A younger colleague in the LCMS ministerium sent me a note about an article in the latest issue (July 2011) of For the Life of the World, the magazine of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. The article was written by the Associate Director of Deaconess Studies there.
Much of the article is a fine exposition of the nature of Christian care and compassion; however, the article's third paragraph contains assertions that are contrary to evangelical-Lutheran doctrine:
"At creation, God gave headship and authority to the man Adam (Genesis 1:26) in light of the fact that Christ, the head (bridegroom) of His Church, would be incarnate as a male human. God's only Son took on human flesh in order to care for us, both body and soul--through Jesus' ministry 'the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them' (Luke 7:22). Jesus 'continues His own ministry in and through those He commissions,' [William Weinrich, "Called & Ordained. Reflections on the New Testament View of the Office of the Ministry," Logia 2/1 (January 1993), 24-25], as affirmed in John 20:22ff. Through the Holy Office established by Christ, we receive His mercy in the gifts of hearing Christ himself speak (Luke 10:16), receiving absolution from Christ Himself (Matthew 16:19-20; John 20:21-23), being taught and baptized by Christ Himself (Matthew 28:16-20; cf. Mark 16:15-16) and receiving the Lord's Supper from Christ Himself (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) [Thomas M. Winger, "The Office of the Holy Ministry According to the New Testament Mandate of Christ," Logia 7/2 (1998), 40]. The very maleness of pastors is essential to the Holy Office in which they serve, distributing Christ's mercy through the ministry of Word and Sacrament" (Dr. Cynthia Lumley, "What Is Mercy?" For the Life of the World 15/2 (July 2011),10).
The very maleness of pastors is essential to the Holy Office in which they serve?
My colleague wrote:
"I'm struck by what appears to be a very Roman Catholic argument about gender and the pastoral office."
Indeed. The theological position asserted here by Dr. Lumley is based on Roman Catholic tradition, not on Scripture. (The article does not indicate an awareness of the problems attendant to critical-historical investigation into what the Scriptures in fact teach about the different concepts of "apostolos" and church "orders" within the NT itself.) The late Pope John Paul II described this Roman view of the Holy Ministry in his Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores Dabo Vobis (March 1992):
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031992_pastores-dabo-vobis_en.html)
"The relation of the priest to Jesus Christ, and in him to his Church, is found in the very being of the priest by virtue of his sacramental consecration/anointing and in his activity, that is, in his mission or ministry."
The Pope's exhortation continues:
"The Spirit, by consecrating the priest and configuring him to Jesus Christ, Head and Shepherd, creates a bond which, located in the priest's very being, demands to be assimilated and lived out in a personal, free and conscious way through an ever richer communion of life and love and an ever broader and more radical sharing in the feelings and attitudes of Jesus Christ. In this bond between the Lord Jesus and the priest, an ontological and psychological bond, a sacramental and moral bond, is the foundation and likewise the power for that 'life according to the Spirit' and that 'radicalism of the Gospel' to which every priest is called today and which is fostered by ongoing formation in its spiritual aspect. The nuptial dimension of ecclesiastical celibacy, proper to this relationship between Christ and the Church which the priest is called to interpret and to live, must enlarge his mind, illumine his life and warm his heart. Celibacy must be a happy sacrifice, a need to live with Christ so that he will pour out into the priest the effusions of his goodness and love that are ineffably full and perfect."
Does Dr. Lumley not realize the implications of her assertion about the maleness of the pastor as being essential to the office? Why stop at the maleness of Jesus and not take the next logical step, his celibacy? If one goes down the road that unites the ontology of Jesus with the ontology of the pastor, this is where one could end, the forced celibacy of male priests. Of course the bigger problem with Lumley's third paragraph is the theological method on which it is based, a method that is based on Roman Catholic tradition and not on the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. (Who approved that third paragraph for inclusion in this LCMS seminary's magazine?)
