body of the church conceives and is fruitful through his ministry; her femininity and his role demand that he be masculine.

Catherine of Siena (c1333-1380)

She opposed the ordination of women.

Teresa of Avila (1515-1582)

She opposed the ordination of women.

(h) What Luther, the Lutheran Confessions and Calvin said about the ordination of women.

(1) Martin Luther (1483 - 1546.)

‘Paul does not entrust the Ministry of the Word to her... this is the Lord's commandment’.

(2) The Lutheran Confessions

These assume that the pastor is male. When speaking of bishops they quote from 1 Tim 3:2ff and Titus 1:6 where it is stated that a bishop must be ‘the husband of one wife’ (SC Table of Duties.). The standard word for ‘minister’ in the Confessions is ‘Pfarrherr’ (‘parish man’). The clergy are spiritual ‘fathers’ (LC Decalog 158-59). The use of Pfarrkinder (literally, ‘parish children’) to describe the parishioners has the fatherhood of the clergy as its correlative.

(3) John Calvin (died 1564)

Commenting on 1 Cor 14:34, Calvin writes, ‘If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public’. In his commentary on 1 Timothy, Calvin writes similarly: Paul ‘excludes women from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only’.

11 The LCA, in its 1966 Convention, was being faithful to Scripture and the church universal in adopting the following statement in the Theses of Agreement:

‘Though women prophets were used by the Spirit of God in the Old as well as in the New Testament, 1 Cor 14:34,35 and 1 Tim 2:11-14 prohibit a woman from being called into the office of the public ministry for the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. This apostolic rule is binding on all Christendom’ (TA VI, 11).

12 Sometimes it is said that the church councils and fathers were male chauvinists who thought that women were a lower order of beings. It is admitted that a small number of church fathers spoke disparagingly of women. But often it had to do with the fact that such women had become heretics – thus a strong word was needed. Occasionally they said that women were ‘inferior’ to men. But it is doubtful whether this strong word had the same connotation for them as it does for us. For on many occasions they followed up their criticism with positive words of praise for women. They allowed women to be deaconesses in their church; and they made careful provision for widows. Some women were extravagantly lauded and inordinately denounced by one and the same author.

Tertullian was one of those who could speak soft and harsh words of women. But generally his harsh words were reserved for women who were teaching and disputing in the worship assembly, a task not permitted them by the divine word. It is noteworthy that even when Tertullian joined Montanism with its prophetesses he did not change his mind on women priests.

Epiphanius of Salamis (c315 - 403), as we have said, denied that women could serve as priests. However, when he talked of the heresy of the Collyridian women he was highly critical of them. Apparently they offered up a sacrifice of bread rolls in the name of the Ever Virginal Mary whom they honored as a deity. He wrote, ‘In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony they ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary’ (Against Heresies, 78:13). They then ate this bread as a communion. He said that such women were ‘weak, fickle and only moderately intelligent; and once more the devil used them as instruments to spread error’. It is quite clear that Epiphanius spoke strongly against these women because they were denying the truth of Scripture; it is not true to say that a low view of women influenced his interpretation of Scripture.

Theodoret of Cyrus in his commentary on 1 Timothy ‘suggested that the prohibition against women rested on her inferiority, or more exactly, on her “natural” posterity – Adam was created first – and also on the leading part she took in original sin – Adam was not deceived, but Eve was’ (Commentary on 1 Tim. 2:11-14; Gryson, 87). Despite these strong words Theodoret allowed women deaconesses and also said that widows should expect help from the church.

Ambrosiaster (end of 4^th century) was another who could downgrade women.

He wrote, ‘Since man was created first, Paul places him before women; also since she was created after man and from him, he considers woman inferior’ (Commentary on 1 Timothy, 2:11-14). However, he, too, supported widows in his church.

Augustine (354 - 430) wrongly saw women as inferior because Eve was the first to be deceived and she deceived man. Yet it was undoubtedly his faithfulness to Scripture and not some low view of women that prompted him to write that to uphold a female priesthood was ‘heresy’.

13 In the light of what we have presented above it is appropriate to ask how many citations from, or references to, the (ecumenical) councils and church fathers and mothers the proponents of women’s ordination have made in their endeavor to change the doctrine handed on to us from the universal church.

14 Addendum: The Catholic Principle

The church fathers claimed that the Scriptures should be interpreted in such a way as to rule out the ordination of women. We have no authority to countermand this ‘catholic principle’ as David Scaer puts it in his article, ‘Evangelical and Catholic’, in the October 2001 issue of Concordia Theological Quarterly. Scaer makes these important points, especially with relation to the ‘catholic principle’.

