The ordination of women has no precedent in Scripture and as Luther reiterates, ‘women have no command to preach’. To disobey what the Lord has prohibited (1 Cor 14:34; Gen 3:16) will have serious consequences for the LCA, in not only the validity of preaching and the sacraments (AC VII), but ’subsequently, in its ‘culture’ of teaching and practice. Paul warns the Church of the disorder that comes with rejecting the Lord’s command.
Recent analyses of churches in Nth America and Scandinavia have shown that women clergy are predominantly more liberal than their male counterparts and more likely to advocate the inclusivity of the gay lifestyle. Andrew Whitehead concludes ‘the relationship between allowing women to serve as head clergy and accepting gays and lesbians is not spurious’ (J.Sci.Stud.Relig., 52/3, 488). He states that ‘clergywomen draw a cognitive connection between the struggle for gay rights and the earlier movement for gender equality, especially women’s ordination.’ This underlying ‘cognitive connection’ is also affirmed by John Shelby Spong in his ‘struggle’ for women and gay ordination (‘Here I Stand’, 338f). This stems from his re-reading of Scripture through the lens of secular culture.
This connection is of no surprise to the secular world. Last January Elizabeth Dias indicated in Time magazine, ‘no Christian tradition has been able to embrace the LGBT community without first changing its views about women’ … ‘it is not an accident that the women’s-liberation movement preceded the gay-liberation movement.’
This ‘cognitive connection’ is relevant for the LCA because we cannot deny the overwhelming fact that just about all Lutherans in churches in western secular culture which ordain women have subsequently permitted the ordination of non-celibate practising homosexuals (over 96%). This is clearly disorder. Proponents of women’s ordination unwittingly reveal their true position when they claim the issue is ‘not a doctrinal matter’. Their position is atheological having its basis not in Scripture but ‘equality’ on secular terms.
© 2024 Lutheran Church of Australia 
Comments 9
Why can we not keep it plain and simple?
Article II of our Constitution states quite simply that the Holy Scriptures are the only source, norm and rule by which all matters if Faith, doctrine and life are to be judged.
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, clearly prescribe that the Overseer of a Congregation is to be a Husband of one Wife.
It is rather simple; love and obey.
Barney.
Also, Andrew, your argument that ordination of practising homosexuals follows on from the push to ordain women is a SECULAR argument, not a Scriptural one. By your own logic it should be disallowed. Let’s stick to the scriptural and theological arguments.
I and many other advocates of women’s ordination do not hold the view that practicing homosexuals should be ordained.
From my previous response, I find no Scriptural evidence from your claim that women can be ordained. Therefore, I still hold that to ordain women is not supported by Scripture. As I have mentioned it is ‘atheological’ and comes from a secular hermeneutic.
The observations of Whitehead (2013) that I present have come from the personal witness of female clergy. They testify themselves as being advocate or teach the gay lifestyle. Is what they advocate or teach biblical? No.
This teaching on the inclusivity of the active gay lifestyle is far from ‘the pattern of sound teaching’ that Paul entrusts to Timothy (2 Tim 1:13-14) and thence to ‘other reliable men’ (2 Tim 2:2). Clement of Rome (c.70 AD) writes: ‘Jesus himself gave precise instructions to his apostles how other proven men were to take over their duties once they died’ (1 Clem 44:1-2). An overseer must be ‘apt to teach’ (1 Tim 3:2). Paul advises Timothy ‘watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers’ (1 Tim 4:16). To warn against disobeying biblical teaching is biblical.
The command of the Lord requires that women do not regularly preach/teach and administer the sacraments. For this to be allowed is disorderly and goes against Scripture (1 Cor 14:34-40). Jesus says ‘if anyone loves me, he will obey my commands/teaching’ (Jn 14:15-24). John also reminds us ‘whoever continues in the teaching (of Christ) has both the Father and the Son’ (2 Jn 9b).