Contrary to Lumley's Roman ontological-sacerdotalist view about the ontology of the pastor, the symbolical books of the Ev. Luth. church present the holy ministry chiefly (but not exclusively) in functional, dynamic terms, for the sake of obtaining and strengthening trust in the promise that God forgives people by grace for Christ's sake through faith. Moreover, the symbolical books stress that ALL baptized Christians, both male and female, have the power and authority of preaching the gospel and administering the means of grace, although not all are well-suited or qualified for this ministry; for example, they might not be able to teach very well. Especially important is the confessional position that a called and ordained minister of Christ, whether male or female, acts in the place of God and in the stead of Christ (vice Christi; see Apol. 7.28; Apol. 7:47), not in his or her own person or being. God preaches and acts through the called minister, but the being of the pastor, the ontology of the priest, is accidental to the office holder and not an essential, sine qua non of Christian preaching and sacramental administration. What is essential is faithfulness to the apostolic proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the means of grace in accordance with the gospel. Pastors should not confuse their being for the being of Christ, whose being is available to us only through His Word and the other means of grace.
One should also point out to Dr. Lumley that "Adam" (Hebrew: "human being") is inclusive of both male and female in Genesis 1:26-27. There is no "headship" or "subordination" within this verse. Rather, Adam, that is, "male and female," is created in the same instant by God's Logos. There is a common humanity, "Adam," that is prior to the distinction between "male" and "female." This common humanity is created in the image and likeness of God the Logos.
Finally, and most disturbingly, if Jesus' maleness is what is significant about his being the second Adam, then he cannot serve as the new Adam that is inclusive of male and female. If the fact that Jesus was about 30 years old is significant for his being the new Adam, then he cannot be the savior of senior citizens. If Jesus was only about four feet tall, as is quite probable, he can't be the savior of those who are taller. If the maleness of Jesus constitutes an essential condition of his being the new Adam, then women are excluded from participating in the new Adam. Thankfully, the physical particularities of Jesus, including his gender, age, race, etc., are accidental, non-essential to his salvific work of reconciling Adam ("human beings") to God. The same principle is true for those who serve "in the stead and by the command" of Christ today. Accidental attributes of the pastor's being are inconsequential for the fulfillment of the holy office.
"Why stop at the maleness of Jesus and not take the next logical step, his celibacy?"
ReplyDeleteBecause the Scriptures, in Titus and I Tim, clearly say that the presbyter and bishop are to be "the husband of one wife."
But here's a question for you in return. What do and your ilk think of Adam naming Eve - twice, in fact, once before the fall (She shall be called woman) and again afterward (He called his wife's name Eve.)?
Now, I know that you do not think that Genesis is historical. But that is even worse for your case - for if it is a myth all the details have meaning, whereas you could at least argue for "accidents of history" if you thought Genesis was historical.
It is fraught with meaning that Athene comes forth from Zeus's forehead: she is the goddess of wisdom. That's how myths work.
So, if Genesis is a myth as you say, what does it mean that the Man names the Woman just as he names everything else?
+HRC
Pr. H. R.,
ReplyDeleteBecause Dr. Lumley bases her assertion about the maleness of the priest/pastor as essential to the Holy Office on Roman Catholic tradition, and not on Scripture, she could just as easily be swayed by the Roman Catholic rejoinder to your reference to Titus 1 and 1 Tim 3: the episcopoi and presbyteroi referred to here were not bishops in the later sense. Proper episcopal functions were reserved to Paul himself [who was celibate] or to one of his celibate legates, such as Timothy and Titus. Why were Paul, Timothy, and Titus celibate? Because of what Paul teaches in First Corinthian 7 and because of what our Lord teaches in Matthew 19 and John 21:15. It is also quite probable, given the Roman argument, that the episcopoi and presbyteroi referred to in First Tim 3 and Titus 1 were widowers who had taken the vow of celibacy. The celibacy of the priesthood, based on the ontological unity of priest to Christ, was taught by the apostles. So the Roman argument goes, which Dr. Lumley apparently supports.
I have never stated that Genesis 2-3 is a "myth." The two stories that form Gen 2-3, in their present form, are a primeval narrative of transgression and punishment. (The narrative sequence here, of course, is different literarily and theologically from what is given in Genesis 1:26-30, which was one of my points in response to Dr. Lumley's misreading of Gen 1:26.)
