Paul’s Epistles and the Lutheran Confessions
Lutheran Theological Journal (May 2005)
A Critical Review of pages 43 - 47

Here the writer of the article endeavours to summon the Confessions to his aid. However, the entire argument is blighted by a petitio principii, a begging of the question. He assumes what he has to prove, namely, that Paul is giving mere “directions” in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2; that they are not divine mandates, but only human ordinances like head-coverings for women and the eating of blood.

But before we look more closely at the quoted Confessional passage, another error needs to be addressed. The writer’s procedure is wrong because he reverses the rule of faith. In keeping with our ordination vow, we maintain the fundamental distinction between the Scriptures and the Confessions. We confess the teachings of the Lutheran Confessions because they are a true summary of the Word of God, and we do not interpret the Word of God from the teaching of the Confessions. As we all know, Scripture is norma normans, and the Confessions are norma normata. That means the Confessions are subordinate to the Scriptures, and it is impossible to determine the meaning of Scripture from that which is subordinate to it. To learn what a Biblical text means we look to the text and the one intended sense of the passage itself. Scripture is its own interpreter. As Melanchton says in refuting the arguments of the Confutation: “Besides, examples ought to be interpreted according to the rule, that is, according to sure and clear passages of Scripture, not against the rule or the passages.” (Tappert, p.279)

But we shall still follow the argument put forward by the writer in connection with AC XXVIII. This deals with the authority of the bishops. First, Melanchton dismisses the false teaching that the bishops hold worldly power by divine right. Secondly, he discusses in detail the assumed power of the bishops to bind the consciences of Christians by placing on them human ordinances as if they had this right from God. By human ordinances are meant ecclesiastical ceremonies, customs, holy days, rituals, dietary rules, etc. Melanchton’s argument is that such things are “intermediate” matters (Mitteldinge); they are neither commanded nor forbidden by God; they may or may not be helpful; they can be changed; they certainly do not merit the forgiveness of sins, as the bishops taught, nor is their non-observance necessarily a sin. He concedes that some traditions can be helpful for maintaining good order and peace in the worship of the congregation, such as set days (Sunday) and times for worship, in which case Christians obey them in love. All human ordinances come under Galatians 5.1: “For liberty Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Two such human ordinances mentioned in the NT and which in Christian liberty have been changed over time are the covering of women’s heads and the eating of blood. In particular, Melanchton stresses that divine commands must not be confused with human customs; for the theologians of the Confutation have claimed divine authority for the bishops’ ordinances on the basis of Luke 10.16.

The writer of the article now claims that the ordination of women fits into these guidelines about worship given in the Confessions: if Melanchton argues that women’s head-coverings are a worship custom that is no longer disruptive of order and peace in the congregation, so also women’s ordination can be introduced on the basis of the same logic. However, if it really is that simple, how does the writer explain why Melanchton does not include the silence of women in the congregation with the wearing of head-coverings? Why mention the one, but not the other? The answer is obvious. Melanchton, like Luther, and also like the theologians of the Confutation, believed that 1 Cor. 14.34 is a divine prohibition. By hiding this distinction of what is human and what is divine, the writer begs the question. If the writer really wanted to learn what Melanchton and Luther and the other Reformers believed about 1 Cor.14.34, he should consult their exegetical writings. As for the quote from Luther, it is a feeble attempt to get Luther on side. Luther is warning against a kind of biblicism that would say, for example, that since the early Christians sold all their property, we should do the same today. Luther was not an advocate for women’s ordination; he believed God prohibited it, as the following passage proves: LW 41:154-155.

This false reading of the Confessions completely rules out the validity of the interpretation that follows in the reconstruction of the two texts as presented on pp. 43, 44.

The Confessions and the public ministry.

This section continues to draw on the Confessions, arguing that they give support to the case for ordination of women. Some of what the writer says is correct, but he quotes the Confessions and Luther out of context and then draws a false conclusion. The writer is correct when he says that the Office of the Ministry is essentially an office of the Means of Grace. He is also correct when he says that “the office of the ministry and the efficacy of the sacraments do not depend on the character and the morality of the human being but on Christ and his call through the church.” But this must be carefully placed in the right context. Melanchton is refuting false teaching on two fronts: against the Catholics he is rejecting the teaching that the Word and the Sacraments depend on being administered by a priest who is an ordained member of the hierarchy of the Roman Church and possesses the indelible character; against the Enthusiasts that the effectiveness of the Word and Sacraments depend on the recipient being one of the elect who has already received direct enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. In contrast, the Lutheran teaching bases the efficacy of Word and Sacraments on the fact that they contain the necessary power of the Holy Spirit within themselves; they do not receive this power from the outside, either from the administrant or from the recipient. For this reason too the Confessions reject the teaching of the Donatists that the worthiness or unworthiness of the officiant determines the efficacy of the Sacraments.

However, the writer now goes on to draw the false conclusion from this that it is irrelevant who is chosen to administer the Sacraments, man or woman. He says: “Luther says that the sacraments remain valid and efficacious, no matter whom the church chooses (my italics) to administer them, so long as the word is present with the elements.” But Luther and the Confessions have not been addressing the matter of “choosing” the officiants. They have been talking about the impossibility of adding anything human to the power of the Word and Sacraments. When it comes to choosing ministers, that is covered in the rite vocatus. And to be “properly called” the candidate must have both the “inner” and the “outer” call. For the “outer” call Paul tells us, especially in the Pastorals, that many things are required, and many things prohibited: the minister must be apt to teach, of strong faith, of sound doctrine; the minister must not be immature, immoral, a lover of money, and also, according to the prohibition of the Lord, the person must not be a woman. The church chooses under the guidance of divine commands. However, when the church is deceived and hypocrites become ministers, the Word and the Sacraments do not lose their validity. When the unworthiness of these ministers is revealed and they are dismissed, simple Christians are comforted by the fact that the sacraments they have received from them are not invalid.

