COMMENTS ON THE CTICR PRESENTATION ‘A CASE FOR THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN AND MEN’.

(Lutheran Theological Journal May 2005, pages 37-50)

This article gives cause for great concern for a variety of reasons. It presents a methodology of interpreting Scripture which seeks to remove ‘gender’ as a consideration in the public office of word and sacrament. If this is accepted then the door is wide open to follow those who have ordained into the public ministry people other than those who are either single male or living in a heterosexual relationship. It is a form of argumentation which would also allow the ordination of homosexuals, lesbians and couples living in single gender relationships. Probably this would be denied or at least questioned by those who accept the argumentation as presented. But try replacing ‘women’ with people who openly uphold other forms of sexual expression and relationships – gender scenarios which are all too common today, which are gaining greater recognition in civil and criminal law and which therefore are part of our modern culture. The question is for this method of interpretation: what in culture should influence the church?

In the introduction the article referred to here acknowledges major changes in modern western society which compel the church ‘to re-examine its teachings’. It then concludes that this ‘re-examination has led a number of members of the LCA-NZ to the conviction that it is right for the church to ordain women. This conviction therefore is based on ‘major changes in modern society’. This presents real problems for this writer. Firstly, the world is forever changing, even though the speed of change may vary. There have been significant changes in past history – a major one of which was the industrial revolution. But in all of these changes there is one constant – the Word of God. The will of God as revealed in His Word does not change, but its application to changing human situations may change. We must not and will not change God’s will or Word no matter what the world says or does.

The article then goes on to identify a selection of women in Scripture who have been prominent in various leading roles in God’s kingdom work. While none of these can be identified as belonging to the public ministry of Word and Sacrament as instituted by Christ they certainly are involved in a ministry. Nowhere in these CTICR articles is there a clear definition, description and distinction made between the public office of the ministry of word and sacrament and ministry in general which is open to all Christians of all ages, regardless of gender. The contrast or distinction is not between the broad ministry roles of men and women which do often overlap and interchange. Rather the question relates to the gender role in the public office of the ministry of word and sacrament. Hence these references quoted have no direct bearing on the question of ordination.

This article then draws on the Lutheran Confessions in an effort to support and justify the ordination of women. But again the discussion and rationale by-pass the question in hand. Ordination is not a question of the ‘validity and efficacy’ of the sacraments. All would agree that that rests entirely on the power of the word of God. But would the Church want to ordain any person to the public office of the ministry? If the character, morality and reputation of the person does not interfere with or impact on the validity or efficacy of the sacraments, does that mean it is acceptable, permissible or right to ordain a person to this office who is overtly immoral, of low reputation or in denial of all or part of God’s revealed Word? Of course pastors in their person cannot and do not represent Christ. But they do represent the headship of God as male who was created first by God. This article is correct in concluding that ‘the validity and efficacy of the means of grace do not depend on the moral character or the priestly character of the minister, nor do they depend on the gender of the ministry’. But it cannot be concluded from that that women can be ordained. Nor does the fact that both male and female are made in the image of God deny or displace the fact that males and females are created differently and have a different purpose and function. This is how God created them and established the Biblically defined relationship of man to woman (headship and helper) under the headship of God whom Christ also acknowledges as head. It is this relationship, taught by both Christ and St. Paul, which establishes the place of male (man) as servant in the public office of word and sacrament.

Towards the end of this article reference is again made to ‘culture’, concluding that ‘it is critical that the church . . . take care to display cultural awareness, flexibility and adaptability for the sake of the gospel;. Sure, everyone would certainly agree with that. However, there is one proviso, namely, that this must never be done at the expense of the Word, even if and when that means opposing the culture of the time or maybe suffering for it. Putting Christ into culture more than often means modifying if not even resisting culture e.g. the use of drugs.

Then in the next paragraph it states that ‘for the sake of the gospel the church will want to give the world a glimpse of Christ’s transformative ministry by calling, training and ordaining suitable men and women from all culture and from all backgrounds’. How does ordaining women (or even men for that matter) give the world a glimpse of Christ’s transformative ministry? By conforming to cultural trends and societal expectations? Surely not! It is the Holy Spirit through the Word that transforms and thus reveals Christ’s transforming power by leading believers into the way of truth. Unless the ordination of women is according to the command of the Lord it certainly will not reveal Christ’s transforming ministry.

The last sentence in the final paragraph prior to the Summary claims that ‘the founding texts . . . and those texts that describe the ministry in its various manifestations provide no support for the claim that women should be excluded from holding public office’ is a most remarkable statement and conclusion in the light of the roles and functions of males and females as described in Genesis (chapters 1-3 – God’s creative actions and statements) and reinforced by the words of Christ and St. Paul. It is equally as remarkable and unacceptable that interpreters today can subjectively decide whether or not apostolic references to commands of the Lord are either locally or universally valid. That makes the interpreter of today an authority above that of an apostle. The risks in endorsing such interpretations and methods of interpretation are fraught with danger, as is all too evident in what is happening re ordination in some major Christian denominations today. Let the Lutheran Church of Australia remain both modern and relevant by faithfully proclaiming only and all of God’s Word. We must not open ourselves to misuse or abuse by adopting subjective methods of interpreting Scripture.

T T Reuther.

04/08/05