lcms and wels diffs?

[DaRev]

They are hired. Several of my extended family members are teachers in the LCMS and they are not considered divine workers, nor do they receive a "divine call" in the way that the WELS teachers do.

See post #199

It is also my understanding that the means of getting a pastor are a bit different. WELS pastors receive a call from a church and generally within 6-8 weeks accept or decline the call. I believe, from Rev's own postings here, that there is a bit more to their process. I think Rev actually went and met with the congregation he was called to serve and that the process took several months. A friend of ours whose father was a pastor in the LCMS likened it to several "interviews"...I don't know if that characterization is correct.

The interview process is optional. A pastor who is being considered for a call is under no obligation to interview with the calling congregation. Many churches will simply send a call to a pastor sight-unseen with no prior communication. In most instances, the calling congregations call committee will contact the pastors on their call list to see whether they would consider a call. Those who won't are then scratched from the list. For me, if my name is on a call list somewhere it may mean that the Lord may have something else planned for me, and who am I to go against Him? So I never turn down a consideration, but there are some who do.

Because our teachers receive a divine call, their calls are handled in the same way that a pastor call is handled. The church holds a voters assembly and they are given a list from the district president of names that match up to the skillset and experience that the school is looking for. They vote and the top 2 votes are then discussed again and a new vote is taken. After it is determined which candidate has the highest amounts of votes, another vote is taken with the wish that the vote to call the teachers is unanimous. It almost always is. WELS believes that this call is just as divinely inspired as the call to a pastor is.

Schools cannot just fire a teacher or a pastor. They must have shown that the proper line of church discipline has taken place, from Matthew, and the elders (or the council if the church doesn't have elders) must first vote to terminate the call. That vote then gets sent to the general assembly. The vote need not be unanimous, and generally speaking in terms of terminating a call, if the congregation does not vote for it, the elders and council still have the ability to go through with the termination. That often involves the main synodical offices.

It's the same process for called ministers in the LCMS.

