From Consensus to Confusion to Division
A response toThe June 2005 LTJ content and the ordination of women (OW) We understand that members of the Lutheran Church Australia (LCA) have been invited to respond to the material presented in the Lutheran Theological Journal (LTJ) which is supposed to assist readers in coming to an understanding of God’s will for the Church in regard to the ordination of women. We venture some observations relating to the ‘politics’ of the issue. Prior to the amalgamation of the two Lutheran churches in 1966 both parties engaged in intense discussions on issues that needed clarification and a clear understanding between them. This was done prayerfully under God, in submission to His Word. The end result was genuine consensus, most of which is documented in the Theses of Agreement (TA), which is incorporated in the Document of Union, the foundational document of the LCA. In the first paragraph of his paper “Paul, the Mission to
Jews, and Women in the Churches”[1]
Dr V Pfitzner summarised that historical consensus in relation to the OW:- While the
dissent on exegetical and theological questions has gained momentum, the view
of Scripture portrayed in the TA has been corrupted. How else could an issue of LTJ now be published with some
articles suggesting that Scripture can be shown to accommodate contradictory
teachings relating to OW? It seems
satirical that the LCA’s public doctrine in this matter should now be put up
for grabs by confronting our original solid consensus with supposedly
enlightened views of Scripture that were not in evidence at the time of Union. From the
time that proponents of OW eased the issue onto the LCA’s agenda, the basis of
the controversy has not been clearly presented to the people. (See The Real State of Controversy in the
Ordination Debate by Pastor Peter Koehne, attached) Instead the process of gradualism has eroded
certainty about our doctrinal position on OW and incrementally conditioned many
members to seeing accommodation to the culture and its dictates as being
inevitable. The
Commission on Theology and Inter-Church Relations (CTICR) is understood to be
an advisory body to the LCA on theological issues, and a participant with the
General Church Council in being guardian and defender of the LCA’s
doctrine. The Church is diminished and confused
by doctrinal disunity within the CTICR as evidenced by the material on the OW
put before us yet again. Instead of
upholding the LCA’s former solid consensus the message now seems to be
“see what you think, take your pick, you decide what is relevant”. In 1992 we
had the ‘red book’, Women and the Ministry which evidenced the different
approaches to Scripture. That was
followed by other conflicting papers.
Then came the various information sessions in the lead-up to the 2000
synod. They often included the tragic spectacle of a theological leader having
to present a case at variance with the teaching of the Church, all in the name
of ‘balance’. We don’t recall hearing
then, or subsequently, much emphasis on
“It is written”, “thus says the Lord” or “have you never read?” The results
of the indicative vote on the OW taken at the 2000 general pastors’ conference
was a stark illustration of theological confusion that further eroded the
confidence in leaders that many members yearn to have. The pastors’ almost even split on the issue
reflected the shambles in the Church.
That the conference was conducted in ‘a courteous and brotherly manner’
did little to mask the obvious doctrinal disunity. It was hard to believe that the issue was put to convention
without our spiritual fathers and teachers being able to arrive at any solid
consensus. Even though
the standard of debate on the floor of convention was also seen as being
courteous, how could a church allow a review of its doctrine on the Office of
the Ministry to be determined by a procedure that included various leaders
forcefully urging contradictory advice?
