A RESPONSE TO THE CTICR ARTICLE “A CASE FOR THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN AND MEN”.

 

It appears to the writer that those who present a case for the ordination of men and women have gone far beyond the Scriptures in their attempt to make a convincing and valid case.

 

Already in the ‘Introduction’ the starting point is not Scripture but ‘the world that has changed dramatically in the last fifty years”.  The limited changes identified (technology and incremental inclusion of women) are social/political changes which the Article claims compels the church “to re-examine its teachings in the light of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions”.  These social/political changes which have occurred in similar forms throughout history, do not and should not influence ‘the teachings’ of the church.  They may require a review of the application of the teachings of the church which must be derived only from Scripture and be informed by the Lutheran Confessions.

 

It would also appear from the ‘Introduction’ that what other Lutheran Churches do is a positive reason for considering change.  However, it can only be positive and urgent if there is compelling evidence from Scripture which clearly teaches other than that which the Christian Church for centuries has upheld.  Social/political trends and selected church practices in themselves do not provide new or extended revelation of God’s Word.  No attempt is made to evaluate the changes identified which, to the writer, are very much tied up with an increasingly permissive and godless society.  Why not include such current social behaviours as drug addiction, abortion, homosexuality and lesbianism, sexual freedom and licence and more.   Some of these have already been embraced by other Christian churches in their public ministries.  Yes, the world is changing and probably always will but the Word of God is unchanging.

 

The Article then proceeds to identify women in the Bible who have actively participated in God’s kingdom work, in some instances exercising authority over men.  So what!  There is no problem in interpreting these passages in relation to the office of the ministry. Very simply, they were not a part of that office.  In the case of those women who were identified in the Old Testament, the office of the ministry was not yet established by Christ.  In the case of those women identified in the New Testament, they too were not commissioned either by Christ or the Apostles to fulfil that ministry which Christ mandated.  As has been shown and clearly explained in other related articles and documents, there are other ministries which men and women can and should fulfil.  The examples given in this Article of women in Kingdom work therefore offer no assistance in interpreting Paul’s directives in I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2.

 

The reference on page 43 to Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession is also not relevant because the Article does not refer to ALL of Paul’s instructions for the worshipping Christian community.  There is no reference in Article 28 at all to the two texts in question – I Cor 14 and I Tim 2.  Nor does this Article of the Confessions address here who is or is not eligible for the office of the ministry.

 

The presentation in ‘The Confessions and the public ministry” (pages 45-46) also does not address the matter in question.  All the quotations given from the Confessions deal with order in worship and what validates the Word and Sacrament and not with the question of who is eligible to hold office in the ministry of Word and Sacrament.  Quite rightly Luther affirms that the validity and efficacy of the sacraments rest solely on the power of the Word of God.  But Luther did not seek to ordain women to the office of the ministry, nor did the Roman Catholic or Lutheran Church of his time.  This reference too does not shed any light on the question of ordaining women.

 

On page 47 the Article states that ‘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”.  Quite true!  But the requirement for males only to be ordained is not based on the need to establish validity or efficacy, but it is based on Christ’s command.  Validity and efficacy must not be coupled with the question of ‘who’ holds the office of the ministry.  Hence for the writer this Article is not addressing the question and is missing the point.

 

On page 48 the Article states: ‘It is crucial that the Church follow Paul’s remarkable and surprising example and take care to display cultural awareness, flexibility and adaptability, for the sake of the Gospel”.  The writer fully agrees with this statement but would add the important proviso: ‘not at the expense of the Word”.  That is precisely what Paul did when he included the words, “the command of the Lord’, in I Cor.14.   Being sensitive to culture does not mean yielding to culture especially if and when that culture contravenes or seeks to negate the Word of God.

 

In the last paragraph on page 48 the Article 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 cultures and from all backgrounds’.  What is meant by ‘transformative ministry’ and how does the church give the world a glimpse of it?  The writer contends that it is not done simply by doing what the world does nor by aligning its practices with those of current culture.  That message conveys to the world that the church is a like human society.  The church offers transformative ministry, not by any outward appearance or action, not by identifying with cultural practice but solely by the pure teaching of the Word and the right administration of the Sacraments. It also witnesses to the transforming Word by its obedience to that Word and living a life of loving service.  No Christian is excluded from that, male or female, rich or poor, slave or free, adult or child.  It is quite misleading to assert that the ‘calling, training and ordaining suitable men and women” will enhance ‘Christ’s transformative ministry’.  It merely compromises church with culture and negates the command of the Lord.

 

The case presented in this Article to include the ordination of women is an argument by human inference and not based on a thorough exegetical study of the texts involved.  Whether intended or not comparisons are made and conclusion drawn not from identical or parallel but from differing situations and involvements.  Hence the presentation misses the point and offers no new insights into the current teaching of the Lutheran Church of Australia on the office of the ministry.

 

Finally, in the concluding paragraph, it is implied that women are being denied opportunity to minister and that the church is being denied undoubted blessing.  This writer contends that no member of the Lutheran Church of Australia is denied opportunity to participate in ministry even though to date it always has had men only serving in the office of the ministry.  One does not have to be an ordained pastor to minister to and for Christ and to be an obedient servant of the Word.  Nor should the attaining of the office of the ministry be an envious desire of any male or female member of the church.  It is not a gender competitive issue as it sometimes appears to be made but it is ordered by the Church as commanded by the Lord.

 

 

 

T T Reuther.