The term "divine call" has a couple different meanings. It can refer to the inner call that one receives from God to enter into church work, either as an ordained pastor or a teacher, DCE, DCO, Deaconess, etc. It can also mean the specific call that the Church makes to call a pastor.

~~~~~

It works much the same for most of the offices held in the church. A council president is not simply removed from office, nor would a council member just be removed. Sunday school teachers, while not held to such a standard, also cannot just be removed

It's the same in LCMS congregations. Persons elected by the Voter's Assembly can only be removed by a 2/3 majority ballot vote of the Voter's, and only for just cause. Non-elected positions (Sunday School teachers for example) can be removed either by the pastor for just cause or by a vote of the council, depending on the circumstances.

So, because of what our congregations vote on, our women simply cannot vote because it can, in certain circumstances, be authoritative over men. The bible does not say "women shall not have authority over the pastors", the bible says that women will not have authority over men in the matters of the church. That's actually explained pretty well in the link I offered earlier from our WELS doctrinal statements.

The prohibition of the authority of women is in the context of the pastoral office, not "pastors".

And often in cases where a call is going to be terminated "for cause" (reasons other than financial, etc) our district conferences get involved and the synod offices do too, nominally and usually to make sure that proper channels are being followed, and sometimes to provide counseling or alternative solutions.

That is also the case in the LCMS, except sometimes there are rogue elements within congregations that try and by-pass this. It's happened before. What's irritating is that the districts and synod, while they rail against such practices, don't do a whole lot about it when it does occur.

 

[DaRev]

So someone who graduated from the local university, for example, would have to go through special classes to be called to teach at a WELS school.

Same thing in the LCMS. They would go through the teacher's colloquy.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

See post #199

thanks for the clarification.

The interview process is optional. A pastor who is being considered for a call is under no obligation to interview with the calling congregation. Many churches will simply send a call to a pastor sight-unseen with no prior communication. In most instances, the calling congregations call committee will contact the pastors on their call list to see whether they would consider a call. Those who won't are then scratched from the list. For me, if my name is on a call list somewhere it may mean that the Lord may have something else planned for me, and who am I to go against Him? So I never turn down a consideration, but there are some who do.

When our pastors get a call, they always take a certain amount of time with it, even if they're going to turn it down. When we received Matt's call to Minnesota, we knew basically the second day that we were going to take the call, so we spent a few weeks trying to find any type of deal breaker. Typically, pastors with calls don't visit ahead of time, although some have done so on their own, and I think those guys were pastors with family making a HUGE move and whatnot.

When our pastors don't want to receive a call, they have to make a request to the calling committee to have their name removed.

It's the same process for called ministers in the LCMS.

The term "divine call" has a couple different meanings. It can refer to the inner call that one receives from God to enter into church work, either as an ordained pastor or a teacher, DCE, DCO, Deaconess, etc. It can also mean the specific call that the Church makes to call a pastor.

That would be the way I would view it, too.

It's the same in LCMS congregations. Persons elected by the Voter's Assembly can only be removed by a 2/3 majority ballot vote of the Voter's, and only for just cause. Non-elected positions (Sunday School teachers for example) can be removed either by the pastor for just cause or by a vote of the council, depending on the circumstances.

So we're the same there as well.

The prohibition of the authority of women is in the context of the pastoral office, not "pastors".

6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. But still, exactly where does the bible limit the authority that women can't exhort to the pastoral office? This is the crux of where we differ in terms of the role of women in the church.

That is also the case in the LCMS, except sometimes there are rogue elements within congregations that try and by-pass this. It's happened before. What's irritating is that the districts and synod, while they rail against such practices, don't do a whole lot about it when it does occur.

I think our synod has the same issue with rogue congregations, but our synodical leaders seem to be fast on the draw to rein those congregations in. I do believe that's a major problem for the LCMS and that it's going to come back and bite them if they don't fix it. I think where the WELS is weak is the people who find these congregations don't report them and then leave it to the DPs, they report them (or not) and then blog endlessly about it to anyone who will listen.

 

[DaRev]

So, because of what our congregations vote on, our women simply cannot vote because it can, in certain circumstances, be authoritative over men. The bible does not say "women shall not have authority over the pastors", the bible says that women will not have authority over men in the matters of the church. That's actually explained pretty well in the link I offered earlier from our WELS doctrinal statements.

Although I know you will not agree with it, here is a link to a document that explains the LCMS position on the service of women in the Church.

 

[DaRev]

6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. But still, exactly where does the bible limit the authority that women can't exhort to the pastoral office? This is the crux of where we differ in terms of the role of women in the church.

In 2 Timothy, Paul is speaking about instruction in the Church, referring to himself as an "ordained preacher". Following his instruction concerning the prohibition of authority of women he goes into the qualifications of being a pastor - episkopos (often translated "bishop" or "overseer") in chapter 3. The context is carried through this particular teaching. (The word presbuteros (often translated "elder") is another NT word that refers to pastors. The word for what we today call "elders" is diakonos.)

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Although I know you will not agree with it, here is a link to a document that explains the LCMS position on the service of women in the Church.

