Creationism and the Doctrine of Creation in the LCMS

The May Reporter arrived a few days ago. This is the official monthly newspaper of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LCMS) that is sent to all LCMS pastors, teachers, and other church workers.

On page three is an article about an upcoming conference at the LCMS's Concordia University, Mequon, Wisconsin. The purpose of the conference is to defend "young earth creationism," which the article defines as "the LCMS perspective of the earth being several thousand years old instead of millions of years old." To read the article, you can access it here.

As an amateur astronomer, who tries to keep up on new research in the discipline, I was struck by the error that occurs in the first sentence of the Reporter article. I have no idea where Dr. Joel Heck (a fellow theology prof. in the LCMS) got the notion that the universe is "150 billion light-years across." The fact of the matter is, we don't know how big the universe is. What we humans can observe is only about 13.7 billion light years in any direction. Thus, the observable universe may be around 28 billion light years in diameter. So, ironically, the universe IS likely younger than even Heck admits (at least in that first sentence)!

I have tried to identify some of the problems with the Synod's position on creationism. Such a position ignores the contradictions in the literalistic interpretation of the first chapters in Genesis (six days? or one?, for starters). Moreover, such literalistic interpretation of these chapters runs contrary to physical evidence in nature, does harm to individual consciences (especially to those educated Christians who know the biblical and physical evidence that contradicts creationism), and needlessly frustrates the work of the Holy Spirit in the church's mission within our western, scientifically-informed society. Those concerns led me to write my essay, "The Scandal of the LCMS Mind," which serves as the basis for my official dissent.

The CTCR has not responded to the specifics in that document. Instead, the CTCR has stated, "Dr. Becker's dissent regarding creation and evolution also suffers from a lack of specificity and focus. His letter of June 29 states that he is dissenting from 'the synod's position of interpreting the first two chapters of Genesis to mean that God created the universe over the course of six twenty-four hour days'—but this language has never been used by the Synod in any doctrinal resolution or statement."

Surely the CTCR knows about the Synod's 1930 Brief Statement. Perhaps they should re-read the paragraph on creation in that document. That paragraph uses the very language I cite in my dissent. So I'm sorry, CTCR members, but I beg to differ with your dismissal. The language I use comes right out of that Depression-era document. Or witness what happened when Dr. Kieschnick told the synod convention that elected him President of the Synod that he believed that God created the universe over six twenty-four-hour days roughly 10,000 years ago. He got a lengthy standing ovation by the majority of delegates. Certainly this latest Reporter affirms as much when it states that "young earth creationism" is "the Synod's perspective."

This perspective is at odds with the doctrinal content of Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism. The one who confesses faith in God the Creator confesses that "God has made me together with all that exists. God has given me and still preserves my body and soul: eyes, ears, and all my limbs and senses; reason and mental faculties..." (Kolb/Wengert ed., p. 354).

This explanation to the First Article of the Apostles' Creed is significant when talking with Lutheran creationists, for it underscores that Lutheran Christians ought to trust their senses and reasoning to uncover reliable information in nature. After all, God "gives and preserves" our senses, our reason, and mental faculties. These are generally reliable when it comes to uncovering and understanding data in nature. (To be sure, "common sense" suggests that the sun and all heavenly objects move around an immovable earth, but more precise observation of nature by rational, sensible human beings has led to more precise theories about the motions of the earth and other objects in space--motions that are not reflected in the biblical writings that reflect ancient cosmological, phenomenological perspectives.)

That same reasoning and sensing also are working when one interprets any passage in the Bible. Such use of one's mental faculties ought to take into account physical, extra-biblical data that directly impacts the interpretation of those passages. We never interpret Scripture in a vacuum.

The creationists seem not to be able to entertain the notion that their literalistic interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis (and other cosmological passages in Scripture) might be faulty. No one can escape the problem of interpretation. Everyone who reads words in a sentence is involved in
interpretation. Why hold to the literal interpretation of these early chapters in Genesis, when we know that such an interpretation has been falsified by actual, physical data and observations?

If there is really something called "biblical astronomy," as the Mequon conference planners state, then why defend merely young earth creationism? Why not be consistent, as Dr. F. Pieper (the author of the Brief Statement) was, and reject the Copernican theory? Why not insist that the earth is founded on a foundation or pillars, that the earth is immovable, that the sun and all heavenly bodies actually move around the immovable earth? There are many biblical passages, if interpreted literally, that necessarily lead to these conclusions. Why allow figurative interpretations of these biblical passages that reflect ancient cosmology--and that if interpreted literally would conflict with known observational data--but not allow for figurative interpretations of the first chapters in Genesis? Why the inconsistency among the creationists, most of whom seem in fact to have accepted Copernicus' theory (which was rejected by the biblical creationists of his day and later)?