That you and some other advocates of WO do not support that practising homosexuals be ordained, is a position I applaud. Unfortunately, this is a minority position as we see from all those Lutheran churches in western secular society that ordain both.
Andrew, I respectfully disagree with a number of your statements.
First, I do believe the issue is a doctrinal matter. I have been led to support women’s ordination BECAUSE OF the scriptural witness, not despite it.
Second, Phoebe was ‘deacon [the noun is masculine, not feminine] of the church at Cenchrea.’ (Romans 16:1) The ordination of women has as much scriptural warrant as the ordination of men.
Third, women DO have the command to preach, from the Lord himself. In John 20, the women disciples present (read the text carefully and do not import your presuppositions that no women were present) are given the same commission by the risen Lord as the male disciples present. In Luke 24:33-48, Jesus says to the women disciples present, as well as the men, ‘The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be PREACHED [the Greek word is kerusso] in his name to all the nations. YOU are witnesses of these things.’ In Acts 2, the women present fulfill this promise and commission of the risen Jesus as they ‘proclaim the wonders of God’ by the power of the Holy Spirit to the Jews ‘from all nations’ present in Jerusalem at Pentecost. in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul clearly says that women PROPHESY in the church – proclaim the clear and intelligible Word of God for the conviction of sin and true faith in God.
I repeat, it is BECAUSE OF the scriptural witness, not despite it, that I (and many others) advocate the ordination of women.
Nathan, thanks for your comments. Note that Phoebe is described as ‘deacon’ and Paul there lists some others (eg Rom 16:3,12) who have assisted in the work of the Lord (care of the sick, the poor and strangers). Phoebe is never described as ‘pastor’, nor episkopos nor presbuteros. Likewise because some women ‘prayed and prophesised in public worship does not prove that they served as pastors. It is demonstrated from ‘passages such as 1 Cor 12:8 and Eph 4:11 prophets are clearly distinguished from pastors/teachers’ (Lockwood 1999 in ‘Women Pastors’ Harrison & Pless 2008:289).
Because women and men were present at your or my ordination doesn’t mean they were all ordained. Of course, we do need to be wary of presuppositions.
Secondly, these women you mention are never included in the calling of ‘the Twelve’, or their activity (Mk 6:7,13; which follows on with Jesus’ own work) nor their consecration and sending (Jn 17:18; cf 17:3,8). The latter includes the eleven being declared clean or purified (Jn 13:10; 15:3), that is set apart for their apostolic mission of word and sacrament ministry (Mt 26:20; Mt 28:16-20). In regard to the women and all others, in Jn 17:20 Jesus prays that they will believe through the message of these apostles who have been set apart (‘except the one doomed to destruction’ Jn 17:12). These apostles do not include the women you mention.
Thank you, Andrew, for detailing the disastrous consequences of women’s ordination for churches in the West. Churches in Africa and Asia that ordain women but do not go down the same path are saved, it seems to me, only by their strong cultural setting.
Your comment that “women clergy are predominantly more liberal than their male counterparts and more likely to advocate the inclusivity of the gay lifestyle” is supported by a sociological study conducted by Kati Niemelä of Finnish clergy. Her study, “Female Clergy as Agents of Change?” can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/2/3/358.
Thank you, David, for your reference to the study of ordained women in the Finnish Lutheran Church: Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change? A paper by Kati Niemelä – Published: 17 August 2011. In Kati’s Conclusion, was the following commentary:
“….In general, the study shows that clergymen are more likely to stick to traditional values and working cultures while women are more flexible and receptive to new ideas and towards making the Church more open to society. From this point of view it seems clear that the entrance of women into ministry has enabled the Church to keep better contact to those members who are more remote from it. At the same time more conservative members feel more remote and disappointed with the more liberal stands taken by the Church…..”
