Women's Suffrage in The Church vs in Public

[ShutterAce]

So here is my first question on the forum. Being that I am a WELS communicant expect me to view things from that vantage point. That said I would like the thoughts of the broader audience here also.

Every 2 year election cycle I find myself asking the same question. Why is it OK for women to vote in a public election but not within the WELS? I know and understand why voting is limited to men within the WELS. What I find intriguing is that we seem, at least to my eye, to be holding onto a double standard here. We would never even think of endorsing abortion in the public sector but somehow we see women having authority over men in the world as different than them having it in the Church. Shouldn't we be the same(the Church) wherever we are or whatever we are doing?

While we are on the topic perhaps we should just throw in the LCMS view on women's suffrage also. My understanding is that LCMS splits authority at the pastoral office. Meaning that only men are allowed to participate in anything that involves the execution of that office. Is that correct? We were members at an LCMS congregation for a few years but I just never got my head wrapped around this.

 

[DaRev]

I'm not WELS, so while I do have an opinion on your first question, I'm in no position to answer it. But I can answer this one:

While we are on the topic perhaps we should just throw in the LCMS view on women's suffrage also. My understanding is that LCMS splits authority at the pastoral office. Meaning that only men are allowed to participate in anything that involves the execution of that office. Is that correct? We were members at an LCMS congregation for a few years but I just never got my head wrapped around this.

Using the hermeneutic of Scripture interprets Scripture, those passages concerning the role of women in the Church deal mainly with the one divinely instituted office in the Church and not man made offices. The one position in the Church that holds any authority over the Church is the pastoral office, instituted by Christ with His authority to carry out those specific functions ascribed to that office. It follows the relationship that Christ has with the Church, the same as husband and wife in the household. (Christ is the bridegroom, the husband of the Church). The pastoral office was instituted to carry out those functions prescribed by Christ in His stead and by His authority. This is why women are not called to this office. This office is an extension of that of the bridegroom of the Church. Women are not husbands. (A study of the roles of husband and wife will show the role of the husband is that of servant to his bride.) Thus, women are not called to that divinely instituted office in the Church.

The LCMS applies this biblical principal to the pastoral office and the duties assigned to it. Women are not to hold the office nor perform any of the functions of the office, nor are they to hold any position in the congregation that would place them in a position of oversight of the functions of the office (some congregations' boards of elders have some oversight of certain functions). The LCMS does not apply this teaching to man made positions in the church (congregation chair, vice chair, treasurer, school principal, etc.)

 

[Resha Caner]

I'll leave the church voting issue alone, but I will dare to say something about the public voting issue.

Despite the validity of the doctrine of the two kingdoms, it was never meant that we should be applying two different mores or two different standards in those kingdoms. Personally, I think our society has created a cult of the individual. As such, both men and women are too focused on protecting their individual rights. I'll be honest. This issue is even a struggle between me and my wife. She doesn't want to talk to me - at least not much - about voting.

Part of that is my fault. I was a real fool early in our marriage. I'm still a fool, just less so now.

Regardless, I wish families would have a discussion intended to lead to a consensus. That is, that husband and wife would agree on what they want to see in the secular kingdom and they would work together toward that end. Not have an attitude of "It's my vote and I'll do with it as I please", but lay those votes on the altar. I don't know how big that "family" discussion should get. I know in the U.S. the pastor can't really get too involved in those discussions ... and I wouldn't want to blur the line between the secular and heavenly kingdoms. But still ...

 

[ShutterAce]

...
The LCMS applies this biblical principal to the pastoral office and the duties assigned to it. Women are not to hold the office nor perform any of the functions of the office, nor are they to hold any position in the congregation that would place them in a position of oversight of the functions of the office (some congregations' boards of elders have some oversight of certain functions). The LCMS does not apply this teaching to man made positions in the church (congregation chair, vice chair, treasurer, school principal, etc.)

Thanks Rev, I had it mostly right.

 

[ShutterAce]

I'll leave the church voting issue alone, but I will dare to say something about the public voting issue.

Despite the validity of the doctrine of the two kingdoms, it was never meant that we should be applying two different mores or two different standards in those kingdoms. Personally, I think our society has created a cult of the individual. As such, both men and women are too focused on protecting their individual rights. I'll be honest. This issue is even a struggle between me and my wife. She doesn't want to talk to me - at least not much - about voting.

Part of that is my fault. I was a real fool early in our marriage. I'm still a fool, just less so now.