The poetic, emotional cry of the Man, given in 2:23, expresses the joy of surprise, the "jubilant welcome" (Herder), that the Man has now been given a helpful creature--in contrast to all the other helpless, insignificant creatures that had been paraded before the Man to be named by him. The naming of the animals, wherein the Man expresses his dominion over them, is different from the poetic cry that he expresses upon receiving the Woman. Unlike other primeval stories of origin in the ANE, Gen 2 underscores an appreciation of women, that human existence is a partnership of man and woman.
Gen 3:20 doesn't quite fit into the narrative sequence and was probably a later insertion, since the original ending of the judgment scene was v. 21. Verse 20 also presumes that the Woman has already given birth, which isn't the case in Gen 3. Nevertheless, the meaning of the verse is clear: sin and divine judgment have not overcome the blessing of procreation given to human beings. There is here an echo of the ancient, primeval notion of Mother Earth, which has now been de-mythologized in service to the divine blessing that God has given Adam, inclusive of both the male and the female, in Gen. 1:28.
"Gen 3:20 doesn't quite fit into the narrative sequence and was probably a later insertion, since the original ending of the judgment scene was v. 21."
ReplyDeleteTypical: if you don't like it, it's an insertion.
You've done a fine job of telling us how the Pope screws up Titus and 1 Tim and how the presbyters and bishops must be "the husband of one wife" - now, can you tell me how I'm screwing it up? I think it means that presbyters and bishops must be men - the only folks who can be the husband of one wife.
How can you say these verses allow for, let alone encourage, women presbyters and bishops?
+HRC
Pr. H.R.,
ReplyDeleteMy point is that Dr. Lumley has screwed up theologically by following the Roman Catholic argument that a pastor must be male because Jesus was a male. Do you agree with Dr. Lumley's assertion? If so, on what Scriptural basis?
You asked for an interpretation of Gen 2:26 and 3:20 and I gave it to you. Do you disagree with the interpretation I have given?
In the evangelical Lutheran Church we do not and should not apply Titus 1 and First Tim 3 in a legalistic manner. For example, there are many Lutheran pastors who have been married to more than one spouse, either because a previous spouse died or because of a divorce, and they have continued to serve faithfully as pastors.
The issue at stake in the exhortation to be "the husband of one wife" was undoubtedly polygamy. While the presbyteroi and episcopoi referred to in the pastorals were men, there are other NT texts that open the way for female pastors, as I have argued in several essays.
The way to apply "husband of one wife" today is to insist that pastors, whether male or female, should not be polygamists.
"the article's third paragraph contains assertions that are contrary to evangelical-Lutheran doctrine. . . ."
ReplyDeleteHave you told Dr. Lumley that you think she is teaching contrary to Lutheran doctrine, and have you told her about your blog article here?
"the symbolical books of the Ev. Luth. church present the holy ministry chiefly (but not exclusively) in functional, dynamic terms. . . . Moreover, the symbolical books stress that ALL baptized Christians, both male and female, have the power and authority of preaching the gospel and administering the means of grace. . . ."
ReplyDeleteI think here you are confusing the priesthood of all believers (the keys are given to the church) with the preaching office, the Predigtamt. You say, "Contrary to Lumley's Roman ontological-sacerdotalist view." Could one not then say, "Contrary to Becker's Wisconsin gnostic-functionalist view"?
"although not all are well-suited or qualified for this ministry; for example, they might not be able to teach very well."
Or, for example, they might not be males, which would automatically disqualify them for the pastoral office.
"the confessional position that a called and ordained minister of Christ, whether male or female, acts in the place of God and in the stead of Christ. . . ."
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that the confessional position assumes that a called and ordained minister could be either male or female. I wonder what the confessors would say about that.
"Accidental attributes of the pastor's being are inconsequential for the fulfillment of the holy office."
Here you are saying that a pastor's maleness is "inconsequential" to holding the office, that it could just as well be a female.
"While the presbyteroi and episcopoi referred to in the pastorals were men, there are other NT texts that open the way for female pastors, as I have argued in several essays."
So you are saying that the New Testament permits female pastors. I take it, then, that you believe that the Missouri Synod is wrong and is going against Scripture in prohibiting female pastors. Yet you retain your membership in the Missouri Synod. Why? Would you not be more at home in the ELCA?