‘The catholic principle sees the church as a continuous historical community with codified doctrine (creeds and confessions).’ Thus ‘Melanchthon does not construct doctrine out of bible passages as autonomous sources (evangelical principle), but throughout the Augsburg Confession assumes the catholic doctrine’. The AC claimed nothing in it was ‘contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic’. Our ‘churches dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith’. ‘Scriptures reflect what the church already believes and do not bring new and strange doctrines (catholic principle). Innovations are suspiciously gnostic’. (Gnosticism was a Christian heresy that said that matter was evil and that therefore Christ did not come in the flesh.) ‘Exegetical approaches separating the Scriptures from church interpretation are ipso facto operating without the catholic principle. Paradoxically those with a high view of inspiration proceed in the same way’.

‘Without the catholic principle as part of the equation, the correctness of women’s ordination is left to the whims of the exegetes, who can express loyalty to their church’s position on the prohibition and simultaneously disqualify one passage after another from the discussion. Officials who oppose the prohibition … have already conceded that women’s ordination is no more than a problem of interpretation. Without evangelical principle bound to catholic precedent, biblical prohibitions of ordaining women lose force. Self-styled evangelical catholics who endorse women pastors are nagged by church precedent’. Without catholic argument one can draw conclusions that the biblical arguments against women’s ordination are inconclusive.

‘Lutherans are uncomfortable with the rule of Vincens of Lerinum, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est [“what is believed everywhere, in all times, by everyone”] as a principle of doing theology’. ‘However, Melanchthon moves along the lines of Vincens of Lerinum in the AC’. The rule is also supported by the creeds, similar eastern and western liturgies, which helped them ‘distinguish authentic Christianity and fraudulent gnostic novelties’. The negative of the rule also holds true: ‘the church is not allowed to do what “has been accepted nowhere, at no time, and by nobody” … Exegetical conclusions requiring innovations in doctrine and practice cannot contradict church precedence’.

Paul also shows the truthfulness of the Lerinum principle. He claims his view concerning women’s silence and submission is that of the Torah and the Lord’s command. Moreover, women ‘are not to preach because all of the other churches do not know of such a practice (1 Cor 14:33)’. Paul does not invent doctrine but gives to the church what he has received from the Jerusalem church. ‘The catholic principle is biblical: et sic in omnibus ecclesiis doceo (1 Cor 7:17’, that is, ‘This is what I teach in all the churches’).

‘Wherever the catholic principle is no longer factored into doctrine and practice, aberrant innovations are likely to arise. Without the catholic principle, churches … have no other choice but to canonize their own particular set of scholars. Sectarian exegetical interpretation for the moment, replaces ancient practice’.

15 These principles enunciated above must not be overturned by what we can call a ‘hermeneutic of emotional pain’. That is, the pain of a male only pastorate is too great to bear and therefore one must reinterpret Scripture to allow for the ordination of women. I have heard this argument put forward by some who say that the pertinent passages in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 gave them great pain and a feeling of exclusion and discrimination. They therefore felt free to reinterpret these passages to lessen their pain.

This hermeneutic of pain is a false guide. It has led some Christians to promote the ordination of practising homosexuals. In this way they hope to overcome the painful feelings of exclusion and discrimination some homosexuals have felt in being barred from the holy ministry.

St Paul felt great pain for his people Israel because they rejected the Gospel. He said, ‘I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people’ (Rom 9:2-3). But this did not lead him to re-interpret Scripture so that all people could be saved whether they believed in Christ or not. This is the position taken by the Roman Catholic document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ‘Dominus Iesus’, which implies that even those who do not believe in Christ can be saved by Christ through the light given to them. To quote from para. 8:

‘The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God. Thus, as noted above, the Second Vatican Council, in considering the customs, precepts, and teachings of the other religions, teaches that “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men’”.

16 To reiterate: the teaching that only men are to be ordained is firmly based on Scripture and the church universal. We have no mandate to alter this 2000 year old doctrine.

C The Law, Gospel and the Command of Christ

1 The distinction between law and Gospel is well articulated in the Formula of Concord: ‘Everything which preaches about our sin and the wrath of God, no matter how or when it happens, is the proclamation of the law … The New Testament retains and urges the office of the law, which reveals sins and God’s wrath … Everything which comforts and which offers the mercy and grace of God to transgressors of the law strictly speaking is, and is called the Gospel, a good and joyful message that God wills not to punish sins but to forgive them for Christ’s sake’ (FC SD 5.12, 14, 21).

2 The Formula of Concord has a lengthy section entitled ‘Of the Third Use of the Law’ (SD 6). By this is meant that ‘although the truly believing and truly converted to God and justified Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the law of the Lord … For the law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases him, are exactly portrayed, and which should therefore be constantly held up to the believer and diligently urged upon them without ceasing’ (FC SD 6. 4).