It is significant that the young discipline of astronomy first received support at the Lutheran University of Wittenberg. Thanks to Lutheran Georg J. Rheticus, a young mathematician and Wittenberg student, Copernicus' revolutionary (!) essay was published in Lutheran Nuremberg in 1543. (To read a lively, partly fictional account of that episode in intellectual history, see Dava Sobel's A More Perfect Heaven [Walker and Co., 2011]).

If the Mequon conference were actually an academic conference and not an ideologically-driven propaganda event, then the conveners would at least have one or two reputable observational astronomers who could present the most up-to-date, observable facts on the age and size of the universe and the age and natural history of the earth. I know a few astronomers at my university who could do an excellent job of that. One, in particular, comes to mind. He is both a practicing Christian and a leading astronomer in his area of binary stars. (He knows one of the presenters at the conference, who has done otherwise good work in binary stars but is completely wrong-headed when it comes to creationism.) The astronomer at my university, however, is not a "creationist." He believes in God the Creator, but he doesn't think God created the universe over six twenty-four-hour days several thousand years ago. So he won't be invited to this conference to present.

Come to think of it, why not invite one or two Lutheran theologians who are trying to take seriously the basic, observable data from the natural sciences and to relate that data to basic affirmations of our Christian faith? That's the kind of thing scientists and theologians have been doing at some of the other Concordias for several decades. I guarantee you that if you went to the other LCMS universities in the CUS and polled the scientists (and the scientifically-informed theologians), you wouldn't find many "young-earth creationists."

Next week I will once again teach my university theology course, "Creation." Most of the students in the class are majoring in the sciences here at Valpo, but there are also some theology majors in the mix as well. We will spend a few weeks examining "creationism." I don't have to speak out against it, since the science students and the critically-minded theology students know enough to spot the glaring errors. They usually then identify them for the rest of the class. One of my overall goals in the course is to suggest ways in which one can be accepting of mainstream scientific facts and conclusions and still affirm a robust, orthodox faith in God the Creator. I am concerned to be critical of both atheistic scientism and fundamentalist creationism.

Even my seventh- and eighth-grade confirmation students know enough not to read the first chapters of the Bible as if they provide us with "biblical cosmology" or "biblical astronomy" or scientific information. One of them told me the other day, "I believe that God made the dinosaurs and everything else. It just took God a really long, long, long time to do it." "How long?," I asked him. "Well, millions and millions of years for the dinosaurs, who went extinct 65 million years ago. A few million years for us homo sapiens. And a lot, lot longer than that for stars, planets, and our earth."

He'll be confirmed on Sunday, along with three others. BTW, that student is my son, Jacob. On Wed., he'll be reciting before the congregation Luther's explanation to the First Article of the Creed. The genius of Luther's explanation to that article is that it works for the creationist Christian as well as the Christian who knows a thing or two about actual, scientific astronomy and paleontology. It is the kind of explanation that will work very well down the road for the scientifically-informed Christian believer, despite whatever new cosmological data gets uncovered by human sensing and reasoning.

The LCMS errs when it coercively insists that the Christian doctrine of creation must include the acceptance and defense of creationism. Insisting on such a sacrificium intellectus is contrary to the doctrine of faith.

Immanuel, Michigan City

Last week marked two and a half years that I have served Immanuel Lutheran Church, Michigan City, Indiana, as its vacancy pastor. Readers might recall that Immanuel's pastor, Pr. Kevin Palmer, died suddenly from a torn aorta on a Saturday morning in October 2010. He was only 38. I was called later that day and asked to preach the gospel on the morrow. The appointed OT text (Gen 32; Jacob wrestling out by the Jabbok) served as the basis for our meditation. (Kevin's widow and their three children--then ages seven, five, and two--have continued to be members of the congregation.) What I thought would be a few months of pastoral emergency fill-in has extended to the present.

So during these many months I've been juggling pastoral responsibilities along with my regular university duties. This term I taught my regular three courses: two sections of the basic introduction to Christian theology that nearly all Valpo students have to take as a part of their general education requirements, one section of a course on twentieth-century Christian theologians, and one section of a course that explores theological similarities and differences between Catholics and Lutherans. I'm grateful that my department chair has been gracious in allowing me to continue to fill this pastoral vacancy. He and I (and more importantly, my wife) have agreed that I will only continue in this role through the summer, if necessary. (The congregation has extended a call to a pastor and we are waiting to learn if he will accept the summons.)