In persona Christi.

In this new section the writer in footnote 17 has second thoughts about the implications of the “immoral or cowardly character of the minister.” However, he still avoids the issue of obeying divine mandates. He uses a form of the argument a minori ad maius: “If the ministry is not rendered invalid and the means of grace are not rendered non-efficacious in the case of immoral clergy, how much more does not the same thing apply in the case of female office holders?” However, this is not a proper analogy going from a lesser thing to the greater within the same category. Immoral clergy are not knowingly ordained; women clergy are. In the one case we are dealing with hypocrites who cannot be prevented because their unworthiness is concealed. In the other case we are consciously ordaining women, knowing that the Lord has forbidden it. To make the two cases the same we would have to say that since the church knowingly ordains unworthy male candidates in defiance of the Lord’s command, how much the more then may we defy the Lord’s command by ordaining women. This of course is absurd.

The writer concludes: “If 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 minister.” This statement is alarming not because it says too little but because it says too much. If gender does not matter, then here is the foundation statement for the ordination of homosexuals.

St Paul and mission.

In this section the writer pleads the cause of mission to justify the case for the ordination of women. Although he protests that he is not bowing to the culture and the times, he really is doing just that: the church will win more converts if we adapt ourselves to what the world and society expect regarding women’s rights. He quotes 1 Cor. 9.19-23, especially: “I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.”

This passage has been used repeatedly in the name of cultural awareness to justify aberrations of the crudest kind. In Papua New Guinea missionaries have urged that Christ should be presented as the “pig of God” and the Eucharist be introduced into fertility ceremonies associated with pig festivals because New Guineans live in a religious and economic culture based on pigs. Harrisville (Augsburg Commentary, 1 Corinthians, p. 157) mentions how many church leaders consented to Nazi laws against Jews on the ground that 1 Cor.9 .19-23 encouraged accommodation to historical circumstances. Paul was of course sensitive to cultural differences and was willing to accommodate himself to them wherever there was no conflict with God’s commands. But there is nothing in Paul’s missionary activity to suggest that “for the sake of the gospel” he disobeyed Christ’s prohibitions. What Paul really means in this passage is well expressed by a quote in Harrisville:

When Paul became a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks,

that really does not mean that he preached to the Jews what the

Jews wanted to hear, and to the Greeks what sounded agreeable

to them. He preached the crucified, to the Jews a scandal and to

the Greeks foolishness (ibid ).

In footnote 19 the writer argues that although Jesus did not choose any female disciples, it is also true that he chose no gentiles as disciples, and yet this did not prevent gentiles from becoming priests and pastors. Therefore, nothing should prevent women from becoming pastors. Once again the analogy is specious: Jesus chose Jews and not gentiles because he was sent only to the house of Israel (Matt.15.24). Even though women belong to the house of Israel, Jesus still did not choose a woman to be one of the Twelve.

The biblical mandates for the ordination of women.

In this section one rejoices at the truth that is highlighted by the writer that there is no biblical proof for the perpetuation of a historic apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. It is regrettable that this truth was not conveyed to the Anglican-Lutheran dialogue team that formulated the document Common Ground. However, it is still a fact that the bishops and elders described in the New Testament are male and male alone. When this fact is coupled with the Lord’s prohibition against women holding leading teaching roles, one needs no further proof that the early church heeded our Lord’s command, and that we should do likewise. When the writer says “Contemporary sensitivities and local problems may well have kept women out of major liturgical leadership roles in the early church” (my italics), he is already conceding that his case is built on speculation and has no grounding in Scripture itself.

Summary.

The summary reveals at last the true discourse in the case for women’s ordination: gospel reductionism determines what is or is not acceptable in today’s cultural milieu. The writer speculates what might have been the situation in Corinth and Ephesus regarding women in order to turn Paul’s words into temporary injunctions and thus avoid the binding nature of divine commands. And all of this is done in the name of love for Christ and the gospel. But true love for Christ begins with keeping Christ’s commandments (John 14.15).

Conclusion.

The opening sentence (Women in the LCA today have less opportunity to work within God’s kingdom than their sisters in the Old and New Testaments) is not only false but contemptuous, and a slur on the blessings that God has given to women through all ages, even though they have not been ordained. And speaking personally, it is an insult to my wife and my mother. By what standard does he make this judgement, man’s or God’s? Has the writer so quickly forgotten his own illustration of the widow’s mite? Ordination does not position the recipient in a higher estate or order, as the Catholics claim. The ordained male pastor remains the same before God as the humblest baptised child, no matter what Catholics and Anglicans may claim for their hierarchical system. To say that women have not been allowed to exercise the authority that Deborah exercised is a perversion of the meaning of “authority” and a tampering with history. Deborah was unique as a judge; her position was followed by no other woman in the history of Israel, which is not surprising, since the responsibility of a judge was largely a military one. More significantly, she was a prophet to whom the Holy Spirit spoke directly. But if women do not have this special gift today, neither do men. As Luther said of those who claimed direct revelations from the Holy Spirit in his day, let them also establish their claims with the miracles of the prophets. As for “authority” in the church, that has nothing to do with the sort of prestige that feminism talks about. The authority of the ministry is always a service under the Word and the sacraments. Women have this same “authority” of service when they use the Word in the home and the school and in private, like Priscilla; and who is to say that God has not bestowed on such service greater blessings than all the preaching of ordained pastors? God alone knows.

Pastor Peter Koehne