Regardless, I wish families would have a discussion intended to lead to a consensus. That is, that husband and wife would agree on what they want to see in the secular kingdom and they would work together toward that end. Not have an attitude of "It's my vote and I'll do with it as I please", but lay those votes on the altar. I don't know how big that "family" discussion should get. I know in the U.S. the pastor can't really get too involved in those discussions ... and I wouldn't want to blur the line between the secular and heavenly kingdoms. But still ...

Hi Resha,

It's not just you and your wife. My wife is a one issue voter and I'm a bit of a researcher. The only thing I ask her anymore is when she is going to the poles.

Yes, the real question is should we or should we not live the same morals, values, beliefs in both kingdoms? Of course we should. See my problem?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm not WELS, so while I do have an opinion on your first question, I'm in no position to answer it. But I can answer this one:

Using the hermeneutic of Scripture interprets Scripture, those passages concerning the role of women in the Church deal mainly with the one divinely instituted office in the Church and not man made offices. The one position in the Church that holds any authority over the Church is the pastoral office, instituted by Christ with His authority to carry out those specific functions ascribed to that office. It follows the relationship that Christ has with the Church, the same as husband and wife in the household. (Christ is the bridegroom, the husband of the Church). The pastoral office was instituted to carry out those functions prescribed by Christ in His stead and by His authority. This is why women are not called to this office. This office is an extension of that of the bridegroom of the Church. Women are not husbands. (A study of the roles of husband and wife will show the role of the husband is that of servant to his bride.) Thus, women are not called to that divinely instituted office in the Church.

The LCMS applies this biblical principal to the pastoral office and the duties assigned to it. Women are not to hold the office nor perform any of the functions of the office, nor are they to hold any position in the congregation that would place them in a position of oversight of the functions of the office (some congregations' boards of elders have some oversight of certain functions). The LCMS does not apply this teaching to man made positions in the church (congregation chair, vice chair, treasurer, school principal, etc.)

I will use DaRev's post to further expound on the WELS position. We in the WELS feel that positions of authority within the church such as what he's listed above are divinely called positions. They're not always handled the same the pastoral office is called, but we still consider those serving in the positions as called workers or workers called by God to serve. One exception that we have is that we have a high school in Michigan that currently only has female teachers. This high school also has a female principal, as that role is not exercising authority over any males. We DO have female committee chairpeople as well as female treasurers. If I recall correctly, the treasurer at my home church has been the same female for almost as long as I can remember. There are many leadership positions for women, but none of them will have authority over the men in the congregation.

In short, we don't believe that the exercise of authority is only limited to the pastoral office.


In terms of voting, Shutter, I've often had the same question myself and the way my husband has explained it is that the authority is a spiritual authority, not a secular authority. I'm still not exactly comfortable voting in regular elections and I've sat the last two out for that very reason. I don't think it's necessarily wrong or incompatible with the WELS position for women to vote in the public sector, but I'm not convinced it's right. Hubby and I always talk about politics and candidates and ultimately I trust that when he votes he has our family's best interests at heart and not just his own. Plus he does way more research than I do on candidates.

 

[alexnbethmom]

shutter - i truly hope what i'm reading is incorrect.....are you insinuating that women not be allowed to vote anywhere?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

shutter - i truly hope what i'm reading is incorrect.....are you insinuating that women not be allowed to vote anywhere?

No...he's trying to understand why the WELS doesn't allow women to vote in church matters but says it's okay to vote in civic matters. I'm not him, but he's kinda like me in that it seems he's thinking that if women shouldn't be exercising that authority in the church, they shouldn't be exercising that authority outside of the church.

I believe, given how my husband has explained it, that there IS a difference between a spiritual authority and a secular authority and that's why the WELS says it's okay.

 

[DaRev]

Such is the conundrum that is created when a doctrine which concerns the one divinely instituted office in the Church is applied so broadly. Where does one draw the line? Is there even a line to be drawn? The WELS decision to apply it broadly is an internal teaching within that church body, but is not exclusively biblical. It seems to be more of a personal matter concerning those within that synod.

 

[ShutterAce]

No...he's trying to understand why the WELS doesn't allow women to vote in church matters but says it's okay to vote in civic matters. I'm not him, but he's kinda like me in that it seems he's thinking that if women shouldn't be exercising that authority in the church, they shouldn't be exercising that authority outside of the church.

I believe, given how my husband has explained it, that there IS a difference between a spiritual authority and a secular authority and that's why the WELS says it's okay.

Thanks PW, that's exactly right.

