CALC Lutheran & female ministers

[cerette]

So I've come across this group of Lutherans, who seem to be quite conservative and confessional, yet at the same time they allow female ministers. Any comments on this their essay?
http://www.calc.ca/Ordination of Women.pdf

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

You cannot be conservative and ordain women.

 

[Christian_Commenter_1234]

WELS Canada and Lutheran Church-Canada (LCC) are both more conservative churches that are more faithful to the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. LCC is basically the LCMS but they separated geographically without ending fellowship. I'm not aware of any Canadian specific churches without American ties.

 

[twin.spin]

Their rational goes against what God teaches in the Bible.
(taken from the WELS Q\A "why doesn't the WELS have women pastors?"
http://wels.net/faq/why-no-women-pastors/

• Ephesians 4:11 God has also established the public ministry of the Word
• 1 Corinthians 14:40 it is the will of God that the church, in accordance with good order
• 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 1 Corinthians 9:14 God call(s) qualified individuals into this public ministry
  
• Romans 10:15 Such individuals minister publicly, because they are asked to do this in the name of fellow Christians
• 1 Peter 5:3 These individuals are the called servants of Christ and ministers of the gospel.
• Acts 20:28 when the church calls individuals into this public ministry, the Lord himself is acting through the church
• 1 Peter 5:2 the church’s mission is to serve people with the Word and sacraments. Pastors are trained and called to provide such comprehensive spiritual oversight for the gathering and nurturing of souls in congregations
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12 women may participate in offices and activities of the public ministry except where that work involves authority over men
• 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 women may not serve as pastors nor participate in assemblies of the church in ways that exercise authority over men

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

You cannot be conservative and ordain women.

You can actually

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You can actually

I think a Church can be both conservative and heterodox at the same time too.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

Their rational goes against what God teaches in the Bible.
(taken from the WELS Q\A "why doesn't the WELS have women pastors?"
http://wels.net/faq/why-no-women-pastors/

• Ephesians 4:11 God has also established the public ministry of the Word
• 1 Corinthians 14:40 it is the will of God that the church, in accordance with good order
• 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 1 Corinthians 9:14 God call(s) qualified individuals into this public ministry
  
• Romans 10:15 Such individuals minister publicly, because they are asked to do this in the name of fellow Christians
• 1 Peter 5:3 These individuals are the called servants of Christ and ministers of the gospel.
• Acts 20:28 when the church calls individuals into this public ministry, the Lord himself is acting through the church
• 1 Peter 5:2 the church’s mission is to serve people with the Word and sacraments. Pastors are trained and called to provide such comprehensive spiritual oversight for the gathering and nurturing of souls in congregations
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12 women may participate in offices and activities of the public ministry except where that work involves authority over men
• 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 women may not serve as pastors nor participate in assemblies of the church in ways that exercise authority over men

Many ( including myself) hold to an egalitarian reading of scripture

 

[twin.spin]

Many ( including myself) hold to an egalitarian reading of scripture

That may be that many do. That however doesn't negate the truth that as far as this topic is concerned such rational goes against what God teaches in the Bible.

 

[ziggy29]

The problem is that 1 Tim. (the usual source for justification against female clergy, and almost certainly not written by Paul) seems to contradict Galatians 3:28 (accepted as genuinely Pauline) and perhaps Colossians 3:11 (possibly Pauline and in today's readings in the common lectionary) which may imply that the new covenant in Christ made everyone equally in Christ, as opposed to the Old Testament idea that there were "chosen" people. IMO Christ made all of humanity God's chosen people in His new covenant, and while I can understand using 1 Tim. and others as a reason why there should not be female clergy, just the same I think there are enough contrary New Testament references eliminating gender differences in the body of Christ that even if one believes women should not be clergy, it's a stretch to judgmentally and definitively call it "un-Christian".

Also read the famous 1 Timothy text. It says "I will not permit." This is not God speaking or Christ speaking; it does not say "God will not permit" or "Jesus would not permit". This is an individual (probably not Paul) giving their views on church leadership. And yes, I believe in divine inspiration in the Scriptures, but I also believe that said Scriptures were sometimes geared to a time and place -- which may explain why the epistles we know and accept to be genuinely Pauline don't always have the same exact message.

To expand on that, Galatians 3:28 doesn't say "I believe there is no longer male or female...." It states a Scriptural fact, not a single person's point of view. That is another reason I believe in a more egalitarian viewpoint IN THIS CASE -- Paul writes it as a statement of fact, whereas the author of 1 Timothy makes it sound like a personal opinion or time-and-place necessity. It's not political or social "liberalism" or activism, just my understanding of language and context combined believing that divine inspiration of the Scriptures would leave no room for syntactical accidents like this.

All that said I can understand different interpretations of Scripture here. What I can't accept is one group accusing another of being "not Christian" because of their varied good-faith interpretation.

 

[twin.spin]

The problem is that 1 Tim. (the usual source for justification against female clergy, and almost certainly not written by Paul) seems to contradict Galatians 3:28 (accepted as genuinely Pauline) and perhaps Colossians 3:11 (possibly Pauline and in today's readings in the common lectionary) which may imply that the new covenant in Christ made everyone equally in Christ, as opposed to the Old Testament idea that there were "chosen" people. IMO Christ made all of humanity God's chosen people in His new covenant, and while I can understand using 1 Tim. and others as a reason why there should not be female clergy, just the same I think there are enough contrary New Testament references eliminating gender differences in the body of Christ that even if one believes women should not be clergy, it's a stretch to judgmentally and definitively call it "un-Christian".

Also read the famous 1 Timothy text. It says "I will not permit." This is not God speaking or Christ speaking; it does not say "God will not permit" or "Jesus would not permit". This is an individual (probably not Paul) giving their views on church leadership. And yes, I believe in divine inspiration in the Scriptures, but I also believe that said Scriptures were sometimes geared to a time and place -- which may explain why the epistles we know and accept to be genuinely Pauline don't always have the same exact message.

To expand on that, Galatians 3:28 doesn't say "I believe there is no longer male or female...." It states a Scriptural fact, not a single person's point of view. That is another reason I believe in a more egalitarian viewpoint IN THIS CASE -- Paul writes it as a statement of fact, whereas the author of 1 Timothy makes it sound like a personal opinion or time-and-place necessity. It's not political or social "liberalism" or activism, just my understanding of language and context combined believing that divine inspiration of the Scriptures would leave no room for syntactical accidents like this.

All that said I can understand different interpretations of Scripture here. What I can't accept is one group accusing another of being "not Christian" because of their varied good-faith interpretation.

You sir are sorely mistaken on several points

1) 1 Timothy is from Paul. 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul identifies himself as such in the salutation to Timothy.
Whomever claims otherwise is either mislead or worse as 2 Peter 3:16 or Acts 20:30 declares.

2) "All scripture is God-breathed" ... that includes 1 Timothy when it is written "I will not permit."
The Holy Spirit of God is the author and owner of every word in Scripture which makes Paul statement something that was ultimately in accordance to that Divine will and the roles of men and women that God desires.

3) No scripture contradicts another though seemingly to human wisdom looks that way.
Jesus made it clear that no contradictions will exist when stated: "Scripture cannot be broken"

4) Correct, it's not because political or social "liberalism" or activism. God gives the true reason:

2 Peter 3:16 ("his" referring to Paul)

His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,
which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.​

Acts 20:30
Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.​

 

[cerette]

Thanks for all the comments, I have read them all with interest!