Just in the first few pages I see two instances where you guys took passages and somewhat guessed at what they meant. You took 2 Timothy 12, which is the passage that states that "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" and decided that "a man" must somehow mean the pastor. What I see is Paul saying that women are not to have authority over a man. How do you explain that to mean in terms of the pastoral office? The word in the old text is even "a man".

 

[PreachersWife2004]

In 2 Timothy, Paul is speaking about instruction in the Church, referring to himself as an "ordained preacher". Following his instruction concerning the prohibition of authority of women he goes into the qualifications of being a pastor - episkopos (often translated "bishop" or "overseer") in chapter 3. The context is carried through this particular teaching. (The word presbuteros (often translated "elder") is another NT word that refers to pastors. The word for what we today call "elders" is diakonos.)

We understand the qualifications of being a pastor, but that doesn't equate to Paul saying that the authority is reserved to the pastoral office. Where does one get the idea that "a man" = the pastoral office? Especially as you point out the different terms used for leaders within the church...none of those were used, the word used is translated to "a man".

 

[DaRev]

We understand the qualifications of being a pastor, but that doesn't equate to Paul saying that the authority is reserved to the pastoral office. Where does one get the idea that "a man" = the pastoral office? Especially as you point out the different terms used for leaders within the church...none of those were used, the word used is translated to "a man".

You're ignoring the word "teach" in that verse. The two words go together. In Greek it's "didaskein" and in the context of that whole passage refers to the "teaching office" or pastoral office. If you read the document it states that women are not only prohibited from holding the pastoral office, but also from having any position that would entail accountability for the pastoral office or the functions of that office that are ususally resigned to elders (deacons), which according to Scripture are also to be only men.

If we are to take that passage in 2 Timothy as broadly as you say, it would then have to apply to all things across the board, including those positions outside the Church, including businesses, schools, government, etc.

What is the WELS position on such authority outside the congregation?

 

[seajoy]

Actually it's both. Teachers that are trained in the synodical university system are considered "Ministers of Religion-Commissioned" and they are called to their positions within the Church. This classification includes teachers, DCE's, DCO's, DFS's, and (I believe) Deaconesses. LCMS schools can also hire teachers who are not "commissioned ministers" but simply lay people.

Thanks.

 

[twin.spin]

You're ignoring the word "teach" in that verse. The two words go together. In Greek it's "didaskein" and in the context of that whole passage refers to the "teaching office" or pastoral office. If you read the document it states that women are not only prohibited from holding the pastoral office, but also from having any position that would entail accountability for the pastoral office or the functions of that office that are usually resigned to elders (deacons), which according to Scripture are also to be only men.

If we are to take that passage in 2 Timothy as broadly as you say, it would then have to apply to all things across the board, including those positions outside the Church, including businesses, schools, government, etc.

What is the WELS position on such authority outside the congregation?

I would say that it would not be incorrect for attitudes being different within the family of believers that would reflect glory to God than attitudes that are popular and practiced outside the Church.

When a unbeliever looks at the family of believers ... what will they see? Would they see something that resembles what the world holds important or resemble what God's intent for humanity would have been if sin not entered.

I have no doubt that if sin never occurred, this would not be be an issue (especially for the women). Besides not having the need for scripture being written ..... 2 Timothy would have applied to all things across the board.

Everything that is done within the family of believers "should" bring glory to God. To whom does it glorify when a person (or in this case women)denies themselves of a right that the world views as "weakness" in attitude or relationship between men and women?

I suppose you could make the case that it's a matter of interpetation. I though would say that it brings glory to God when women take the example of Jesus who denied himself his "rights" to equality. Such an attitude is not what the world promotes and anytime we as a family of believers can reflect Jesus' servant attitude, the more glory can be reflected toward God.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You're ignoring the word "teach" in that verse. The two words go together. In Greek it's "didaskein" and in the context of that whole passage refers to the "teaching office" or pastoral office. If you read the document it states that women are not only prohibited from holding the pastoral office, but also from having any position that would entail accountability for the pastoral office or the functions of that office that are ususally resigned to elders (deacons), which according to Scripture are also to be only men.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm focusing on the authority part of the verse. The verse has nothing to do with the pastoral office. It simply says that women are not to teach and have authority over men. When you read that be in the capacity of the pastoral office, you are reading into what Paul has said, and there's no reason to do so.

If we are to take that passage in 2 Timothy as broadly as you say, it would then have to apply to all things across the board, including those positions outside the Church, including businesses, schools, government, etc.

Wrong again. 2 Timothy talks of IN THE CHURCH.

What is the WELS position on such authority outside the congregation?

From our doctrinal statement:

20. Christians also accept the biblical role relationship principle for their life and work in the world (1 Co 11:3; Eph 5:6-17). Christians seek to do God's will consistently in every area of their lives. We will therefore strive to apply this role relationship principle to our life and work in the world.

21. Scripture leaves a great deal to our conscientious Christian judgment as we live the role relationship principle in the world. In Christian love we will refrain from unduly binding the consciences of the brothers and sisters in our fellowship. Rather, we will encourage each other as we seek to apply this principle to our lives in the world.

