WHAT IS WRONG WITH PROCEDURE ON WO PAPERS

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PROCEDURE ON WO PAPERS.

Last week the Victorian Pastors met with the main agenda item being those papers. A few comments on this:

Many pastors were under the impression that a debate was to take place. It did not.
Instead, the guidelines on procedure were: raise your questions on any issue and these will be sent off to the CTICR.
Most questions were raised about the argument “for” WO with very few about the argument “for MO”.
The last session brought the assurance from President Greg Pietsch that the next meeting would be debate, some time in 2006.
I was heartened by the number of younger pastors (well seeing I was the oldest one there that makes them all “younger”, but you know what I mean) who were opposed to WO and the questions they raised.
The issue of “in statu confessionis” was raised.
I had hoped myself to raise an issue but did not for two reasons: we ran out of time and I was still trying to think the issue through. This is it.

A. THE ISSUE_-- The Road to Union.

1. Procedures that led to unity.

I will try to keep it brief with various points being listed.

Next year is the 40^th anniversary of the beginnings of the LCA.
The procedure was quite explicit leading up to that union.
While there had been various attempts to work towards union prior to that, it was only in the 25 years prior to 1966 that it became very serious.
Each former Synod appointed an intersynodical committee.
The first task was to isolate the issues that divided the two or were seen to do so.
Then each individual committee wrote positions papers which were then discussed by the opposite number, and then also together.
It was a slow process. Only at that point where there was full agreement by the combined committees, were congregations, parishes, pastors, zone pastors’ conferences, district and General Pastors involved in discussion on the proposed Theses of Agreement.
Only when all questions had been dealt with, did General synods of each finally meet to determine: Yes or No. The answer in both cases at that point was yes even though a few on each side had reservations.
The end result was: Tanunda 1966.
The significant and important issue is that the Intersynodical committees agreed amongst themselves first all and SUBMITTED JUST THE ONE AGREED SET OF THESES OF AGREEMENT.

2. The relevant theses.

These are: The Office of the Ministry and Scripture and inspiration.
It is the second which is significant in the present debate.
Both Intersynodical committees operated with the same set of hermeneutics.
These were based on the Scriptures and proofs were in keeping with the agreed hermeneutic principles.
It was unthinkable that they could come up with two different arguments supposedly based on the same Scriptures and equally valid.
It was on that basis that Union came about.

3. The consequences of the thesis on Scripture and Inspiration. (Thesis 8)

Article II: Confession, or the Constitution of the LCA is drawn directly from this Thesis.
All present at General Synods (and I would hope also at District Synods still) are asked to rise and reaffirm what is stated in there before the Synod commences.
Every Pastor at ordination and consequent installations vows on oath to uphold this Article.
The model constitution for congregations has the same Article II, with the addition in Article XII that Article II is considered fundamental and unalterable.
Our General President Mike pointed this out in his Introduction to the articles in the LTJ and so affirms this Article.
Therefore, any doctrine or proposed change of doctrine is bound to be in keeping with this confession with the onus of proof being on those who want WO or else it MUST BE REJECTED.

What are the basic hermeneutic rules in Article II of the Constitution?

We accept without reservation……
The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
As a whole and in all their parts
As the divinely inspired, written and inerrant Word of God
And as the only infallible source and norm for all matters of faith, doctrine and life.

What are the approved hermeneutical principles that have governed us till now?

The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is the fundamental principle
The Holy Spirit is the author of both OT and NT.
This gives Scripture its authority.
Therefore it is essentially clear
Therefore it is sufficient. (TA VIII,10)

What follows from this since the time of the Reformation in particular?

Scripture interprets Scripture. (Practice of Jesus/Paul/Peter)
The clear interprets the unclear and if there is no clear, we reserve judgment.
Texts are to be read in their context where applicable.
All texts on any common subject taken together establish doctrine. (e.g. Office of the Ministry)
We read out of the text what is in it (exegesis) and do not superimpose preconceived ideas on the text.(eisegesis).

B. THE ISSUE – The road to WO.

1. The Procedure leading to disunity.

Lip service is given to inspiration and inerrancy but the practice does not follow.
The CTICR has those who uphold the hermeneutics of the first part, but also those who strenuously uphold a different set of hermeneutics.
The end result is a series of papers which present two contradictory and mutually exclusive positions.
The paper on Hermeneutics is an attempt at compromise and consensus and ends up being dishonest, deceitful, destructive and divisive.
It is such because it is supposed to provide the answer which will guide the LCA.
The significant and important issue is that the CTICR is plainly divided and has even SUBMITTED TWO SETS OF PAPERS FOR THE CHURCH TO DECIDE UPON when there is no agreement.