Dr. Becker,
ReplyDeleteI would encourage you see Gerhard's treatment of the I Tim and Titus texts on being "the husband of one wife" in his Locus on the Ministry. So often we err when we neglect to see what our fathers in the faith have written. He anticipates your arguments about this text and shows that the text does not bar celibates or widowers from office. But if Paul had wanted to include women in the ministry it would have be oh so easy to say, "the presbyter must be a man or woman who is married to only one spouse. . . "
You are simply wrong in thinking that the NT texts allow for female clergy. You are also accusing Dr. Lumley, rather lamely, of guilt by association. Are we to stop believing in the Trinity or infant baptism because the Pope does too?
And yes, I disagree with the interpretation you give to Gen 2:26 and 3:20. You admit the force of my interpretation of 3:20 by resorting to the laughable expedient of saying, in playground fashion, "Well that verse doesn't count - it's a latter insertion in the text."
As for 2:26 - it is indeed a poetic welcome: a poetic welcome wherein the man names the woman. God names Adam, Adam names the woman. Sounds almost like St. Paul in Corinthians, doesn't it?
It is clear from your rhetoric that the more fundamental divide in our respective theologies is how we approach the Word of God. Declaring this or that text to be an "insertion" based on criteria of my own choosing is simply not a tool I find at my disposal.
+HRC
MB turns Dr. Lumley's statement into a question, and so asks, "The very maleness of pastors is essential to the Holy Office in which they serve?"
ReplyDeleteAsked in such a way to ridicule the answer, "Yes," as if the right and only (!) answer is to be shunned. The answer is, YES. MB does not accept the answer. Not Scriptures fault. Nor the Lord's who gave the Office, filled the office with males, and made clear the qualifications for the Office through His Apostle Paul. Dr. Lumley surely would not say she bases her "assertion about the maleness of the priest/pastor as essential to the Holy Office on Roman Catholic tradition, and not on Scripture." That is untrue, and unfair. (Did you ask Dr. Lumley if she based her argument on Roman Catholic Tradition?) Don't be sucked into a debate here about celibacy. Rome gets the male only office right, even if some of their support is suspect.
A warning for readers: if you don't like Philosophical explanation or speculation, in matters of theology, good for you. Philosophical explanation and/or speculation is not the same as God's Word, or Theology. If there is an error in the explanation or of the speculation it may not be damaging, unless that explanation or speculation is passed off and believed as the "gospel truth." Errors in philosophy, however, can mean error when teaching theology. Ecumenical creeds get God confessed rightly.
MB presents nothing new in any of his arguments for women pastors. The Swedish Lutherans have gone over most things related to this. I heard something years ago from a LCMS lay-woman who wanted women to be pastors that was similar to MB's statement in his current musing. This lady, who wanted women to be pastors, and who then went looking for Scriptural justification, went through all sorts of contortions at the time of questioning coming up with more errors. When she was asked if Jesus had to be born a male she thought for a moment, and said, "I don't think so. It could have been 50/50 chance (male or female)." A biological flip of the coin? Even among the men who were sympathetic to women becoming pastors they was shock. Now, MB writes: "Thankfully, the physical particularities of Jesus, including his gender, age, race, etc., are accidental, non-essential to his salvific work of reconciling Adam ("human beings") to God." Read that again! Not sure what else MB would include in the "etc." Some are red herrings. But, MB states Jesus' gender as accidental, non-essential to his incarnation and salvific work. Yes. race is an "accident" of humanity. Race is an "accident" because ALL men (and women--red, yellow, black or white--all precious in His sight) come from Adam and Eve--the original Humans. The substance of their "humanity," however, is not apart from one of them being male and one being female (cellular biology too!). As if one could be a human without being either female or male (and please, let's not have here any talk of sexual abnormalities that follow the fall into sin)! But it was no accident (used differently on purpose) that Jesus was born of the house of David, of a Virgin, an Israelite. MB says that was non-essential to his salvific work.