22. Because the unregenerate world is not motivated by the Gospel or guided by God's will (1 Co 2:14), we as Christians will not try to force God's will upon the world (1 Co 5:12). We will seek to influence and change the world by our Gospel witness in word and deed (Mk 16:15; Mt 5:16).​

 

[DaRev]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm focusing on the authority part of the verse. The verse has nothing to do with the pastoral office. It simply says that women are not to teach and have authority over men. When you read that be in the capacity of the pastoral office, you are reading into what Paul has said, and there's no reason to do so.

You are pulling the verse out of the greater context. The greater context, which carries into chapter 3, is the teaching/preaching office. It goes right into the qualifications for such.

If the WELS wishes to apply this across the board, that is their perogative. But it's incorrect to say that the LCMS is wrong simply because we apply it to the context in which it is written.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You are pulling the verse out of the greater context. The greater context, which carries into chapter 3, is the teaching/preaching office. It goes right into the qualifications for such.

If the WELS wishes to apply this across the board, that is their perogative. But it's incorrect to say that the LCMS is wrong simply because we apply it to the context in which it is written.

Why then is the heading for 1 Timothy 12 "Instructions on Worship"? Why wouldn't they have put this under chapter 3 instead? Why not have the heading say "proper respect for the pastoral office"? and what do you do with the rest of Timothy? How do you put the rest of it into the "greater context" of the teaching/preaching office?

also, does the LCMS then hold that Adam was a pastor?

 

[DaRev]

Why then is the heading for 1 Timothy 12 "Instructions on Worship"? Why wouldn't they have put this under chapter 3 instead? Why not have the heading say "proper respect for the pastoral office"? and what do you do with the rest of Timothy? How do you put the rest of it into the "greater context" of the teaching/preaching office?

I am assuming you mean 1 Timothy 2. Paul speaks to different issues in the book. The context determines this. The chapter and verse numbers were added centuries after it was written and don't necessarily fall according to greater contexts. In the LCMS we go by the text, not chapter and verse divisions which are not part of the original text.

also, does the LCMS then hold that Adam was a pastor?

No, but he was a husband/father, the role of which translates into the pastoral office within the household of God (another reason why women are not called to be pastors - God doesn't call them to be husbands or fathers, either).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I am assuming you mean 1 Timothy 2. Paul speaks to different issues in the book. The context determines this. The chapter and verse numbers were added centuries after it was written and don't necessarily fall according to greater contexts. In the LCMS we go by the text, not chapter and verse divisions which are not part of the original text.

That doesn't really answer the question. You say the bigger context is the office of the pastor. That squares up with a portion of 1 Timothy, but not all of 1 Timothy. How, then, do you pick out which part is speaking to the pastoral office and which is not?

And because there is such a word for pastor in the old texts, why wouldn't that word have been used in place of "a man"?

The way you guys apply context to 1 Timothy actually raises questions rather than answering them.

No, but he was a husband/father, the role of which translates into the pastoral office within the household of God (another reason why women are not called to be pastors - God doesn't call them to be husbands or fathers, either).

Hmmm...interesting. So you allow women to have authority over their husbands and fathers in the church, but not at home? What happens when a husband votes one way and the wife votes another? What about when a father counsels his daughter to vote a certain way and she doesn't honor that?



Someone once told me that LCMS' stance on the role of women in the church is a "have your cake and eat it too" doctrine. The men can easily give up their roles in church because the women are willing to take them on, while at the same time the LCMS can effectively keep women out of the pulpit.

 

[Zecryphon]

I wasn't saying that women didn't have a supporting role with Jesus in his ministry.

But that's what it looks like you're saying here in post # 141 before you deleted it:

IMO there wasn't any women as part of the traveling party group of "disciples" that we would consider the 12 (or the 72 that was sent out) that was with Jesus in his three year ministry.

We probably were speaking from the same view point but from different perspectives.

I really don't see how.

I didn't see the link that pw referenced.... probably because I don't read every post that doesn't directly involve me. But even so, I'm fairly confident about the what WELS holds to being my sister is a MLC grad and a preacher's wife since 1965 ... my wife is a MLC 1982 grad.

Here is the link:

Scriptural principles of man and woman roles | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

 

[DaRev]

That doesn't really answer the question. You say the bigger context is the office of the pastor. That squares up with a portion of 1 Timothy, but not all of 1 Timothy. How, then, do you pick out which part is speaking to the pastoral office and which is not?

Context. Reading the text. Taking the words and subject matter into account.

And because there is such a word for pastor in the old texts, why wouldn't that word have been used in place of "a man"?

Because the comparative word in the text is "woman". Since women are not pastors, there is no other comparative word to use.

Hmmm...interesting. So you allow women to have authority over their husbands and fathers in the church, but not at home? What happens when a husband votes one way and the wife votes another? What about when a father counsels his daughter to vote a certain way and she doesn't honor that?

You're misapplying the "headship" of the man in the household. It's a headship of servitude, not as a despot.

Someone once told me that LCMS' stance on the role of women in the church is a "have your cake and eat it too" doctrine. The men can easily give up their roles in church because the women are willing to take them on, while at the same time the LCMS can effectively keep women out of the pulpit.

If a man gives up his leadership role in the church, that's his own fault. In fact, if you had read the document I linked previously it states that the women are to encourage their husbands to assume their leadership roles, not abandon them. Women are not to seek to replace them, but to supplement them using the gifts that God has given to each.