I really don't get the spiritual vs. secular authority idea. I actually don't even understand there being two different realms of authority. This point with abortion I think illustrates what I'm trying to say. We would never say abortion under secular authority is OK because it is outside of spiritual authority would we?

For me the next logical step is that that premise would be true across the board. So if that is true what's the point of having different types of authority?

I know, I'm a troublemaker.

 

[ShutterAce]

Such is the conundrum that is created when a doctrine which concerns the one divinely instituted office in the Church is applied so broadly. Where does one draw the line? Is there even a line to be drawn? The WELS decision to apply it broadly is an internal teaching within that church body, but is not exclusively biblical. It seems to be more of a personal matter concerning those within that synod.

And I'm the guy here holding the pencil.

Things like this are tough to explain to teens when I can't even really explain it to myself.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Abortion and authority over men are two very different topics, though.

Authority over men isn't necessarily a moral issue and doesn't involve killing unborn babies.

This was taken from a WELS FiC article and I think it also helps...

Jesus charged us with being the salt of the earth. As Christian citizens we are to pray for and work for the good of our society. Take part in civic affairs. Vote. Speak up. Serve when asked.
​

Thanks PW, that's exactly right.

I really don't get the spiritual vs. secular authority idea. I actually don't even understand there being two different realms of authority. This point with abortion I think illustrates what I'm trying to say. We would never say abortion under secular authority is OK because it is outside of spiritual authority would we?

For me the next logical step is that that premise would be true across the board. So if that is true what's the point of having different types of authority?

I know, I'm a troublemaker.

 

[cerette]

Interesting question, and especially since it came from a WELS-member. I used to be WELS myself but left some years ago, for several reasons, and the role of women being one. (First, let me make myself clear: I am 100% against female pastors and female authority in the church and in marriage.)

My family and I did a lot of research about this matter before we came to the conclusion that we had to leave the WELS. We discussed the matter with the President of the WELS as well as with a bunch of pastors, and some doctrinal committee (I've forgotten the name of the group). All the above mentioned WELS leaders explained to us that the WELS position on this matter is that on the one hand it is against the Scriptures for women to vote in society (or to be in any other kind of authority over men), yet on the other hand they will leave it to each individual woman to make a "mature Christian" decision as to how they personally feel they will serve the Lord and their family best when it comes to voting and let's say being a female boss with male employees etc etc.

It is obvious to me that the WELS is uncomfortable with "living" their teaching on this issue. They claim that there is a universal submission for women, yet they don't dare to say that it means that women can't vote etc in society. Instead they come with "easier ways out" such as "leaving it to each woman's mature judgement".

The real issue here is this: the WELS claims that there is a universal submission (both in church and in the world). A result of such a universal submission is a situation very much like what you see in Saudi Arabia or other parts of the world where women have NO say. Now this is not OK in western society, so the WELS says that one cannot come to that conslusion, and instead a woman is left to choose between which Biblical principles to live by (voting? being a boss over men? not voting and thereby being submissive? not being a boss and thereby making less money?).

Thing is, and there are lenghty Bible studies to show this, that the Bible does not clearly teach a universal submission. The bible clearly teaches submission in the church and home (marriage). So if the Bible doesn't clearly teach submission in society, why should we, and why does the WELS? The Lutheran church I now belong to says this: The 2007 General Pastoral Conference adopted the following as a summary statement pertaining to Scripture’s principles of male and female roles: “Although Scripture applies the male headship principle to the home (Ephesians 5) and to the church (1 Timothy 2), Scripture does not apply the headship principle to the roles of men and women in society. Where God does not establish a principle, consciences ought not be bound.” (Report of the President to the Twenty-Eighth Convention of the Church of the Lutheran Confession; p. 57).





Thanks again for an interesting and important topic!!

 

[DaRev]

The thing is that the Scriptures have more narrow definitions when it comes to submission and authority regarding men and women in the household and the Church. The WELS uses a more broad definition and applies it over a greater number of circumstances. It is their prerogative to practice as they wish. That's their choice. But ultimately the individual should not be held to something that Scripture does not specifically address. Personally, I don't see how casting a vote exercises authority of any kind. It's basically the voicing of an opinion on a specific subject matter. It doesn't change the God given roles and responsibilities whatsoever.

 

[ShutterAce]

I have to agree with Cerette that this is a good discussion. It's seems almost no one is interested in having them on difficult topics anymore, which is unfortunate. So thank you all for the responses and input.

Cerette, your bit of history there does validate some suspicions I have had for a long time. I've just never run across anyone with any experience or real knowledge on the issue. At least none that would talk about it.