The duties of the part-time pastor include the following:

--preaching at the three divine services on most weekends (typically around 165 worshippers per wkend);

--serving as liturgist at those same services;

--leading an adult Bible class on Sunday morning (we've been studying Bonhoeffer's Discipleship in the aftermath of our year-long study of the Gospel according to Matthew);

--teaching confirmation instruction to an apostolic number of seventh and eighth graders for two hours on Monday evenings during the school year;

--pastoral counseling on Wed evenings and Sat afternoons;

--visiting the sick in the hospital and other care facilities;

--regular communing of those members who are home-bound (the elders of the congregation have been very helpful in this area);

--writing the monthly pastoral devotion for the church's newsletter (to read the reflections in the latest issue, go here. I thought it important to write about "patience," since the congregation has been waiting such a long time for a full-time pastor);

--monthly meetings with the elders, church council, and worship committee (and dealing with all of the typical challenges and issues that surface in these settings);

--midweek services/preaching in Advent and Lent;

--teaching two six-week adult confirmation classes per year;

--being the spiritual leader at the summer's week-long vacation Bible school;

--and, of course, baptizing, confirming, marrying, and burying, as those needs arise.

Since January 1 of last year, there have been 23 baptisms (19 children, four adults), six confirmations, two weddings, and 17 funerals. Sixteen adults have joined the congregation by rite of transfer or re-affirmation of faith. We'll be welcoming another seven new members on Sunday. It is always good when there are more baptisms and adult confirmations in 16 months than funerals...

Last Saturday (4/27/13), the local newspaper interviewed me about the congregation. This is the first of its "church in the spotlight" series. Not sure why they picked us to go first, but it did give me an opportunity to describe Immanuel and to articulate our core evangelical-Lutheran beliefs. You can read that article  here.

I have been especially grateful for the many opportunities of cross-fertilization between congregational pulpit and university podium. I have been reminded of what a challenge it is to preach on a regular basis, week in, week out, throughout the church year. This experience has also forced me to reflect more carefully upon the differences between what one does from a pulpit and what one does in a university classroom. Sure, there are similarities--I'm probably more "homiletical" than most of my university colleagues--but the differences are important.

Yes, the elders and some within the congregation know about my public concerns with the LCMS position on women's ordination and creationism. One of the elders is a member of the Indiana District Board of Directors. Early on I agreed with him and the other elders that I would not make these issues "an issue" in my pastoral ministry to Immanuel. As far as I can tell, I haven't done so, since there hasn't been a need to do so, although I have informally shared my reasons for my concerns whenever someone in the congregation has asked about them. Frankly, more basic and central issues, matters of life and death, have kept my time and attention focused on the proclamation of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the need to share God's love effectively and creatively with all, especially those who are troubled, suffering, grieving, and questioning.

We hope God will soon send a full-time pastor. For now, the congregation and I will keep on keeping on--by God's grace.

2013 LCMS Convention Workbook and My Dissent

I learned today that the 2013 Convention Workbook of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod is now available online. You can download all 478 pages of that document here.

I couldn't help but notice that the LCMS' Commission on Theology and Church Relations has included its seven-page response to my dissent as one of its official theological documents in the Workbook. You can find that response on pages 399 and 400.

Since convention delegates and others might like to read my own response to this CTCR document, I posted it on my blog, back on Monday, February 13, 2012 ("Dissent in the LCMS").

Perhaps you will not mind if I repeat some of my basic concerns again.

My dissent is two-fold.

(1) I am convinced that the LCMS' practice of restricting the office of pastor only to men is wrong. The synod's defense of such a restriction runs contrary to biblical and confessional evidence, does harm to individual consciences (especially to those LC-MS women who have been called by God to serve as pastor but cannot do so within their own church body), runs contrary to Christian freedom, and needlessly frustrates the work of the Holy Spirit in the church's mission within our western, egalitarian society. For my dissent to this position of the synod, one can read my online essay, "An Argument for Women Pastors and Theologians," http://www.thedaystarjournal.com.

(2) I am also convinced that the synod's position of interpreting the first two chapters of Genesis to mean that God created the universe over the course of six twenty-four-hour days, and that the general theory of evolution must be rejected, is wrong. The synod's defense of such a literalistic interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis ignores the problems and contradictions that are involved in such a literalistic interpretation of these chapters, runs contrary to physical evidence in nature, does harm to individual consciences (especially to those educated Christians who know the biblical and physical evidence that contradicts such an interpretation), and needlessly frustrates the work of the Holy Spirit in the church's mission within our western, scientifically-informed society. For my dissent to the synod's position on the interpretation of the first chapters in Genesis, see my essay, "The Scandal of the LCMS Mind" (also available online at http://www.thedaystarjournal.com).