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:
ReplyDeleteIs Jesus' gender an accident of His substance as Eternal Son? We are not saved apart from the Son becoming flesh. Can He be a human without being either a male or female? No he cannot. In and from the Eternal Sonship, and incarnated Maleness of Jesus, is Humanity redeemed. Surely not an accident. Galatians 4:4-6, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons..." Jesus' maleness HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS SALVIFIC WORK. From His conception, to His circumcision (gotta be a male for that...and please no talk here of female genital mutilation as if that would have fulfilled the circumcision law of the OT), to every male chromosome real human substance blood cell shed on the cross, Jesus' as a Male--not as some "generic" or "common" human--saved us. He made us (humanity--man and woman) to be adopted sons. Women and men are redeemed as they are in the Son (via Baptism). MB is clear enough. He does believe in a "common humanity," but sexually undifferentiated. He says this humanity was "created in an instant." Is that the only way to read it? Watch your assumptions. Was that humanity androgynous as well (as some have argued)?
MB, do you really want to stick with your statement, "Thankfully, the physical particularities of Jesus, including his gender, age, race, etc., are accidental, non-essential to his salvific work of reconciling Adam ("human beings") to God." MB, you then make this amazing leap: "The same principle is true for those who serve "in the stead and by the command" of Christ today. Accidental attributes of the pastor's being are inconsequential for the fulfillment of the holy office."
A simple rejoinder would be: is something still Holy (from the Lord, in His way of giving) if you've done tinkered with it (tried to put women in it)? Your talk is pious. Dangerous too.
PS. MB, Come on! You are seriously looking for someone to take your funny bait, aren't you. I skipped over some of your stuff to concentrate on one (!) major error, and then went back and found that you wrote, "If Jesus was only about four feet tall, as is quite probable, he can't be the savior of those who are taller." You crack me up. Three words: Shroud of Turin! (Jesus was 5 foot 11 inches. Just saying.) Don't tell me you don't believe in the Shroud of Turin too! (Don't tell me!) Note the smiley face :-)
"not all are well-suited or qualified for this ministry; for example, they might not be able to teach very well."
ReplyDeleteThat is true.
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteJesus saves human beings by having become a human being, "Adam." Christ's salvific work was not first of all that of being a man but that of being the new Human Being, the new Adam. As the New Adam, Jesus includes in himself both men and women. Both men and women are "in Christ." To be "in Christ" is to be brought into the fulfillment of what it means to be a human being, whether male or female (or somewhere in between).
You wondered what else I would include in the "etc." Included would be such "accidental" features as Jesus' nationality, his ethnicity, his height, his weight, his hair color, his eye color. I hope you get the idea.
As I mentioned to Pr. H. R., I have indeed emailed Dr. Lumley to let her know my criticism.
For all of your ranting, you are going to have a hard time with Gen. 1:27: "Adam" there is inclusive of male and female. So yes, there is a kind of androgyny here. This inclusivity accords well with the eschatological promise that St. Paul sets forth regarding the New Adam: all the baptized are one "in Christ." In Christ there is "neither male and female." This is "the dynamic of the Christian life by which gender difference is transcended" (T. Peters) and true humanity is brought to its fulfillment "in Christ."
If both men and women are included "in Christ," the Second Adam, then both men and women may represent Christ the Second Adam to others, may proclaim Christ's word of forgiveness and life, may administer Christ's body and blood for the forgiveness of sins, may forgive and retain sins. Is a woman who preaches the gospel committing an evil? Is the woman who administers the Lord's Supper committing a sin? If she is "in Christ" and Christ and his Spirit are in her, how could her ordination, her preaching, her administration of the Lord's sacraments, her vicarious absolution be construed as evil? Just because you think that the risen Christ only wants men to do these pastoral acts? Such a construal strikes me as Pharisaical and legalistic; it doesn't accord with the prophecy of Joel about women; with First Cor. 11; with Paul's teaching about baptism; with other NT texts that indeed open the way for the inclusion of women in the pastoral ministry.
Btw, after today, if someone doesn't sign his/her name to a response, the response will be deleted.
Pr. H. R.,
ReplyDeleteAfter noting the scholarly consensus about the interpretation of Gen 2:23 (not 26, as I accidentally wrote in my response above) and about Gen 3:20 being a later insertion, I still provided a theological interpretation. I never wrote that 3:20 no longer has a contemporary theological meaning. Just the opposite:
"...the meaning of the verse is clear: sin and divine judgment have not overcome the blessing of procreation given to human beings. There is here an echo of the ancient, primeval notion of Mother Earth, which has now been de-mythologized in service to the divine blessing that God has given Adam, inclusive of both the male and the female, in Gen. 1:28."