I'm going to have to spend some time in a few doctrinal documents as well as some scripture it seems. Feel free to throw out any suggestions for either.

 

[cerette]

I have to agree with Cerette that this is a good discussion. It's seems almost no one is interested in having them on difficult topics anymore, which is unfortunate. So thank you all for the responses and input.

Cerette, your bit of history there does validate some suspicions I have had for a long time. I've just never run across anyone with any experience or real knowledge on the issue. At least none that would talk about it.

I'm going to have to spend some time in a few doctrinal documents as well as some scripture it seems. Feel free to throw out any suggestions for either.

It's very unfortunate indeed that people are not very interested in discussing difficult or touchy subjects. It's even more unfortunate when a synod tends to "kill the messenger" if anyone dares to bring up such topics. 'Nuff said about that though..!

Here are some things you might find interesting with regards the WELS's teaching of a universal female submission:

-"Man and woman in God's world" a WELS publication (you can probably find it online)
- "WELS doctrinal statements" (the part on submission)
-This article in LOGIA (the author makes some claims about Luther teaching universal submission, but those claims are invalid, and if interested I can provide proof for that)
http://www.logia.org/features/feature163.pdf
-Study the meaning of the word "kephale" from 1 Cor 11, which is the Bible passage the WELS mainly uses to claim a universal female submission. Below will follow some quotes regarding that word (to show how the WELS misuses it):
“the use of kephale to mean ruler is not a native Greek idiom. Liddell and Scott do not give the
meaning ‘ruler’ as a sub-category within the metaphorical usages of the word. The Hebrew word for
ruler, rosh, is used in the Old Testament to denote a ruler, that is, a ruler of the community, but,
when it is so used, the Greek translators of the LXX regularly render it by archon or archegos rather
than by kephale”

--Watson: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1992), 111.

“Too often a Western understanding of ’head’ as ’the person in charge’ has been uncritically read
into the biblical texts, despite the lack of first century supportive examples. … There is also the
difficulty of explaining how exactly God rules over Christ. Further, there lacks any notion of male
rule or authority in the verses that follow.”

--Belleville: ‘kefale and the thorny issue of headcovering in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16’, in Paul and the
Corinthians (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 230.

“Great care must be taken to avoid the assumption that the Greek word for ’head’ has the same
meaning(s) as our English word, and the sense that many have that the meaning of the word is
transparent may be due, in part, to reading the text in the light of the common use of ‘head’ in
English to refer to those who are in charge of a department or area of responsibility.”

--Ciampa & Rosner: The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 508.

“The problem about translating kephale as head in 1 Cor 11:3 remains that, as R. Cervin notes, in
English-speaking contexts ‘the head” almost always implies leadership and authority, as in
headmaster, Head of School, Head of Department, head steward. As was noted earlier, Perriman
convincingly urges that the equivalent assumption in first-century hellenistic contexts would be to
construe the metaphoric force of head not as authoritative leader in charge, but as one who is
‘prominent, foremost, uppermost, preeminent’. [Perriman, ‘The Head of a Woman’, 602-22]. Senft,
Horell, and in effect Hasler share this view.”

--Thiselton: The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000), p. 817.


I encourage you to study this matter, and should you be interested in hearing the other doctrinal reasons why I am no longer WELS, I would be glad to share those with you.

 

[DaRev]

One must also take into consideration the overall context of the roles and responsibilities of men and women in the household or family unit (which translates into the Church as well). The "headship" of the man is in reality one of servitude. In other words, the husbands' role in the family is to serve by being the provider/protector of the family. In Genesis 3, God never told Eve to work the fields by the sweat of her brow in order to have food. That is the husband's responsibility.

This translates into the Church through the relationship between Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the bride) through the teaching office. It is in this office where Christ, through the one who is called and ordained and given this authority by Him, carries out those responsibilities to His bride, the Church. Christ, through the pastor who holds the one divinely instituted office, carries out His responsibility as the Husband of His bride. providing for and protecting.

As God said to the woman in Genesis 3, "Your desire shall be for your husband", meaning that women should not desire that "headship" for themselves since they are not given the role and responsibility of husband/servant (provider and protector).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The thing is that the Scriptures have more narrow definitions when it comes to submission and authority regarding men and women in the household and the Church. The WELS uses a more broad definition and applies it over a greater number of circumstances. It is their prerogative to practice as they wish. That's their choice. But ultimately the individual should not be held to something that Scripture does not specifically address. Personally, I don't see how casting a vote exercises authority of any kind. It's basically the voicing of an opinion on a specific subject matter. It doesn't change the God given roles and responsibilities whatsoever.

