Gay ordination vs. women’s ordination

I guess the validity of the eucharist consecrated byt a female pastor is a question asked by many confessional Lutherans across the world. It’s a legitimate question, but still somehow I feel it’s secondary. Didn’t Luther say something about not bringing questions there where no answers can be found? Because faith relies only on certainty, even the notion that the validity of the sacrament can at least well be questioned, if not directly denied, should be enough a reason to avoid women ordination.

It is truly strange, as dr. Veith says, that the issue on sex and sexes divides so heavily despite earlier transgressions. I think one reason could be, that at least WO is a decision that affects the everyday life of a congregation, because everyone can see and hear the obvious doctrine on this matter. Other things (say, inspiration related stuff) can be much more easily omitted and swept under the carpet. It’s much easier not to think of something invisible.

Law and Gospel.

My brother once said his baptist pastor father told him that he would truly understand the Holy Gospel when he was old enough to sin sexually in thought, word and deed.

Sex raises up all sort of untidy and personal questions about the truth of how we present ourselves to others vs who we know we REALLY are.

It raises questions that strike at the heart of our faith such as: “can I really have TRUE faith when I not only sin, but to be honest, know I would do it again if the situation presented itself willingly and eagerly?” If I keep doing the same sin over and over then is my repentence TRUE repentence?”

We all are rather startled to find this all happening within us and that things are not very tidy. We are ashamed and afraid someone will find us out.

So what do we do? Well. We use our will power. Since it too is fallen it fails. That failure does the Law´s work of leading us to trust in Christ alone. If we come to trust God, a sign of this is that we start to confess these sins to one another and receive those soft animal, christ bloodied skins and discard the scratchy fig leaves we have sewn for ourselves.

This is healing. People in my small Lutheran congregation, who over time came to know in small and casual ways that I was gay felt an intimacy that allowed them to tell me details of their personal lives that they would have never told their families and pastor. Why? They knew, knowing my own sins, that it would be unlikely that I would judge them, and likely that I would share my Jesus with them.

Or… we salve the sharpness of our conscience in another way. How? We focus on the sexual sins of others, and project our fears of what should happen to us onto those poor souls saying they are doomed if they cannot overcome their sexual sinning by the self discipline and will power we have “successfully” deployed to conquer sin, death and the devil.

The LCMS has gay pastors, pastors who identify that they are homosexual. Let´s not argue here whether or not someone is homosexual if they refrain from having sex here. They identify themselves as homosexual as a point they see as the honesty required of a christian. These faithful servants of the Word are then told by their peers and district president to keep the fact quiet. In essense they are told to lie for the “noble” reason of not stirring something ugly up. It is not a sin to ordain a homosexual pastor. It would be sad to have that pastor or a heterosexual pastor openly sin and create chaos in their congregation. This happens with all pastors, unfortunately, gay and heterosexual doesn´t it? The great news is that God can use even this, in confession, to do great things. The author Robert Capon said he became passionate about the passion only after he sinfully became passionate for the church secretary or something like that….

The sad fact is that something ugly WOULD be stirred up by an LCMS pastor letting the fact be known that he is gay, and that being clandestine and covert and dishonest is encouraged in the LCMS as a virtue.

St James says: “Confess your sins to one another and you will be healed.” Only the Just, seeking their life in the Faith and not in the death of going into hiding due to shame can do this.

A woman consecrating the host as a pastor effects the Holy Supper. Let´s be perfectly clear here: It is the Words of Christ that make this so, not the qualifications of the officiant offering the words.

Confession: Since Lutherans claim to adhere to “sola scriptura” and identify each other by adherence to the confessions alone as to whom can claim to be Lutheran…..I have lots of questions here that so far, no one has answered clearly…

questions:

1) what are the arguments, outside of the order of creation, that make ordination of women such a bad thing? Tradition cannot be our authority here as Lutherans.

2) If the order of creation is invoked, then why deviate from John Knox, Luther and ALL the reformers and say it is ok for women to hold political office and secular positions of authority? Doesn´t there have to be some unity of application here if THIS is the biblical argument used? Isn´t it important to say we are deviating from Luther and all the reformers by not also banning things like womens sufferage? ie doesn´t truth in disclosure and honesty require this fact to be known as well?

3)how is this tied to the idea of homosexuality? I am not seeing that. but I am seeing the two things linked over and over and over without explicit reasoning and worse, without biblical support for that theory. It IS a theory. should we not acknowledge it as such? sola scriptura ally speaking??

