Inevitable changes?

[Resha Caner]

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

I agree. My approach is more to find a way to bring together those who already accept a Confessional model than to try to convert those who don't want to be converted. I'm not saying we should give up on people, but preaching the Gospel is already the mission of the Church and I see no need to invent a new church.

I'm not searching for a way to fix what's broken because the way has already been found. Rather, I'd like to build a supportive community for those doing that work.

 

[ContraMundum]

I agree. My approach is more to find a way to bring together those who already accept a Confessional model than to try to convert those who don't want to be converted. I'm not saying we should give up on people, but preaching the Gospel is already the mission of the Church and I see no need to invent a new church.

I'm not searching for a way to fix what's broken because the way has already been found. Rather, I'd like to build a supportive community for those doing that work.

We are not far apart at all.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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

As explained to me by a former Pastor, the Constitutions of both the LCMS and LCC would need to be struck down in order for a motion to allow ordination of female clergy to even be entertained; that is, our Synods would have to cease to exist.

I have never seen the constitution of the Australian Church, so I have no idea how it is structured. If there was a vote, there must be provision to allow it; or such a motion or resolution would have been declared "out of order".

 

[Resha Caner]

We are not far apart at all.

So, what's next then?

 

[ContraMundum]

As explained to me by a former Pastor, the Constitutions of both the LCMS and LCC would need to be struck down in order for a motion to allow ordination of female clergy to even be entertained; that is, our Synods would have to cease to exist.

I have never seen the constitution of the Australian Church, so I have no idea how it is structured. If there was a vote, there must be provision to allow it; or such a motion or resolution would have been declared "out of order".

Yep, it's basically the Constitution would have to be amended. From the official website, the motion was:

"The resolution to General Synod... read: ‘that the LCA accepts the ordination of both men and women and amends Theses of Agreement VI and the Constitution accordingly’."

"Of the 423 delegates registered at convention, 145 voted against the resolution to ordain both men and women; 269 supported it. The Constitution of the LCA requires a two-thirds majority of registered delegates at the convention to bring about a change in matters of a theological or confessional nature."

The "Theses of Agreement" mentioned was the agreement drawn up between the two Lutheran bodies that formed the LCA back in '66. This would also have to be amended.

 

[ContraMundum]

So, what's next then?

No idea. I guess we have to ask whether or not we see change as inevitable or not- what happens after any change is another story.

 

[Kalevalatar]

As far as that "theological democracy" goes, a few hundred years ago only the sons of noble men could get Lutheran ordination. The patriarchal belief system back then was that only the men of consequence, the wealthy, powerful lords who ran the society, were capable and had the sufficient intelligence, and the common folks, men and women alike, were lesser beings, whereas those who rule are already servants of God.