Do you disagree with this theological interpretation?
That the Man poetically exclaims "this one shall be called 'ishshah,' for out of 'ish' this one was taken" can hardly be understood on the same level as the Man "giving names" to all the cattle, birds, and every animal of the field. Moreover, at no point in the narrative does God ever "name" Adam. The theological meaning of the Man naming the Woman "Eve" is the one I have given above.
The argument for a male-only priesthood/pastorate on the basis of the ontology of Jesus is of recent origin. It is unscriptural. (I have indeed emailed Dr. Lumley to let her know my criticism.)
Applying the Scriptures is a bit like applying the U. S. Constitution to later cultural and social circumstances: the contemporary meaning of the historic text and its application in the present might not be identical to the original meaning and application, although they are consistent with the gospel, the administration of the means of grace, and the dictates of Christian love. For example, when the framers of the U.S. Constitution wrote "men," they meant "white, male, property owners." That is not the meaning that "men" has in the Constitution today.
When the apostles wrote "presbyteros" or "episcopos" they meant "men," but there are other passages within those same prophetic and apostolic texts that have helped the church to broaden the meaning of "presbyteros" and "episcopos" to include qualified women.
The Confessional writings of the Ev.-Luth. church have within them, as well, statements that stress the functional nature of the pastoral office. The office is not undone if a woman proclaims the gospel or administers the sacraments. Tell me, does a person who receives the body and blood of Christ from an ELCA pastor, whether male or female, receive the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of his/her sins?
"Priests are born (in holy baptism); pastors are made." The Holy Spirit does a fine job of equipping both men and women for the pastoral office today.
Dr. Luther certainly thought that the prohibition on women preachers was not absolute. What had been an exception in his 16th-c. context has now become fairly normative within contemporary Lutheran churches. The same holds true for Dr. Gerhard, whose loci theologici is a constant companion in my work. Given his cultural and political context, he could not foresee many of the cultural and political changes that have occurred since the 17th c. A good portion of that sixth volume (de ministerio ecclesiastico) is still helpful, but many sections are culturally obsolete.
"Do you disagree with this theological interpretation?"
ReplyDeleteYes I do, or at least I believe there is much more. The husband names his wife, the man names the woman. Paul was right about headship in I Cor.
"Tell me, does a person who receives the body and blood of Christ from an ELCA pastor, whether male or female, receive the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of his/her sins?"
I don't know who was the first theologian to say it, but he was a wise man: I do not hope to speculate about where the Sacrament might be, I seek rather to proclaim and rejoice in where I know it to be. Christ has not called women to be ministers of the Sacrament. This causes doubt. What God allows to be or gives in such cases of breaking his Institution, is his business. I focus on receiving and rejoicing the Sacrament where His Institution is being followed.
But, for what it is worth, I share the doubts and outlook of Dr. Scaer in his seminal essay, "The Validity of the Churchly Acts of Ordained Women" with which I am sure you are familiar.
+HRC
Dear Pr. H. R.,
ReplyDeleteScaer's "seminal essay?" Give me a break. Even the St. Louis seminary faculty had to issue a public criticism of that wrong-headed piece. It is without question the most-criticized LCMS essay in recent memory (even more so than some of my own!).
No, that essay presents a contemporary form of Donatism, which the church universal has rightly rejected.
In the ev.-luth. church pastors are covered up in liturgical garments because people should not be tempted to confuse pastors for Christ or to be distracted by the pastors' character or person (or ontology, I might add). Faithfulness to Christ's institution of the sacraments rests upon faithfulness to the Verba Christi. The promise of Christ, spoken by the pastor, is sufficient for the validity and efficacy of the Word and the validity and efficacy of the sacrament. To argue, as Prof. Scaer does, that somehow the Verba Christi--the sacramental promises--are in doubt because they are spoken by a woman, goes against the clear teaching of Scripture, which is re-presented in the confessional writings of the ev-luth. church. What audacity to doubt the promise of Christ because the divine promise is spoken by a called and ordained woman and because her administration of Christ's sacrament is done according to his promise! That is, according to the spoken promise, "given and shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins."
