Inevitable changes?

[ContraMundum]

Hi All,

The Lutheran Church of Australia just voted in Synod on the issue or "male and female ordination". While a majority of the voters voted in favor of male and female ordination it wasn't enough to pass into Church law. A theological change was only very narrowly avoided.

It seems that this issue has been slowly creeping up towards being in favor of male and female ordination. It seems also that the matter will be yet again voted on in the future.

Here's my question to the forum: given that (broadly-speaking) mainline Lutherans have been very much involved in this innovation of doctrine (even quoting Luther in support of it) and those same also argue that there is no Confessional boundary against it, is it inevitable that change will occur? Secondly, could it be argued that theology-by-democracy is an inbuilt mechanism in Protestantism- Lutheran or Reformed?

Any opinions?

For the record, I oppose the innovation.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think there is anything in Confessional Lutheranism to support "theology by democracy". Does Acts 1:26 mean the Bible encourages people to play craps in Vegas?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't think there is anything in Confessional Lutheranism to support "theology by democracy". Does Acts 1:26 mean the Bible encourages people to play craps in Vegas?

No there is not; yet we are "congregationalists".

The Ausi Church is in fellowship with LCC, this would terminate this relationship if it were to pass.

 

[Resha Caner]

No there is not; yet we are "congregationalists".

Indeed, but I would equate "theology by democracy" with "engineering by democracy". I may vote for my engine to be 100% efficient, but the science of the matter begs to differ. The benefit of a group of engineers is that we can better improve the efficiency of the engine together than separately.

 

[ContraMundum]

I don't think there is anything in Confessional Lutheranism to support "theology by democracy".

Then why do Confessional Churches almost universally engage in it on some level? To me it is the obvious culprit in the ever-dividing world of Confessionalism. Because Protestant Confessions don't cover everything (no Confession could) there is always discussion and debate on something either in the Confessions or things not covered by them.

I think there may be a case that the Protestant movement across the board (even the ancient Catholic church perhaps?) has always engaged in practicing democratic dogma.

My question is still- is change inevitable?

 

[ContraMundum]

No there is not; yet we are "congregationalists".

Yep, and other Lutheran bodies are Synodical and even Episcopal with a college of Bishops. Consensus is always tested by the vote one way or another.

The Ausi Church is in fellowship with LCC, this would terminate this relationship if it were to pass.

The writing seems to be on the wall, doesn't it?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yep, and other Lutheran bodies are Synodical and even Episcopal with a college of Bishops. Consensus is always tested by the vote one way or another.



The writing seems to be on the wall, doesn't it?

We can hope it's a momentary lapse in judgement.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then why do Confessional Churches almost universally engage in it on some level? To me it is the obvious culprit in the ever-dividing world of Confessionalism. Because Protestant Confessions don't cover everything (no Confession could) there is always discussion and debate on something either in the Confessions or things not covered by them.

You're asking questions about church governance, and there is no perfect answer. We are finite & fallable. The "discussion and debate" is a necessary part of that no matter what form it comes in. I'm trying to draw a distinction between the "I want" of democracy and what should be the "God wants" of church governance.

Religions and churches are human institutions. Don't forget that.

My question is still- is change inevitable?

Sin is inevitable. "The Church" (which differs from religion) will endure to the end. One of the history projects I'm dying to undertake when (and if) I complete my degree is a continuity of theology project. The LCMS may not endure. Lutheranism may not endure. The U.S. may become a theological wasteland. While sad, there is a sense of, "So what?" The Church will endure somewhere.

 

[Albion]

Here's my question to the forum: given that (broadly-speaking) mainline Lutherans have been very much involved in this innovation of doctrine (even quoting Luther in support of it) and those same also argue that there is no Confessional boundary against it, is it inevitable that change will occur?

As concerns those called "mainline"...Yes.

Secondly, could it be argued that theology-by-democracy is an inbuilt mechanism in Protestantism- Lutheran or Reformed?

No.

 

[ContraMundum]

You're asking questions about church governance, and there is no perfect answer. We are finite & fallable. The "discussion and debate" is a necessary part of that no matter what form it comes in. I'm trying to draw a distinction between the "I want" of democracy and what should be the "God wants" of church governance.

Religions and churches are human institutions. Don't forget that.

Actually, I'm not particularly aiming at church polity but on how theological consensus is reached within any given polity (knowing that Lutheranism has many polities)

So, to more directly answer my original question- are you saying that yes, theology is done by democracy?

