I have appreciated reading the various postings and uploads to OWL. They have expanded my learning of the Church and clarified my own thinking on the issue of Women’s Ordination. Yet, as observed on this Forum, there are two distinct perspectives still in play.
One, conservative, to leave things as they are; as reflected in the historical writings. If we go to the two key verses from 1 Corinthians (14:26-40) and 1 Timothy (2:8-15) God spoke through St Paul, to this effect. The other essentially a liberal approach that picks up the theme of spiritual emancipation that Jesus introduced into the World, taking the Word and His Way, into the wider Roman East and West. It is that dual heritage that survives in the LCA.
As Luther observed, the New Testament is the new Covenant with the Gentiles, as we were once described by the Jewish people; Jesus’ first followers and Disciples.
The Sadducees (150BCE to 70AD) and their spiritual successors, the Pharisees, respectively the Jewish Temple and Priestly class, were incapable of making the leap of faith that Jesus preached – that God is the God of all. Not a mountain God, nor a Thunder God, or an unknowable God, who communicated only occasionally with his Chosen People or whenever the Temple Priests and their mandated rituals dictated.
No, God is our God.
In taking that message to the ordinary Jewish people and through His Disciples, into the wider World, Jesus was damned and sacrificed on the Cross. To kill a man and immortalise the message Christ pronounced.
Can the conservative element of the Lutheran Church not have the insight to discern that they are replicating the approach of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, by locking the preaching of the faith to one gender? That they have placed an artificial restriction on the transmission of God’s message of hope, peace and love to those who yearn to receive it?
Those men, priestly men, holy men, acting alone, are naturally, inherently, limited by their own gender in reaching out to those places where only women know and can go.
When I was baptised into the Church, I was presented with a reading from Colossians 2:6-7 (NIV)
– Spiritual Fullness in Christ – (6) So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, (7) rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
The decision before Synod is not to further interpret the meaning of Scripture. The Scripture speaks for itself. Some will see it as placing an eternal restriction on women from ever taking a leadership role in the Church. Others will see it as something applying to its time and its place. St Paul was a Roman of the Empire, an Empire of repression and fear.
The question for Synod is how will the LCA maintain its spiritual relevance in this, a changing World? This is the same question that St Paul and the infant Churches, established outside Jerusalem, grappled with.
© 2024 Lutheran Church of Australia 
Comments 3
To those who think that God dialogues with humankind and therefore dialogue will bring the desired God-pleasing decision or a satisfactory decision in anything:
The five principles of dialogue in the LCA (from LCA Ordination Dialogue Group September 2013) and God’s response:
1. Communion: Because God has gathered us in communion with one another through his word and sacraments, we have freedom to dialogue with one another on contested matters. Strengthening this God-given communion is the goal of dialogue. God’s response – ‘But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”’ (Romans 9:20).
2. Trust: Because God has made us brothers and sisters in Christ, we can trust God to use our communion to build us up in love and use our differences to grow us in holiness of life. God’s response – ‘No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval’ (1 Cor. 11:19).
3. Listening: Because God gives each of his children a unique perspective, we can listen to each other trusting God that as we listen we will grow in understanding of ourselves, of the other person, and of the communion that God creates. God’s response – ‘To Adam [God] said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, “You must not eat from it,” ‘Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life….” (Genesis 3:17-19)
4. Speaking: Because God gives each of his children a unique perspective, we can speak to each other trusting God that as we speak we will grow in understanding of ourselves, of the other person, and of the communion that God creates. “For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do – this I keep on doing” (Rom. 7:19) & “Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience” (2 Cor. 5:11) & “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).
5. Patience: Because the communion God gives us in Christ is God’s doing and not ours, we can be patient in listening and speaking to each other, trusting that God will deepen the unity he has already given us. My personal concern – ‘Did 1967 bring an amalgamation of the ELCA & UELCA or was it a union?’ I have my doubts about the latter! Anyway, God’s response, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” (Gal 5:22-23).
So is dialogue the best way? Your decision…
Ken,
You stated:
Can the conservative element of the Lutheran Church not have the insight to discern that they are replicating the approach of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, by locking the preaching of the faith to one gender? That they have placed an artificial restriction on the transmission of God’s message of hope, peace and love to those who yearn to receive it?
Two things:
1) There is absolutely no comparison here.
2) There is a severe slight upon people who hold to the Scriptures by suggesting they do “not have the insight to discern” and that it is “an artificial restriction”.
It has been made very clear that the issue will be decided on the basis of Scripture. The assertions made here fall short of that description.
So heartened and refreshed by this viewpoint that for me gives clarity to the issue. Thank you. Suppression in the church can be so subtle and so dressed in the finery of selective theology. This OWL website has expanded the discussion. Thanks indeed! Eunice.