We don't eat the female pastor; we are not baptized by her body; and her articulation of Christ's promise sounds exactly the same as a man's articulation. The promise is just as valid when spoken by a called and ordained female as by a called and ordained male. Said promise is received through the ears (or eyes or hands, if one is deaf), believed upon in one's heart, gratefully acknowledged/confessed by one's lips. The female pastor who proclaims the promises of Christ in the sacrament of baptism, in the sacrament of holy absolution, in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is keeping the sacraments as Christ instituted. To say otherwise, is to go against the promises of Christ, to divert undue attention on the ontology and character of the pastor, and to create doubt (as the Donatists did) in the hearts of those who regularly and faithfully receive the Lord's sacramental promises from female clergy.
The accusation of Donatism against this essay is just silly - and was clearly anticipated and answered within the essay itself.
ReplyDeleteDonatists said that men who were truly called to and ordained in the office of the minsitry, then apostatized, then repented could not validly conduct sacraments because of their personal holiness. It is quite another matter to ask whether someone who is not truly called to and ordained in the ministry may conduct valid sacraments.
Scaer argues that since woman are not called to the ministry, great doubt adheres to their churchly acts.
+HRC
No, Pr. C., the furor over Prof. Scaer's essay was and is justified. It grates against classic Christian teaching about the effectiveness of Christ's Word, about the nature of that Word as that which makes a Sacrament valid and effective, and about the dynamic purpose of the Sacraments, to create and sustain faith in the promise of Christ. By drawing attention to the one speaking the Word of promise, Prof. Scaer draws our attention away from where Christ would have us focus. He thus casts doubt upon that which ought not be doubted. A woman who faithfully speaks in the stead and by the command of Christ speaks and acts as Christ would have her speak.
ReplyDeleteThe Word of Christ is not merely the words - that's hocus pocus. The words are magic apart from the Institution (the Word). Thus, if I am practicing the Verba in my kitchen all the bread does not become consecrated. Likewise, if I use water and the Triune name, but baptize a cat, that's no baptism. The words are there, but not the Word: for the Institution requires that people, not cats, be baptized.
ReplyDeleteScaer's argument is that such a gross violation of Christ's Institution is committed by those who pretend to be clergymen when they are note that we can have no certainty as regards their churchly acts.
+HRC
Let's take a specific example: I do wonder where in the Formula's discussion of the Lord's Supper -- specifically in its insistence on there being no Sacrament extra usum -- is a pastor named as one of the criteria for proper usus, let alone the sine qua non of proper usus, as HRC suggests?
ReplyDeleteA pastor is, one might reply, implied in the act of consecration, but it seems to me only in the sense of being "properly called," not in the sense of possessing some proper being, that is, only in the sense of being divinely entrusted, for the Church's sake, with the very gifts that Christ has left as a testament to His Church.
Further, and this is the crux of the issue for me, where in the Confessions is it even remotely suggested that the trustworthiness of the Word, its reliability is dependent on the pastor as a person, or even the pastor as Office holder? Is it not rather the proclamation and administration that determines and continuously validates whether one's call is indeed an evangelical ministry, a ministry of the Gospel? I see no additional validation stipulated beyond the self-authenticating Gospel and the consecrated, distributed and received Sacrament.
HRC may very well be right, but if he's right, then, I fear, he might be something else than Lutheran. Am I wrong?
PJM,
ReplyDeleteYou are exactly on target. Thank you for your very helpful comment.
If Prof. Scaer's view, which HRC apparently supports, were correct, then one might be led to doubt the validity and efficacy of an emergency baptism that was done by a laywoman.
With respect to the Lord's Supper, you are right: there is no additional validation of the Sacrament beyond the self-authenticating divine promise, which is spoken in the consecration. Normally this promise is spoken by one who is "properly called."
Just because one thinks a certain group of people cannot be "properly called," either because the people are traditores, as in the third and fourth centuries, or women, as in the twenty-first century, does not invalidate the sacramental acts done by those called and ordained individuals.