 

The CTCR's response to these essays is inadequate and faulty.

 

I. With respect to the issue of the ordination of women, the CTCR states that my essay on this topic "does not reference or quote a single resolution or doctrinal statement of the Synod regarding the service of women in the church." While this is technically true, the essay does in fact accurately describe the position that the Synod has taken on this topic, both in its resolutions and in several CTCR documents. The "order of creation" argument has often been made within the LCMS to support a male-only pastorate and it has been made in the way I describe it.

 

            a) One of the two guiding principles adopted in 1969 Resolution 2-17 is that women should not "violate the order of creation." While that resolution does not define what this expression means, it is clear from subsequent synodical materials that the "order of creation" notion means that women are subordinate to men within creation and cannot exercise authority over them. A 1970 decision from the CCM ruled that women may serve as officers and members of board and committees "as long as these positions are not directly involved in the specific functions of the pastoral office… and as long as this service does not violate the order of creation (usurping authority over men)" (emphasis added). In the 1985 CTCR Report, "Women in the Church," the CTCR wrote, "The Order of Creation. This refers to the particular position which, by the will of God, any created object occupies in relation to others. God has given to that which has been created a certain definite order which, because it has been created by Him, is the expression of His immutable will. These relationships belong to the very structure of created existence" (p. 21). The relationship of male to female is further clarified on p. 27: "The idea that God desires man to be the head of woman and woman to be subordinate to man is rooted deeply in the Old and New Testaments." This "order of creation" principle has been repeatedly affirmed in synodical convention resolutions (e.g., 1981, 1986).

            b) While my dissent in no way describes "the order of creation" argument as "having primarily to do with the 'order' (the 'chronological sequence') in which God created Adam and Eve," as the CTCR incorrectly describes my criticism (my dissent never states that the Synod has presented the order of creation argument "as a mere matter of 'chronological sequence'"), the CTCR itself in its 1985 report stated that the "order of creation" also involves "the headship" of the man over the woman and that this headship is based on the chronological order of woman coming from man: "[The apostle Paul] argues for male 'headship' on the basis of Genesis 2:18-25, which teaches that the man did not come from the woman but the woman from the man and that the woman was created for the sake of the man… [In First Timothy 2:13-14] Paul appeals to the temporal priority of Adam's creation ('Adam was formed first'; cf. Gen. 2:20-22), as well as to Eve's having been deceived in the fall (Gen. 3:6), to show that women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church" (p. 22; emphasis added). The current CTCR has evidently overlooked this chronological aspect of "the order of creation" argument as it has been set forth within the CTCR's own earlier report.

            c) The CTCR's response does not acknowledge that indeed 1969 Resolution 2-17 makes explicit reference to "the order of creation." Apparently the current CTCR has overlooked that important second paragraph in the resolution: "The principles set forth in such passages, we believe, prohibit holding any other kind of office or membership on boards or committees in the institutional structures of a congregation, only if this involves women in violation of the order of creation." Clearly, this expression serves as "code language" for the kind of argumentation set forth in the 1985 CTCR report regarding the subordination of women to men in the created order of the Creator and the prohibition against women exercising authority over men. That same 1969 resolution uses the expression "the order of creation" synonymously for "the principles set forth in [those] passages" "which direct women to keep silent in the church and which prohibit them to teach and to exercise authority over men." It was this argumentation, which is not argued at length in the 1969 resolution but which is behind the expression "order of creation" within that resolution, to which I was primarily responding in my essays.

            d) I am troubled that the CTCR could not take more time to respond directly and concretely to my specific arguments and evidence against the ideological construct of the "order of creation" within the 1969 resolution and the 1985 CTCR report, let alone the other specific arguments I present against limiting the pastoral office only to men.

