To Whom it may concern
The decision of the most recent General Synod to essentially give approval for women to function as lay readers in Lutheran congregations is likely to be source of debate and controversy for some time to come.
As one who did not attend synod, I find myself greatly
troubled by both the decision itself and the reported circumstances under which
it came to be.
If I were a member of the pro-ordination of women (OW) lobby, I would be
delighted with the significant step forward as a result of this 'decision', the
way in which the residual debate over the question of OW itself has been
greatly assisted by the precedents and rationale thus established, and the very
favourable bias which the result gives to the recommended 'discussions' running
up to the 2006 synod. It would be a better result that I would have dared
to hope for.
However I am not a supporter of OW, and therefore for the reasons just stated,
my dismay is all the greater.
What can be done now? I'm no strategist, and I don't know enough about
the 'processes' of the church to comment on the situation at that
level. However the synod decision did raise an interesting and
almost immediate dilemma for our congregation at the time.
We have been wrestling with the revision of our constitution and it has been a long process!
In these deliberations there has been strong support,
without dissent of any kind, for the inclusion of a clause from the
congregation's current constitution (circa 1970's). The specific
clause reads: "The office of pastor, elder and lay-reader
shall be restricted to male confirmed members in conformity with scriptural
principles."
We know that a synod of some years ago saw fit to essentially withdraw that
statement from the model constitution, or at least to dilute it
significantly. Accordingly we always expected that this was probably
going to cause a potential conflict with the appropriate district committee
when it comes to the 'approval' of our revised constitution.
However that did not weaken our resolve to stand by this clause and a couple
of other possibly less contentious points. In including this
statement we are stating what we believe, and why we believe it. It is
after all what the LCA itself once believed - indeed embraced - without
question. We understand and support both the reason for the clause, and
way in which it was worded. We hold that those reasons are still valid,
just as they always were. And we do not propose to dismiss, retract or
recant the teaching of those who have gone before us by meekly accepting a vote
from synod that such matters can and should now be overlooked and ignored - to
in effect concede that the congregation need no longer be concerned with
'conforming with scriptural principles' in some matters.
There was therefore some local angst and some dismay at the implications of the
decision to allow for women lay readers. What followed was an interesting
test of the depth of our convictions, both individually and as a corporate
church family unit. Happily
in the final test the congregation voted convincingly to retain the wording as
previously agreed, and to stand by the long standing teaching and confession of
the church and the clear direction of Scripture in the matter of who is to lead
God’s people in worship.
As for myself, the question of meekly accepting a decision of synod when it not
only conflicts with one's personal conviction based firstly on the clear
message of Scripture, but also on the teachings of the faithful which have been
passed down through entire life of the Church catholic to this time, is one
which now confronts me head on. Am I to now say that the dear Pastor who
so diligently instructed me at the time of my confirmation all those years ago
was wrong? Are those who preceded him, and those who followed - who
held so strongly to this doctrine and teaching - are they also wrong? The
question will not go away. Nor can I rest comfortably with the response
synod now expects of me.
It could be of course that I am over-reacting. It is after all not
the 'Ordination of Women' which synod has been led to accept. But let
there be no mistake; it may as well have been. The way to OW
is smoothed significantly by what has happened, and significant 'progress' has
been made in that direction by this result.
Any academic interest in the struggles which my dear friends in the Uniting and
Anglican community have with further logical extensions and development of
liberal theology in their own area has been replaced with the sudden and grim
realisation that some of us in the Lutheran arena now face a somewhat similar
dilemma. Perhaps much earlier than we expected.
It is a time to bear witness to the unchangable message of Scripture, and to the long held teaching and confession of the church as never before. Those of us who feel that these things are still important should value the opportunity now presented to boldly confess the truth and to stand by it. People are looking for a lead, a direction, an example. It is a not a time to retreat, despite the understandable gloom the present situation might produce. It is rather a time to speak out, to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints”. (Jude 3)
Yours in His service,
Terry Neumann