Sin is inevitable. "The Church" (which differs from religion) will endure to the end. One of the history projects I'm dying to undertake when (and if) I complete my degree is a continuity of theology project. The LCMS may not endure. Lutheranism may not endure. The U.S. may become a theological wasteland. While sad, there is a sense of, "So what?" The Church will endure somewhere.

I read a recent book by a Lutheran about that (The "Triumph" of the Church by Ps Tobin Peterson of the LCR). The conclusions of the book were ok but so much within it was downright awful- he basically blamed the Jews for everything wrong in ecclesiology and eschatology. I couldn't believe that anyone in this day and age still had such neanderthal and dreadfully misinformed opinions. His source was too often the old Lutheran organ the "Christian News", which I would have expected could not be a reliable primary source for a thesis- on this topic the information cited was utter rubbish and basically old lies.

Anyway, the reason I point that out is that a better work on the enduring and eternal nature of the Church may be welcomed.

 

[ContraMundum]

As concerns those called "mainline"...Yes.


No.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

 

[ContraMundum]

We can hope it's a momentary lapse in judgement.

I actually don't think so. The vast majority of the laity was for male and female ordination and almost 50% of the Ministerium.

 

[Resha Caner]

Anyway, the reason I point that out is that a better work on the enduring and eternal nature of the Church may be welcomed.

Hopefully some day.

So, to more directly answer my original question- are you saying that yes, theology is done by democracy?

I thought I did directly answer in my first post. Anyway, I agree with Albion. Maybe some religious bodies operate upon democratic principles, but Confessional Lutherans don't - no church seeking God's will would do that.

So, my answer is "no".

My point was that should the LCMS ever approve female ordination, all it means is that they're no longer seeking God's will. But I wouldn't consider that some tragic end of the Church. It just means I need to move on.

 

[Albion]

My point was that should the LCMS ever approve female ordination, all it means is that they're no longer seeking God's will. But I wouldn't consider that some tragic end of the Church. It just means I need to move on.

What's more, it's not as though churches with an elaborate hierarchical structure of authority and decision-making are immune to the possibility of falling to theological fads. The record says otherwise.

 

[Resha Caner]

What's more, it's not as though churches with an elaborate hierarchical structure of authority and decision-making are immune to the possibility of falling to theological fads. The record says otherwise.

Sure.

 

[ContraMundum]

I thought I did directly answer in my first post. Anyway, I agree with Albion. Maybe some religious bodies operate upon democratic principles, but Confessional Lutherans don't - no church seeking God's will would do that.

So, my answer is "no".

My point was that should the LCMS ever approve female ordination, all it means is that they're no longer seeking God's will. But I wouldn't consider that some tragic end of the Church. It just means I need to move on.

OK...a few points. The Confessions themselves are documents showing consensus that were assented to by voting. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, as it seems the early church was immediately involved in the same. However, I think the distinction may be important that the vote seems to be more about assent to dogma than the creation of dogma- however, that rule seems to be open to abuse. An example might be seen in the doctrine of the calling of pastors- there is the mediate call from God which is extended through men via the priesthood of all believers- the church calls through its members, done in some synods by voting. However, other synods may have voted for another doctrine of the call (eg. only through an episcopate etc), thus changing the theology. This obviously opens up other questions.

Regarding "seeking God's will" in the issue of ordaining females, this is precisely what the LCAust has been trying to do for years. They have been constantly assuring the membership that a) this will be investigated strictly according to scripture, b) the Gospel will be central, c) God will be prayerfully consulted [and has been] and d) the zeitgeist of the times will not be a consideration. Yet here we are on the precipice of change. This leads me to the question- what more can they do to seek God's will? This may all just boil down to different interpretations of scripture in the end.

 

[Resha Caner]

OK...a few points. The Confessions themselves are documents showing consensus that were assented to by voting.

Don't confuse voting with democracy. Democracy is a political philosophy. Voting is a means to an end, and is used by many different organizations including oligarchies.

The idea of democracy is to vest power in the people. Confessional Lutherans acknowledge that God has all power. Big difference. Do congregations vote? Yes. But about what color the carpet should be, not whether Jesus was the Christ. In other words, the authority of the congregation has its limits.

... the distinction may be important that the vote seems to be more about assent to dogma than the creation of dogma ...