Let me ask you, in your house are you able to determine what you all have for dinner each day, or does your husband tell you what to cook?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Context. Reading the text. Taking the words and subject matter into account.

But reading in context doesn't change the fact that 1 Tim 2 isn't talking about the pastoral office. You take what is written in verse 3 and turn around and say that verse 2 is talking about it as well. That's not reading in context, that's taking the context out of order.

Because the comparative word in the text is "woman". Since women are not pastors, there is no other comparative word to use.

But you are saying the verse specifies that women can't have authority over the pastoral office. The verse specifically states "a man". I know there is a word for pastor that if the verse was really stating that a women simply doesn't have authority in the capacity of the pastoral office they would've used that word. They would have written "a woman shall not have authority over the pastoral office" but they didn't.

ou're misapplying the "headship" of the man in the household. It's a headship of servitude, not as a despot.

I'm not the one misapplying it, though. I am using your logic to ask these questions.

If a man gives up his leadership role in the church, that's his own fault. In fact, if you had read the document I linked previously it states that the women are to encourage their husbands to assume their leadership roles, not abandon them. Women are not to seek to replace them, but to supplement them using the gifts that God has given to each.

I did read it, and I chuckled when I read that part. It's like saying "here's your drivers license, but you probably shouldn't really use it. You should only use it when there's an emergency". It doesn't work that way. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

Let me ask you, in your house are you able to determine what you all have for dinner each day, or does your husband tell you what to cook?

I ask my husband what he wants for dinner. What's your point? If he wants something I don't want, I just don't eat it. When we make decisions, we do it together, but he has the ultimate say. When we vote in public elections, we talk about the candidates and ultimately, I vote for who he votes for. When we have a big financial decision to make, I generally defer to him because he's the leader and he makes the money.

As a wife, I do everything I can to make sure that my actions don't subvert him. Women in the church should be doing the same thing, but in the LCMS, that's not the case. Women can actively and publicly vote against their husband. Women can actively and publicly dishonor a man's authority. And I know that it happens. My aunt and uncle nearly divorced over a voting issue at a LCMS church.

 

[alexnbethmom]

i have such a headache....went to bible study this morning, which was about fellowship, and had a HUGE conversation with the pastor about the role of women in the church (he's WELS, i'm LCMS) - i understand what he's saying, but i understand what my pastor and DaRev is saying - good grief. i need an ibuprofen.

 

[DaRev]

But reading in context doesn't change the fact that 1 Tim 2 isn't talking about the pastoral office. You take what is written in verse 3 and turn around and say that verse 2 is talking about it as well. That's not reading in context, that's taking the context out of order.

The immediate context is about worship. But who leads the public worship service? Who should and shouldn't lead the public worship service? That's the point. The greater context concerning who leads the public worship service is carried in chapter 3. I'm not the one taking the context out of order. It's in perfect order.

But you are saying the verse specifies that women can't have authority over the pastoral office. The verse specifically states "a man". I know there is a word for pastor that if the verse was really stating that a women simply doesn't have authority in the capacity of the pastoral office they would've used that word. They would have written "a woman shall not have authority over the pastoral office" but they didn't.

Again, you're not seeing the context correctly. I suppose that you would then have to agree that women must wear hats in the worship service since Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians 11. Do you wear head coverings to your worship services? Using your singular contextual logic, you had better, because that's what the Bible says, right?

But the fact is that the context is what guides us through the word of God and helps us to determine what it says. 1 Timothy 2 is talking about the role of women in the worship service. It's not specifically talking about the role of women in other areas, whether in the congregation or elsewhere. This is what the WELS is applying across the board. They take something that is specifically talking about the teaching/preaching office in the worship service and applies it to everything in the congregation. If they want to do that, fine. But don't say that we're wrong because we apply it as written.

I did read it, and I chuckled when I read that part. It's like saying "here's your drivers license, but you probably shouldn't really use it. You should only use it when there's an emergency". It doesn't work that way. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

Kinda like when God gives a woman a spiritual gift of finance or other administrating, but the WELS says "here's your gift, but you can't use it because only men are allowed to use their spiritual gifts in the congregation."
I guess you're now beginning to see the folly of your point of view. Good. We're getting somehwere now.

I ask my husband what he wants for dinner. What's your point? If he wants something I don't want, I just don't eat it.

Do you have to ask his permission to cook something for yourself, then? Or do you just go hungry on those occasions?

When we make decisions, we do it together, but he has the ultimate say. When we vote in public elections, we talk about the candidates and ultimately, I vote for who he votes for. When we have a big financial decision to make, I generally defer to him because he's the leader and he makes the money.

As a wife, I do everything I can to make sure that my actions don't subvert him. Women in the church should be doing the same thing, but in the LCMS, that's not the case. Women can actively and publicly vote against their husband. Women can actively and publicly dishonor a man's authority. And I know that it happens. My aunt and uncle nearly divorced over a voting issue at a LCMS church.

Women can't publicly and actively dishonor a man's authority where the women have no authority in the Church.
And if your aunt and uncle nearly divorced, I'm sure there is a much bigger issue between them than a voting matter in a church.