3 The third use of the law outlines for the believer the will and command, or mandate of God. These are to be obeyed through the power of the Holy Spirit and produce works that are pleasing to God.

4 At times Gospel and command are very close. For example, when Paul says ‘Be filled with the Spirit’, we have a command, yet in a sense it is a Gospel word. ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ is a similar command which contains Gospel. ‘Be baptised’ has God coming to us with his grace. So, too, the words of institution, ‘Take eat, this is my body’, are creative words of command and words of promise. These commands present the Gospel and bestow God’s gifts. Luther calls them ‘evangelical commandments’ – commands the Lord gave his disciples in order to promote the gospel (see Ordained by God – 6.)

5 So what has all this got to do with the ordination of women? Sometimes it is said that the commands which prohibit the ordination of women are a return to the old way of the law. It is legalism. This shows how desperate some people become in their endeavor to ordain women. How can we possibly accuse St Paul of legalism, or of returning to the way of the law? No, it is not permissible to use the Gospel as

a card to trump the command of the Lord. It is not permissible to sweep the command of Christ under the carpet of the Gospel. It is not permissible to say that the Gospel allows and does not prohibit the ordination of women, and that the best interests of the Gospel are met if women are ordained.

The Gospel does not supersede the command of Christ. It is not true that freedom in doctrine and practice is thereby permitted as long as the Gospel remains in place. Or that the Gospel is allowed to create and define the parameters inside of which the church moves. A crass example of this is the condoning of homosexual clergy.

Acts 15 is sometimes used as an example to support this position. It is said that the Gospel determines the requirements that are laid down. These requirements are no longer needed in a different age and culture. In answer to this line of argument it needs to be understood that the regulations in Acts 15 are not mandates, and therefore are not binding beyond the initial context. Biblical injunctions not identified as mandates lack authority for us.

6 Sasse makes a trenchant observation concerning law and Gospel when the church of Sweden altered its ordination liturgy to include women. ‘One of the bishops is reported to have had a crying fit and said: This is the end of the church in Sweden! He was soon soothed by his colleagues with the distinction between the Law and Gospel, that great tranquillizer for disturbed consciences in modern churches. The Gospel is not at stake! It is only an outward law which has been altered’ (Sasse H. ‘Ordination of Women?’ The Lutheran May 3, 1971).

Conclusion

We conclude with this Eastertide prayer:

‘O God, you make the minds of your faithful to be of one will;

therefore grant to your people that they may love what you command

and desire what you promise’.

Peter Kriewaldt

July 2002

This addendum does not form part of my presentation at Hamilton.

I have just read a review essay by Thomas Manteufel of August Suelflow's biography, 'Servant of the Word: The Life and Ministry of C F W Walther, published in 'Concordia Journal', Jan 2002. Here it is stated that synodical unanimity in the Word of God was extremely important to Walther. Walther explains the Synod's stipulation for decision of doctrinal matters with the words: 'Matters of doctrine and of conscience are to be resolved unanimously (with "Einstimmigkeit") according to God's Word'. Dr Suelflow then asks, 'Did "Einstimmigkeit" mean a unanimous vote?' The answer was: no, it implies unity and singleness of mind of the supporters. Manteufel comments that 'This conclusion followed from his examination of two applications of this principle to controversy within Walther's lifetime. The record of the Georg Schieferdecker case in 1857 says the Synod convention voted with "Einstimmigkeit" to reject chiliasm and that Pastor Schieferdecker voted against it.
'In 1881 the Thirteen Theses on Election were adopted as the synod's position, though six voted against it. The biographer cites from the synodical minutes of the 1881 convention discussion to show the thinking of Walther and his co-workers who defended the teaching of pure grace in the synodical publications. The purpose of voting was never to decide truth but simply to determine who agreed with them. Patience would have to be exercised toward the dissenters; consciences were not to be oppressed. But it was unacceptable for disunity to continue indefinitely. It was entirely possible, they declared, that a minority could, conceivably, proclaim and confess the truth, while the majority would be trapped in error. For councils can err, as Luther said. But the proof of this would have to be based on God's Word and the church's confessions. They required that the dissenters give the proof. The point could have even been made even more forcefully by quoting another part of the minutes: "By this (voting) it will also be exposed whether those who reject the doctrine presented in our publications are a small number, who then as a result would have to leave our household, or whether we, who confess the correct doctrine of the election of grace, find ourselves in the minority, as a result of which we then would have to move out of what has been our synodical household up to this time" (Synodal-Bericht, 32)"'.

Peter Kriewaldt