There you go. And yes, the principle can be abused. That shouldn't surprise you. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not trying to protect some kind of sanctity of Lutheranism if that's what you're poking at.

Regarding "seeking God's will" in the issue of ordaining females, this is precisely what the LCAust has been trying to do for years. They have been constantly assuring the membership that a) this will be investigated strictly according to scripture, b) the Gospel will be central, c) God will be prayerfully consulted [and has been] and d) the zeitgeist of the times will not be a consideration.

They can say those things all they want. Even the Muslims say those things.

Yet here we are on the precipice of change. This leads me to the question- what more can they do to seek God's will? This may all just boil down to different interpretations of scripture in the end.

What more can they do? That's a problem right there.

I would ask them why this change is so important.

 

[ContraMundum]

There you go. And yes, the principle can be abused. That shouldn't surprise you. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not trying to protect some kind of sanctity of Lutheranism if that's what you're poking at.

I'm not getting at anything in particular. Just having a discussion. To my mind there is a fundamental problem here- the notion that we have the authority to change things by consensus. My experience in the church (now almost 30 years) has been one long heartache, because for some reason every church I adore keeps changing the rules/theology- and it's always done in synods where the members vote.

I know that theoretically the notion of Confessional Churches is meant to safeguard changes, but history shows that all the liberal churches were once upon a time adherents to conservative confessions.

What more can they do? That's a problem right there.

That comment brings even more questions.

I would ask them why this change is so important.

To those advocating change- they see problems that need addressing. They also see Luther as a champion of change and reform and claim that he is on their side. They cite him rather often as well.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not getting at anything in particular. Just having a discussion.

OK.

To my mind there is a fundamental problem here- the notion that we have the authority to change things by consensus.

That is a problem. I wonder where they got that idea, because we don't have that authority - at least not in all things. Some things don't change. IMO churches in the U.S. have been infected with Americanism - the worship of individualism. I have some ideas I would like to pursue in that regard, but it's a long process.

One thing I like about the LCMS is that as much as people may want to trumpet our congregational nature, there is a "that's not how it really works" aspect to the LCMS. The true core of the LCMS is its seminaries. We've created a bit of an ivory tower charged with protecting the Confessions. As Seminex demonstrated, that approach has its flaws as well. But I do prefer it to allowing lay people to make willy-nilly decisions.

That comment brings even more questions.

Ask away.

To those advocating change- they see problems that need addressing. They also see Luther as a champion of change and reform and claim that he is on their side. They cite him rather often as well.

Uh huh. Again, I've had Mormons, Muslims, etc. tell me all kinds of "interesting" things about Luther. But it's not about Luther either. If they're trying to appropriate Luther to their cause, that's a warning bell right there.

When I said you need to ask them why they're making this change, I meant you need to probe - ask some uncomfortable questions.

 

[ContraMundum]

That is a problem. I wonder where they got that idea, because we don't have that authority - at least not in all things. Some things don't change. IMO churches in the U.S. have been infected with Americanism - the worship of individualism. I have some ideas I would like to pursue in that regard, but it's a long process.

I've been saying that for years. Trust me when I tell you few people want to accept that.

One thing I like about the LCMS is that as much as people may want to trumpet our congregational nature, there is a "that's not how it really works" aspect to the LCMS. The true core of the LCMS is its seminaries. We've created a bit of an ivory tower charged with protecting the Confessions. As Seminex demonstrated, that approach has its flaws as well. But I do prefer it to allowing lay people to make willy-nilly decisions.

A few of the break-away churches from the LCMS have often given as one reason that "Romanization" of the LCMS- the "that's not how it really works" you mention as a rejection of the congregationalism which was enshrined as God given by Walther and others. I suppose the human tensions in any church make interesting subjects for historians.

Uh huh. Again, I've had Mormons, Muslims, etc. tell me all kinds of "interesting" things about Luther. But it's not about Luther either. If they're trying to appropriate Luther to their cause, that's a warning bell right there.

All too true. Luther is very easy to quote as an advocate for female ordination. Some argue that he opened the door for it. However, I think it is a misunderstanding of him to do so. I note that it is easy to quote any prolific writer on many given topics and find what one needs to find.

When I said you need to ask them why they're making this change, I meant you need to probe - ask some uncomfortable questions.

Been there, done that. Even schmoozed the people at the top about this.