May I encourage HRC to re-read Augustine's anti-Donatist writings? There is sufficient argumentation there to refute Prof. Scaer's position.
Don't take my word for it. That Prof. Scaer is warming over the Donatist position was rightly acknowledged in the public critique of his essay that was given by the St. Louis seminary faculty.
I am just a "average" Christian, not a theological scholar or seminary professor. I have enjoyed reading the entertaining banter between the individuals above. I would just like to ask one very simple question.
ReplyDeleteAt what point do we consider that the sacraments (which seem to be at the center of this debate as we all know that offering the Word of God is something that all Christians are charged with - and specifically the sacraments being the duty of the Office of the Keys and not the common Christian). It seems that this debate has gone deep into the scripture and doctrinal rules. At no point have we just considered that this has nothing to do with US? Humans, whether male or female, are only the messengers, through whom the HOLY SPIRIT is the active agent in the work being done? This is simple 8th grade catechism class teaching. Is it up to us to decide or even to debate whether the HOLY SPIRIT can do work through a human? Who are we to even presume that we can predict whom the Holy Spirit will choose? As humans, we believe, we have faith and we yearn for the Holy Spirit to work the saving grace of Jesus Christ in our lives.
Does not even the LCMS church acknowledge that in an emergency situation ANY believing Christian can baptize? (priesthood of all believers) and that the office of the Keys is for the "good order" of the church? If we want to be bold enough to presume that the Holy Spirit can use whomever He choses in one situation, why can't we presume that He can use whom ever He calls in any situation?
I, as an ordinary common Christian, feel much better trusting in the Holy Spirit without setting human limitations on His work. I am also fine with the LCMS church limiting the office of the keys to those whom they feel qualified to lead the church on a regular basis for good order within the congregation. Do I feel that the Holy Spirit won't call women? Nope. Nor does it matter as it is not human work, but work of the Holy Spirit. Does it bother me that men are the only ones "called" in the LCMS church. Nope.
Betsy, You are very charitable, but we must be careful about saying that we should not limit God for what he can do through any person, male or female. But the thing we must recognize is that God DID confer his role upon CERTAIN people--and even certain GENDERED persons. Why did God say this in the first place if he really intended that we could presume anyone could serve in any capacity, as long as it was for a good cause? Why were the men struck down who touched the ark of the covenant. Why did God blow a gasket when Saul presumes to do the work of the priest? Why does it become a defining moment for MOSES when he strikes a rock instead of commanding it to bring forth water? Certainly, our very intelligent and merciful God would overlook these things. But he does not. Just because WE occasionally do not honor God's Word does not mean that God agrees with our decision. That is the heart of this discussion.
ReplyDeleteGiven the line of reasoning that God is big-hearted and understanding about our good intentions, we could presume that Coke is just as good as wine or potato chips as good as bread--if not better!--for holy communion. Hey, it's about fellowship, right? And, why should we limit God with what is done in Communion!
Or, if we forget water in the baptismal font, why not baptize with the humidity that surely is present in the air; isn't God among us and is this not a baptism of God's Holy Spirit? As strange as that sounds, that was the reasoning of some confused ELCA pastor (go figure!) who continued with a baptism when he discovered that the trustee or elder had forgotten to fill the font. God baptizes as he wills, right? Of course, the grandmother who brought this matter to me proved herself a better theologian than that pastor when she baptized her grandson in the bathtub.
We can certainly "be bold" to act as we want and we can certainly PRESUME to act as if we were called by his name to serve in his name. It may "seem" right, but is it according to God's will, as stated in his Word?
Tryuly, I am GLAD that you said "it does not bother me that men are the only ones 'called'..." because it shows me you have a heart for God's Word and not what others make of it. You don't mind because you are ready to take God at his Word and not subvert it just because your sensibility as a woman has come into play.
For, as you certainly have noticed, God does speak very clearly about matters in Scripture. Therefore we cannot presume to know anything except what GOD has written, not what just any theologian may present as true. A faithful heart will accept that and bend reason around it, not the other way around: bending Scripture around our sensibilities or reason. The one makes for a prophet, the other for a heretic; for a saint or a scoundrel. God bless you, Betsy.