II. The CTCR response states that my "dissent regarding creation and evolution also suffers from a lack of specificity and focus." But I think anyone familiar with the Brief Statement, Dr. Pieper's dogmatics, and the history of LCMS resolutions on evolution, will agree that my description of the Synod's position on creation and evolution is accurate.

            a) The Brief Statement, authored principally by Dr. Pieper (who also rejected the Copernican Theory), asserts: "We teach that God has created the heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty Word, and in six days." The 1967 Resolution 2-31 uses the same language: "…Scripture teaches and the Lutheran Confessions affirm that God by the almighty power of His Word created all things in 6 days by a series of creative acts." How is this language, adopted by the Synod when it adopted the Brief Statement and then when it reaffirmed that same language in the 1967 resolution, any different in actual content from the language in my June 29th letter, namely, that "the synod's position of interpreting the first two chapters of Genesis to mean that God created the universe over the course of six twenty-four-hour days"? Is the CTCR suggesting that it is acceptable doctrinally to interpret the "six days" as being different from "six actual, twenty-four-hour days?" I understand the history of such a reinterpretation of "day" (YoM) in this context, but such an interpretation has not been widespread within the history of our Synod and has never been officially adopted by synodical resolution. In point of fact, the position of the Synod on the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis and the Synod's corresponding rejection of the modern scientific theory of evolution is reflected in Dr. Kieschnick's words from his 2001 presidential acceptance speech: "I believe the world was created in six 24-hour days…" After this one sentence he was given a lengthy standing ovation by nearly all the convention delegates. Based on that action alone, I think my description of the Synod's position is quite accurate.

            b) To put the matter as clearly as I can, I am opposing the Synod's opposition to the well-established physical facts of evolution. The Synod should adopt a more cautious approach about condemning scientific theories and should allow for modern natural knowledge of God's creation to shed light on how one is to understand the language and genres in the first chapters of Genesis. We should learn from our forebears who were forced to adjust their interpretations of cosmological passages in Scripture to accord with modern cosmology, as has happened with respect to the acceptance of the Copernican Theory (Dr. Pieper's rejection of that theory, notwithstanding).

 

            c) In my dissent I did not confuse A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles with its study version. While I quote from the study version that was distributed after the 1972 original document, the sections from which I quote are direct quotations from earlier synodical statements and resolutions (e.g., the 1959 Statement on Scripture, the Brief Statement) or from the 1972 document itself (e.g., the sections on "The Gospel and Holy Scripture" and "Original Sin"). All material I quote is from synodically-adopted documents.

 

            d) Whereas I have concerns about some of the phrasing and emphases within 1967 Resolution 2-31, I agree with the basic doctrinal content presented there.

 

III. With respect to my understanding of Scriptural authority and interpretation, I do not think the CTCR has been at all helpful by merely directing me to A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles. I am well aware of the contents of this document, one of the most controversial in the history of the Synod.[1] It has rightly been criticized for its failure to take seriously the historical character of the Scriptures and the temporal and cultural distance that exists between the biblical writings and modern western interpreters of those Scriptures who have, as a part of their mental framework, knowledge of facts that were unknown to the biblical authors. Our post-Copernican, post-Darwinian worldview is different from the cosmological views presented in the Scriptures. While I acknowledge that the historical approach to the Scriptures conflicts with modern ideas that Protestant Fundamentalists have set forth about Scripture, notions that are reflected in Dr. Pieper's Brief Statement and the Preus-authorized A Statement, I do not accept that this approach is "clearly incompatible with the Synod's doctrinal position on the authority and interpretation of Holy Scripture," a position which can only be the Scripture's own position on itself (which is not really possible). Of course the Lutheran Confessions do not refer to the inerrancy of Scripture either, as that concept developed after the 17th Century, or to post-Enlightenment methods and principles of biblical interpretation, but instead refer to the Scripture's teaching of law and gospel as the key that unlocks the meaning of the Scriptures.

 

               a) My approach to the interpretation of the Bible (and Genesis 1-11, in particular) is almost completely shaped by the 1967 CTCR report, A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies (commended by the 1967 Synod Convention [Res. 2-02]; see also 1969 Res. 2-04). That CTCR document affirms the use of modern biblical tools for the interpretation of Scripture and contains a summary statement of the basic and legitimate elements of the so-called historical-critical method. The 1967 CTCR Report and its 1969 Project in Biblical Hermeneutics have been very helpful to me over the years, especially as I have sought to understand how the Bible is to be understood and applied today with respect to scientific knowledge about creation and about the service of women in the contemporary church.

 

               b) In light of the synodically-commended hermeneutical principles in these CTCR documents, it is unclear to me why the current CTCR would conclude that my observation about the influence of Aristotle's social teaching on the New Testament is incompatible with the Synod's position on Scripture, since one of the hermeneutical principles is to understand a biblical passage "in the light of its total context and of the background out of which it emerged?" It is also unclear to me how modern scientific understandings of human origins are necessarily incompatible with the Christian understanding of the doctrinal content of Genesis 1-3 (and other Scripture texts that address matters about creation and theological anthropology), especially if one attends to the distinct genres present in the first chapters of the Bible and how these are not "scientific" but phenomenological and culturally-conditioned, as the CTCR has earlier acknowledged.