Kati’s paper doesn’t indicate there have been disastrous consequences, for the Finnish Church, or in the wider context, Churches in the West (noting her paper concentrates on Protestant / Lutheran Churches in Nordic countries) following the ordination of women.
Yet her conclusion accurately captures the push-pull effect of the postings (and the Digging Deeper uploads) to the OWL site. Some see the ordination of women in the LCA as preceding a wave of change (the liberalisation of the Church) while others hold firm to the teachings of the past (conservatism).
I’ve come to the Church relatively late in life and would hope we could hold onto what we have. Yet embrace what we do not yet seem to have achieved, as a congregation. That through our faith and hope in the Lord, we will eventually eliminate the prejudices we hold in this life and overcome our fear of the World. To see our time in this World as being preparation for the life to come.
You’re right, Ken. The study in question doesn’t suggest that there have been disastrous results for ELCF because of the ordination of women. The author seems quite happy with the direction taken by female clergy in Finland.
Yet the acceptance of homosexual relations by Churches in the West that have ordained women is a disaster.
For example, the bishop of Gothenburg, Per Eckerdal, has taken part in ‘gay pride’ rallies in recent years (scandhouse.org). The bishop of Stockholm, Eva Brunne, is in a registered partnership with a female priest and they ‘have’ a son (wikipedia.org). The Finnish archbishop rejoiced when the parliament approved same-sex marriage (yle.fi, 28.11.2014).
If the LCA were to approve of the ordination of women, we can be sure that it would go on to approve of homosexual activity. If federal parliament establishes same-sex marriage, would it take the LCA 25 years or less to fall in step?
On both these matters the ‘world’ needs to be resisted. We’re not to be afraid of the world, but aren’t we rightly afraid for the world? As St John says, “the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 Jn 2:17).
David, thanks for your comments. The reason why there is ordination of women and not homosexuals in regions such as SE Asia, Africa, Latin & Sth America etc is because of the prevailing cultural stigma to homosexuality within mainly traditional societies. Such societies are often regarded as ‘homophobic’ and resistant to ‘homocolonialism’. ‘Homonormativity’ (gay marriage, etc) is associated with countries of high GDP, and modernity and may even be used as a measure of ‘western superiority’ and ‘exceptionalism’ (Rahman 2014). In most Muslim countries homosexual acts are illegal. In some, such acts are punishable by death. Women’s ordination is acceptable in these regions because of its introduction through European and Nth American mission churches.
The study conducted by Niemelä, “Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change?”, is one of a number I used in my research (see below).
REFERENCES USED:
Adler, Gary. 2012. “An Opening in the Congregational Closet? Boundary-Bridging Culture and Membership Privileges for Gays and Lesbians in Christian Religious Congregations.” Social Problems 59 (2): 177–206.
Deckman, Melissa, Sue E.S. Crawford, and Laura R. Olson. 2008. “The Politics of Gay Rights and the Gender Gap: A Perspective on the Clergy.” Politics and Religion 1 (03): 384.
Djupe, Paul A., Laura R. Olson, and Christopher P. Gilbert. 2006. “Whether to Adopt Statements on Homosexuality in Two Denominations: A Research Note.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45 (4): 609–21.
Djupe, Paul A. 2003. The Prophetic Pulpit: Clergy, Churches, and Communities in American Politics. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.
Niemelä, Kati. 2011. “Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change?” Religions 2 (4): 358–71.
Olson, Laura R., Sue E. S. Crawford, and Melissa M. Deckman. 2005. Women with a Mission: Religion, Gender, and the Politics of Women Clergy. Religion and American Culture. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Rahman, Momin. 2014 ‘Homosexualities, Muslim cultures and Modernity’. Palgrave Macmillan
Spong, John Shelby. 2009. Here I Stand. HarperCollins.
Whitehead, Andrew L. 2013. “Gendered Organizations and Inequality Regimes: Gender, Homosexuality, and Inequality Within Religious Congregations.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52 (3): 476–93.