If you're voting to revamp your church bylaws and it's 6 women voting to 3 men and the women vote one way and the men vote the other, your bylaws just got changed by women. Your bylaws govern your church.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I've shared this with my husband and am awaiting some feedback. They way it seems to have been presented to you would in fact mark a synod's reluctance to carry their doctrine into the world, however, I was never taught it this way. It was never termed universal submission and I was always told that the bible talked of spiritual headship and marital headship. Ideally, part of the role of women wouldn't take them out of the house to work - it was being the homemaker and the caregiver. So being a boss over males wasn't overly an issue until recently.

Interesting question, and especially since it came from a WELS-member. I used to be WELS myself but left some years ago, for several reasons, and the role of women being one. (First, let me make myself clear: I am 100% against female pastors and female authority in the church and in marriage.)

My family and I did a lot of research about this matter before we came to the conclusion that we had to leave the WELS. We discussed the matter with the President of the WELS as well as with a bunch of pastors, and some doctrinal committee (I've forgotten the name of the group). All the above mentioned WELS leaders explained to us that the WELS position on this matter is that on the one hand it is against the Scriptures for women to vote in society (or to be in any other kind of authority over men), yet on the other hand they will leave it to each individual woman to make a "mature Christian" decision as to how they personally feel they will serve the Lord and their family best when it comes to voting and let's say being a female boss with male employees etc etc.

It is obvious to me that the WELS is uncomfortable with "living" their teaching on this issue. They claim that there is a universal submission for women, yet they don't dare to say that it means that women can't vote etc in society. Instead they come with "easier ways out" such as "leaving it to each woman's mature judgement".

The real issue here is this: the WELS claims that there is a universal submission (both in church and in the world). A result of such a universal submission is a situation very much like what you see in Saudi Arabia or other parts of the world where women have NO say. Now this is not OK in western society, so the WELS says that one cannot come to that conslusion, and instead a woman is left to choose between which Biblical principles to live by (voting? being a boss over men? not voting and thereby being submissive? not being a boss and thereby making less money?).

Thing is, and there are lenghty Bible studies to show this, that the Bible does not clearly teach a universal submission. The bible clearly teaches submission in the church and home (marriage). So if the Bible doesn't clearly teach submission in society, why should we, and why does the WELS? The Lutheran church I now belong to says this: The 2007 General Pastoral Conference adopted the following as a summary statement pertaining to Scripture’s principles of male and female roles: “Although Scripture applies the male headship principle to the home (Ephesians 5) and to the church (1 Timothy 2), Scripture does not apply the headship principle to the roles of men and women in society. Where God does not establish a principle, consciences ought not be bound.” (Report of the President to the Twenty-Eighth Convention of the Church of the Lutheran Confession; p. 57).





Thanks again for an interesting and important topic!!

 

[cerette]

I've shared this with my husband and am awaiting some feedback. They way it seems to have been presented to you would in fact mark a synod's reluctance to carry their doctrine into the world, however, I was never taught it this way. It was never termed universal submission and I was always told that the bible talked of spiritual headship and marital headship. Ideally, part of the role of women wouldn't take them out of the house to work - it was being the homemaker and the caregiver. So being a boss over males wasn't overly an issue until recently.

You can find these answers also on WELS "Questions & Answers". At least you could on the old Q & A, I don't know if they've been removed from the newer WELS website.
It probably hasn't been spoken of as "universal submission" but the meaning of that term is what has been taught..even you believe it since that is the reason you don't vote in society. I had much trouble with this while I was in the WELS, because I felt that I would be sinning one way or another if I voted in society, when I worked as a teacher and my students were teenage or older men etc. But the responses I got from WELS was that I showed good Christian judgement and should follow other Biblical principles as well as submission. So basically one or more principles would weigh heavier than the submission principle. (And suddenly you have a very subjective doctrine: Who gets to decide when one principle is more important than another? Well, that's left to each individual woman and her "mature judgement")
Since the WELS doctrine is what it is, the WELS really should say to their women to always be submissive to men, and to not vote, be a boss over a man or anything else that could mean her being in authority over a man. It also means that a mother with adult sons is to be submissive to her sons, since they are men. I find it very hard to see why a Mom should be submissive to her 18 year old son (legally an adult!) who still lives under her roof. But that is what follows from WELS doctrine, if one dares to live it.