 

               c) I believe the Synod erred in 1973 when it adopted the resolution about A Statement, an outcome that was more the result of political maneuvering and making sure of convention votes than it was of careful theological argument and understanding. Hopefully, in the future, the Synod will once again commend the hermeneutical principles that it commended in 1967 and 1969.

 

               d) Finally, the distinction between a so-called "magisterial use" of "reason" and a "ministerial use" is a false one and merely a convenient way to discredit an interpretation of Scripture with which one disagrees without offering reasons for that disagreement. The same kind of distinction between "magisterial" and "ministerial" uses of reason was used at the time of Galileo to discredit his re-thinking of those Scriptural passages that clearly state the sun moves around the earth and that the earth does not move. In that context the defense of "a ministerial use" of reason, to serve "what Scripture clearly teaches," would necessitate the acceptance of a geocentric worldview and the rejection of the Copernican theory. In point of fact, the real issue, then as now, is not "the use of reason" at all, but what is the appropriate understanding of the Scriptural texts in light of the natural knowledge of God's creation, what is the genre of the Scriptural passages in question, what is the meaning of the biblical language "in that distant time and place," and how can one balance that historic meaning with contemporary understanding? The meaning of at least some biblical texts, such as the ones that deal with cosmology, may not be the same today as it was "back then." We certainly don't understand many cosmological passages in Scripture in the same way as did pre-Copernicans.

 

As I noted back in February 2012, the current CTCR, just like the Roman curia in Luther's day, is not interested in having a theological discussion about matters that are not as simple and clear-cut as the CTCR and other synod members seem to think they are. I'm not the only member of the synod who has questions about these issues. But how is real theological discussion possible in a church body where critical inquiry about the understanding and application of Scriptural teaching is dismissed with the words, "He has a different understanding of the authority of the Bible, so we don't have to pay any attention to his specific exegesis and theological analysis?" Just as in Luther's day, the appeal is to church authority (in this case, to synodical resolutions, statements, and synodical traditions, as defended by the CTCR), rather than to the Scriptures themselves and to questions about their contemporary meaning and application.

---

[1] One should note, in passing, that A Statement, adopted by the slimmest of majorities in a highly politicized and polemical context, has the same doctrinal status as any other doctrinal resolution adopted by the Synod.

Katie and Martin's Blog about the LCA

Every now and then I like to draw attention to a blog that encourages the ordination of women within the Lutheran Church in Australia (LCA). You can find Katie and Martin's Blog at:
http://katieandmartin.wordpress.com

Here is their post for today.

The President Disallows Debate on Women’s Ordination     

April 23, 2013

Yesterday, at General Synod, the President again imposed his will on the LCA.  He has been true to his word that women’s ordination would not occur on his shift.

After the recommendation coming from General Pastors’ Conference that women’s ordination should be discussed at General Convention, that is exactly what occurred.  Pr Semmler had to allow discussion because of this resolution, but that’s all it was – a discussion.

To begin with, he gave the floor to a couple of men from the Dialogue Group on forming consensus to report on their progress, but they offered nothing to help delegates in their deliberations.  The main thing they reported was that they had to learn to listen to each other.

In the ‘discussion’ conservative pastors knew that they didn’t need to speak. This is also attested to by the fact that a conservative pastor commented to a youth on Sunday at NOVO (youth camp) that they (conservative pastors) had figured out a way to get around the women’s ordination issue. 

Around 18 people spoke in favour and 3 or 4 spoke against.

After Pr Semmler distributed one of his epistles to the Church against women’s ordination, the ‘discussion’ was brought to an end with the declaration that Pr John Henderson was the successful candidate for the position of bishop (nomenclature voted on earlier in the afternoon).   (Tues morning, Greg Pietsch was announced as the new Assistant Bishop.)

The following now need to be considered as we discern how the Holy Spirit would have us act:

• the disregard for laity,
• the lack of transparency,
• the refusal to debate St Stephen’s motion,
• the refusal to allow a vote,
• the refusal to facilitate the will of delegates,
• the dishonest claim that “in effect it is the people in the pews, rather than church leaders, who determine the direction of our church”,
• the duplicitous communication from Pr Semmler,
• the sly sidelining of an issue that is important to the vast majority of members (not just delegates), and
• the hypocritical use of Where Love Comes to Life as a General Convention theme.