One virtually dismissed Biblical restraints and declared, “Let’s just do
it!” The motion permitting the OW had been submitted by a discordant CTICR. It was lost. The reaction from the chair was swift and clear, “…the motion was defeated. The debate continues….” We wonder what that ruling had to say about the guidance of the Holy Spirit which was prayerfully sought before the vote was taken. The concept that binding decisions can be made on doctrinal matters by a synodical vote requiring a given percentage presents problems especially when there is major disagreement amongst the theological advisers. However, since that constitutional procedure was used in the OW matter, one could expect the result to have stood and be supported with some vigour, rather than reverting again to discussions, reflections, and considering responses with a view to advising the church on how to proceed. Didn’t the Spirit get it right the first time? Had two-thirds of the voting members been in favour of OW in 2000 it would have been implemented and hailed by its proponents as an answer to prayer. But the motion was lost. In the interests of good order, constitutional procedures and church democracy that should have been the end of the matter, as it would have been had the results been reversed. So the whole issue has been regurgitated. A more deeply divided CTICR has assembled more papers for discussion by an obviously divided clergy and a confused and divided laity. It was helpful to receive the CTICR’s May 2004 paper “Controverted Matters in the LCA Debate on the Ordination of Women”. It documented the nature and extent of unresolved matters relating to the OW and also illustrated how much, and in what areas, the solid consensus evident in the LCA at the time of Union has been destroyed. While that situation persists the ability of the LCA to make a clear confession is in tatters. Now we have
the May 2005 issue of the LTJ that deals only with OW position papers. The “From
the president” contribution on page 4 can give the impression that it doesn’t
really matter much what the end result of the exercise is as long as you keep
in mind that the LCA does have a position on the issue. The paper
on hermeneutics gives some indication as to why there is so much variance on
the issue, but does nothing to justify that situation. The papers, arguing opposing positions on OW
on the basis of common texts, leave little doubt as to the hermeneutical
confusion existing among those whose calling it is to give the church
theological advice. The whole
presentation can be quite confusing, especially for those lay members who have
been urged toward thinking that the LCA’s position on the OW is ‘out of date’. How can this type of adversarial hermeneutic
honor God? It must be
emphasized that there are theological leaders, spiritual fathers, teachers and
CTICR members who have vigorously upheld and taught the truth, and supported
the LCA’s confession in these matters and continue to do so. We honor them and thank God for their
faithfulness. We
understand that some prominent supporters of OW agree that when the principle
texts in the debate are taken as read there is no case for OW. So credence is given to the new methods of
interpretation, culture, social arguments and wanting to keep up with churches
they think have become more ‘relevant’ for having ordained women. Those who are urging the LCA further down the slippery slope towards OW seem to be increasingly imaginative in adapting alluring elements of culture, reason and precedents set by other churches in their attempts to get the LCA to ‘be with it’. The determination of some of the pro-OW lobby is evident not only in their writings but also their public teaching, preaching and practices that are in defiance of LCA teaching. A browse of the Resources on the LCA’s web site and the content of some pastors’ web sites will give evidence of public teaching contrary to the official position of the LCA on OW and other matters. Teachings like these make a mockery of the President’s assurance that “They (pastors) do not teach their own ideas, but the confession of the church”. It also raises the question of how seriously some pastors take their ordination vows and what is being done about it. The slide into ambiguity and away from doctrinal integrity in the pro-OW case as presented in the current LTJ, does nothing to enhance its credibility. It is evident that those anonymous writers who promote OW are themselves divided, as are its adherents in the rank and file of the LCA. In trying
to make the departure from solid consensus seem attractive it is
instructive to note how much emphasis is placed on being nice about it. Exhibiting courteous and brotherly behavior
and ‘speaking the truth in love’ at CTICR meetings is great if God’s truth is
not compromised. So how is the glaring
lack of solid consensus accounted for?
We are
hearing more of the need for dialogue where no-one expects any pre-determined
out-comes but all different points of view can be heard and honored so we can
all grow through discussion. That sound
like a good recipe for making Scripture say what anyone wants it to say. Hope is
being placed on ‘recovering an understanding of consensus’, but with emphasis
on a ‘general movement of opinion’ so a ‘solid middle ground’ can be
established. That sort of attempt at
‘peace through compromise’ is not how the diligent framers of the TA operated. Phrases within the TA make it clear that its
writers used the same principles in its construction as did the authors of the
Formula of Concord when they set out clearly what was to be taught and what was
to be rejected. That way our fathers
arrived at a solid consensus which included a clear rejection of the
OW. Allowing
the Word of God to be treated ambiguously has gotten us into the current mess.
How can there be any hope of a return to solid consensus unless there is
a return to the basic rules for doctrine?
That is to state what the clear biblical teaching is on an issue and
then identify and reject any errors associated with it. We sense
annoyance and frustration in the Church at the way the OW issue is being
handled. Persisting with the
middle-ground-consensus approach without giving clear doctrinal direction is
seen by some as humbug. Others view it
as a way of wearing people down until they get so confused or sick of it that
they give up. While we
have some theological leaders who are allowed to affront our faith by making
the glorious Gal 3: 26-29 passage a masthead for their OW campaign, what hope
is there of being able to arrive at anything resembling a solid consensus? The past
president of the LCA talked about the need to ‘search for the truth and for the
mind of Christ for the LCA’ regards OW.