What hermeneutical principles are employed by WO

These are drawn from sociological bases, culture, and higher critical methods.
They give no credence to the Theses of Agreement and Article II of the Constitution.
Strenuous efforts are made to cast doubt on what is clear in an endeavour to discredit what is said there. This was the devil’s method with Eve and also with Jesus in His temptation.
“New truths” are “discovered” but without providing the requisite proof from the text itself, context, or related passages, e.g. ignorance of certain women at Corinth and Ephesus.
Scripture is used against Scripture when Paul is said to employ an “idiosyncratic” interpretation of the deception of Eve.
Culture is used as a reason for both Jesus and Paul calling only men.
Paul is said to tell his readers to conform to the best in society in order for the Gospel to be heard, and thus makes Paul contradict himself.

3. What is the real though partly hidden danger involved?

Casting doubt in order to provide clarity is logical nonsense and not worthy of consideration.
The so-called ignorance of women at Corinth and Ephesus impugns the ministry of the apostle Paul who told the elders at Ephesus that he had taught publicly and FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE. He spent almost 3 years there and just on 2 years at Corinth.
The “ignorance of Eve” impugns God Himself, who first of all fails to protect her against the devil by withholding vital information, and then thumps hell out of her for his own failure. That is blasphemy, even if the perpetrators did not mean to do so.
When Paul is said in 1 Tim. 2 to be referring only Adam and Eve with no reference to women later, that in effect is a denial of Original Sin and more seriously the first promise of the coming Saviour. That is heresy, though again, the perpetrators would not have intended that.
When Jesus is said (though not in the LTJ papers) to have bowed to local culture, and not wishing to offend the leaders, appointed men only, this is NOT the Jesus of the Bible who otherwise did not have that kind of “sensitivity”. It comes so close to denying that Jesus was still the Son of God even in his humiliation. That is heresy.
It has been said that it is now the will of God that women should be ordained. Jesus claimed to be here by the will of His Father and to be doing the Will of His Father. When he appointed 12 men did He know that it was the will of His Father for women also to receive such an appointment? If he did not, then that contradicts his claim that he was fully aware of His father’s will. If he did know, then that contradicts his claim that he had come to DO the will of His Father. In either situation, it is again a denial of his divine Sonship. That is heresy.
Peter makes it plain that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”. Paul claims such a moving. When therefore Paul declared that men only were to be appointed, was he inspired by the Holy Spirit? Does the inspiration of the Holy Spirit also mean that Paul could alter that authoritative inspiration to conform to local culture for the purposes of having the Gospel heard? The implications are therefore that inspiration is open to manipulation by human beings to meet certain circumstances. That in effect also becomes a denial of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Heresy again.
When Paul is said to have drawn up the various tables of duties e.g. Eph. 5-6, by drawing on the best in local culture, this implies a serious contradiction. First he says (by the Holy Spirit) that we are not to conform to the world but to be transformed. (Rom. 12). Then he is supposed to say that unless we do conform to the best in the world we will not be heard (again by the Holy Spirit). This implies that the Holy Spirit does not know what he is doing, and thereby also the authority of Scripture is actually rejected. It also is a serious indictment of the offence of the cross.
It should be noted that 1 Cor 14 v 37 is included as part of Thesis I as proof for the authority of Scripture.

C. THE ISSUE -- Where to from here?

It is absolutely essential, if WO is presented to General Synod in its present or any amended form, that there can be no reaffirmation of Article II a and b at the beginning of General Synod 2006 or any other year for that matter.
It would require a prior proposal that the Theses of Agreement be repudiated or substantially rewritten, and this includes the Thesis: The Office of the Ministry and the Thesis: Scripture and Inspiration.

D. CONCLUSION.

General President Mike, in his report to the Victorian District Pastors Conference informed them that 2006 will include celebrations to mark the 40^th Anniversary of Union. It is ironical that proposals should be in the melting pot which would actually split the Church formally, because it is right there now but not yet formally.

My brothers and sisters in Christ. When Paul was confronted by that other Gospel in Galatia, he stated quite plainly that he would not give in one inch to their demands. Stand up now and be counted. Remember also what Luther is reported to have said at the Diet of Worms: My conscience is bound by the Scriptures. It is not safe or wise to move from there. Show me from the Scriptures that I am wrong. Councils and Popes have erred. My conscience gives me no choice. Here I stand. I can do no other. Generally (with perhaps just one exception) I am looking in vain for leadership amongst Presidents of the Districts and General Synod. Let us heed once again the trumpet call to battle. For that is what it is.

Pleading for Jesus’ sake, for the sake of the Gospel, for the eternal truth to be proclaimed

Your brother in Christ

Geoff Noller

October 2005