The manipulation by Pr Semmler is so similar to that of Pres. Robert Preus in the LCMS who took control of the St Louis seminary that used historical-biblical research to inform their thinking. (You can guess that the conservatives wanted to use Scriptural literalism as their only source of inspiration.)  That piece of history, which led to Seminex (seminary in exile) is reported in Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity by James Burkee.  The following is a review from Amazon.com

Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod follows the rise of two Lutheran clergymen – Herman Otten and J. A. O. Preus – who led different wings of a conservative movement that seized control of a theologically conservative but socially and politically moderate church denomination (LCMS) and drove “moderates” from the church in the 1970s. The schism within what was then one of the largest Protestant denominations in the United States ultimately reshaped the landscape of American Lutheranism and fostered the polarization that characterizes today’s Lutheran churches. Burkee’s story, supported by personal interviews with key players and church archives sealed for over twenty years, is about more than Lutheranism. The remaking of this one Lutheran denomination reflects a broader movement toward theological and political conservatism in American churches – a movement that began in the 1970s and culminated in the formation of the “Religious Right.”

In closing we note how the resistance to women’s participation in the LCA is dominated by clergy. 

 

The following comment from Burkee about the LCMS equally applies to the LCA: “Through (their) inability to draw lay support to the conservative movement’s delegate- and convention-focused strategy, the movement’s Pyrrhic victory had little to do with lay support.”

Reflections on Chimney Watch

            As to be expected, the national and international media have been publishing numerous articles on the election of the new pope. These articles highlight how many within the Roman Catholic Church desire change in their church. The problems are well-known: clerical sex abuse scandals and their mishandling by bishops and archbishops; bureaucratic infighting, turmoil, and scandal in the Roman Curia; the decline of Catholicism in Europe (and its potential decline in the US, were it not for mostly Hispanic immigrants); competition from Pentecostalism in Latin America; and ongoing calls for the church to update itself further, beyond the momentous decisions that were made fifty years ago at the Second Vatican Council.

            While traditionalists want to maintain the rules on clerical celibacy and a male-only priesthood, and some would even like to reverse many of the decisions from Vatican II, many liberal Catholics (most living within western liberal democracies) want the church to accept the conclusion of the magisterial sixteenth-century reformers, namely, that the apostolic Scriptures and ancient church tradition do not prohibit priests from being married. (Of course the Roman Church has been granting some exceptions to married men who are allowed to serve as ordained priests in extraordinary situations.)

            Following the lead of several twentieth-century Lutheran and Protestant churches, many Catholic laity and some clergy think the church should also allow women to serve as priests. As the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded already back in 1976, there is nothing within the biblical texts, when properly interpreted, that would prohibit a woman from serving as an ordained priest. It needs to be pointed out that some nuns have been doing just that, clandestinely, for decades. As an example: when I lived in Portland there was a nun who had been authorized to administer the Eucharist within the institution she was serving. She kept a low profile. Nobody complained. Just the opposite. Many appreciated her pastoral, eucharistic ministry.

            Certainly Jesus Christ is the same "yesterday, today, and forever," but not every biblical statement or apostolic teaching means the same today as it did when it was first uttered. Because of the actuality of change in meaning over time, the hermeneutical approach that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer takes to the US Constitution ("a living document within a living democracy") is better suited for biblical interpretation within the living church of Christ than the one taken by Justice Scalia, who views the Constitution as "a dead document," whose meanings are entirely bound to what the texts meant when the founders first wrote them. In Justice Scalia's view, the meaning of the Constitution does not change over time. (If that were actually true, we would not today think it "cruel and unusual" to put people in stocks or give them twenty lashes for certain crimes or hang horse thieves--all common punishments in the eighteenth century. Other examples could easily be given to disprove a strict "originalist" position vis-a-vis the Constitution.)

          Rather remarkably, some contemporary Roman Catholic priests and theologians sound a note that echoes the 28th Article of the Augsburg Confession, namely, that at least some apostolic commands that have been understood a certain way for a long time, can through cultural change and theological criticism be legitimately set aside. The sixteenth-century Augsburg Confession identified several: the eating of blood, the eating of non-kosher foods, the covering of women's heads during the divine service. The hermeneutical principles that AC 28 follows include the centrality of the gospel, the dictates of Christian love, and the need to avoid binding human consciences to transitory apostolic commands and human traditions.