This sentiment obviously still applies.
It raises some valid questions:-
Whether in
the world or in the church, when any major changes are contemplated it is
prudent to consider any likely consequences in the discussion process. The likely fallout if OW is adopted in the
LCA is not being included in materials put before us by the CTICR. Here too we
believe that relevant questions should be asked. In many
cases, except where strong cultural sanctions reject homosexuality, once OW has
been accepted, it has led, almost as a matter of course to the acceptance of
homosexual behavior and eventually the ordination of homosexuals. If the clear statements of Scripture that
prohibit the OW can be re-interpreted or disregarded the same can and does
happen with texts that speak negatively about homosexuals. Why is a consideration of homosexual
implications not included in our OW materials when they have had a devastating
affect in some churches that caved in to pressures to ordain women? We expect
that it would not be the CTICR’s intention to recommend setting the TA aside on
OW or other issues, or to sideline those members of the LCA who in good
conscience adhere to the current teachings of the Church and accept the TA,
including TA 1, 4 (a), which makes it clear that persistent error must lead to
separation. If there was a two-thirds
vote in favor of OW in 2006 that would not generate a conscience back-flip for
the minority who held to the teaching of the Church. In that case who would be expected to leave the LCA, those who
opted not to abandon its teachings or those who chose to implement OW? There are
times when LCA members who expressed concern about events or practices that had
been introduced into their congregations have been advised to go somewhere else
if they don’t like it. This is
distressing, especially for long-term members.
It is little wonder that people ask what would happen if the LCA was
persuaded to ordain women. The pursuit
of OW in churches generally has been fuelled by the current feminist world-view
that has little difficulty twisting and distorting Biblical text. It is natural that church members who yearn
to eat of the fruit of the OW movement seek and give mutual support. In their enthusiasm, they seem to be
oblivious to the grief inflicted on their church communities in the
process. Is it untoward to suggest that
Lutherans who feel compelled to promote the OW at all costs, seek the
association of fellow travelers in other domains? In this way they could be fulfilled and be spared responsibility
for fostering havoc in the LCA. We urge our leaders to
bite the bullet, acknowledge and uphold the clarity of the Scriptures on this
matter, and do all within their power to bring the LCA back onto the firm
foundation, which is Christ Jesus and His Word (1 Cor. 3:11). Sincerely In Christ Barry
Lindner Secretary Confessional
Lutherans Australia. Attachment to CLA’s paper - “From Consensus to Confusion to Division” The Real State of Controversy in the Ordination Debate The Lutheran Church is no stranger to internal controversy. The Book of Concord brought to a close the doctrinal divisions that had plagued the church for thirty years. It is especially the Epitome that sets forth the right way to proceed in disputes over doctrine:
The first step is fundamental; confusion over what divides
the two parties must lead to misunderstandings and destructive assumptions. In
the present debate on the ordination of women, the state of controversy has
been skewed. So, for example, the Lutheran Put that way, and the result is a foregone conclusion. It is quite possible that some of those who were responsible for this formulation were fully aware of what they were doing. The real point at issue in the debate is completely lost, that is, the correct understanding of Scripture. So far in all the discussions that have taken place in the past, the fact has been ignored that the LCA has a public doctrine that is part of the basis of the union of the two Lutheran churches. Since it is this public doctrine that is being challenged in the debate, it is here that the state of controversy should find its definition. The doctrine reads as follows: “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.” On this basis, the point in question should be “Scripture prohibits women from holding the office of the ministry” over against “Scripture does not prohibit women from holding the office of the ministry.” By stating the two positions in these terms, subversive issues are excluded and the real concern, that is, the primacy of Scriptural teaching, is kept clearly in view. In the present atmosphere of misinformation it is doubtful if the members of the church will be able to judge fairly on what is at stake. As in all debates, the end, if it is to be a God-pleasing and healing one, depends on the correctness of the beginning. Pastor Peter Koehne [1] This paper was delivered on 24th July 1988 at a “Symposium on the Ordination of Women”, organised by Luther Seminary. |