          In other words, AC 28 reflects a hermeneutical position that parallels the hermeneutics of Justice Breyer. He identifies his approach under the category of "Active Liberty." AC 28 (and Apol. 28) identify the evangelical hermeneutic under the category of "Christian liberty" in service to the gospel. (See Stephen Breyer, Active Liberty: Interpreting a Democratic Constitution [Oxford, 2008]. His approach to the Constitution strikes me as a wonderful parallel to an evangelical-catholic approach to the apostolic Scriptures and their interpretation over time and cultural change.)

          Today we hear from within the Roman Church many calls for change. One veteran priest, active in an African setting, frankly stated to a mainstream correspondent that the church must evolve, that clerical celibacy ought to end, that women ought to be allowed to serve as priests, and that the church ought to recognize the importance of dissent. (See The Economist [March 9 2013], 61)

          How I would love to talk with that elderly priest! While I suspect that he and I might eventually run up against the age-old conflict between Augustine's doctrine of grace and his doctrine of the church, I also surmise that we might have a lot about which we agree.

          His comment brought to mind the editorial ("A Vatican Spring?") by another Roman Catholic that I admire, namely, Dr. Hans Kueng, Emeritus Professor of Theology at Tuebingen University, that was published in the Feb 27th edition of the New York Times. Dr. Kueng had been the previous pope's colleague (and friend) when they both taught at Tuebingen, but then Kueng had his falling out with a previous papacy over papal infallibility. Subsequently, Dr. Kueng and Dr. Ratzinger (aka Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI) grew more and more distant. (When Cardinal Ratzingen was elected pope in 2005, Dr. Kueng bluntly stated, "Er ist nicht mein Pabst.")


Here's an excerpt from Dr. Kueng's editorial:

Of course, the system of the Catholic Church doesn't resemble Tunisia or Egypt so much as an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia. In both places there are no genuine reforms, just minor concessions. In both, tradition is invoked to oppose reform. In Saudi Arabia tradition goes back only two centuries; in the case of the papacy, 20 centuries.

To this day the Curia, which in its current form is likewise a product of the 11th century, is the chief obstacle to any thorough reform of the Catholic Church, to any honest ecumenical understanding with the other Christian churches and world religions, and to any critical, constructive attitude toward the modern world.

There is no way to ignore the church's desperate needs. There is a catastrophic shortage of priests, in Europe and in Latin America and Africa. Huge numbers of people have left the church or gone into 'internal emigration', especially in the industrialized countries. There has been an unmistakable loss of respect for bishops and priests, alienation, particularly on the part of younger women, and a failure to integrate young people into the church. One shouldn't be misled by the media hype of grandly staged papal mass events or by the wild applause of conservative Catholic youth groups. Behind the facade, the whole house is crumbling.

In this dramatic situation the church needs a pope who's not living intellectually in the Middle Ages ... It needs a pope who is open to the concerns of the Reformation, to modernity. A pope who stands up for the freedom of the church in the world not just by giving sermons but by fighting with words and deeds for freedom and human rights within the church, for theologians, for women, for all Catholics who want to speak the truth openly. A pope who no longer forces the bishops to toe a reactionary party line, who puts into practice an appropriate democracy in the church, one shaped on the model of primitive Christianity. A pope who doesn't let himself be influenced by a Vatican-based 'shadow pope' like Benedict and his loyal followers.

A recent poll in Germany shows 85 per cent of Catholics in favor of letting priests marry, 79 per cent in favor of letting divorced persons remarry in church and 75 per cent in favor of ordaining women. Similar figures would most likely turn up in many other countries. Might we get a cardinal or bishop who doesn't simply want to continue in the same old rut? Someone who, first, knows how deep the church's crisis goes and, second, knows paths that lead out of it?

If the next conclave were to elect a pope who goes down the same old road, the church will never experience a new spring, but fall into a new ice age and run the danger of shrinking into an increasingly irrelevant sect. [End of Kueng excerpt]

As I read Dr. Kueng's editorial, I couldn't help but think that his words apply to my own church body as well, the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. We, too, have our curia (CTCR) that enforces church tradition and ensures that any dissent is rejected on the basis of church tradition. Like Rome, which also trumpets the importance of church tradition, the LCMS CTCR utilizes synodical traditions (statements, resolutions) to squelch all attempts at faithful theological reform.

At least the Roman Church accepts mainstream scientific knowledge (e.g, theory of evolution) and rejects fundamentalist biblicism ("creationism"), unlike the LCMS. But in so many other ways, the current LCMS mimics Rome when it consistently allows church tradition to trump critical, theological engagement with the biblical texts and our contemporary world. As a result, the method of the LCMS is identical to Rome: church tradition is the norm of doctrine and practice and serves as the sole basis for squelching dissent within the synod on matters like the ordination of women.