Snafu opines, “I guess the validity of the eucharist consecrated byt a female pastor is a question asked by many confessional Lutherans across the world. It’s a legitimate question. . .”

It’s not a legitimate question. The validity of the eucharist consecrated by any “person” is never questioned by confessional Lutherans: “For the Word, by which it became a sacrament and was instituted, does not become false because of the person. . .” Of the Holy Supper, FC, SD.

The validity of the Eucharist isn’t in question…there’s a nice Luther quote IIRC about whether “the devil or his mom” were giving the Eucharist, as long as the Word is there in its own purity, it’s all good. Maybe he’s talking about preaching; I could be wrong.

An openly gay pastor or a woman is a public proclamation of disobedience to God’s Word. At that point someone would be an instant unrepentant hypocrite, definitely not someone above reproach.

#4 what daniel says! amen!

So why is it that Lutherans then insist on ordination not only for administering the sacrament of the Holy Supper but also for publicly preaching?

Certainty. For troubled consciences to know that when a “sent one” deals with them that it is nothing less than Christ and his Church dealing with them. More to the point forgiving them.

If someone is not “sent”, they just show up on their own uninvited, we rejoice if we hear Christ preached. But then a troubled conscience might think: “only God can forgive sin, who is this person forgiving me, and where is his authority to do so?”

Individual christians have the duty to forgive the sins of others. The problem is this: How do you know I am christian and that, therefore my forgiveness can become an sure and certain object of your faith? You can´t really. A sent one can be a homosexual-rogue-female-infidel-hedonist. He has been called and sent. Christ himself deals with you through that person.

This might seem like a subtle point till you are confronted with the unraveling of a congregation through the instrument of the human frailty of it´s pastor in sin. Then it makes all the sense in the world!

FWS @ 3 wrote:

“3)how is this tied to the idea of homosexuality? I am not seeing that. but I am seeing the two things linked over and over and over without explicit reasoning and worse, without biblical support for that theory. It IS a theory. should we not acknowledge it as such? sola scriptura ally speaking??”

Both of these issues receive a great deal of their staying power from the idea that men and women are equivalent and interchangeable rather rather than complimentary by design. This is both anti-biblical and anti-commonsense. I can quote chapter and verse regarding the former if you would like, but I’m guessing you don’t need me to.

Humans were made male and female both in order to reflect the unity and diversity in God as well as to model the relationship between God and His creation. (Nathan Jastram had a great article on this in Concordia Theological Quarterly 68:1-Jan 2004). Ultimately, the androgynistic tendencies in modern culture and philosophies deface God’s work of art in creation and thereby obscure His relationship to us.

#5 ah dan. your roughness IS unnecessary here…

“An openly gay pastor or a woman is a public proclamation of disobedience to God’s Word. At that point someone would be an instant unrepentant hypocrite”

Calvinists are not necessarily “unrepentant hypocrites” because they are in error. That error is obvious to us. Not to them. Ditto for Female pastors.

All right, maybe hypocrite was a little strong. But unrepentant certainly applies, if you approach someone saying, “look here, here, and here, husband of one wife, etc.,” and that person says No. Maybe not hypocrisy, but certainly denial. Certainly a breaking of the first commandment, that person having put themselves ahead of God.

So, Dan and Daniel, you’re saying that in LCMS doctrine, a lay person can officiate the Supper? I thought the confessions did raise doubt about the efficacy of the sacrament the further away you get from office of pastor, assuming the pastor’s orders are otherwise valid. In other words, while it MAY be the sacrament, if you want to erase the doubt, do it the way it should be done.

I think the WELS are dealing with this question right now because of their women’s guild practice of holding the sacrament, and officiating it, entirely among themselves. Their issue is, it’s not just a layperson, but a laywoman celebrant.

#7 Matt C

“Both of these issues …the idea that men and women are equivalent and interchangeable rather rather than complimentary by design.”

Thanks. that was helpful. Interestingly, you would find ZERO gays and lesbians who would hold to this position that the sexes are interchangable. Quite to the contrary. So I am still not seeing the connection, but I now see where the lack of education would allow someone to make this logical leap to intellectual darkness.

Gay men and lesbians are so, by conviction, to the same extent that you have chosen to resist YOUR seemingly natural and strong attractions to other men ( or at least the ones attractive to you)in the locker room.

This is NOTHING about your reasoned theological, moral or philosophical convictions is what I am saying. My vivid illustration is not to imply anything about you personally of course, since I do not know you.

Meaning that to conceptualize both as being in the same category of philosophical position is probably off the mark.

Further: truth is a narrow road with two deep ditches of error on either side. we must take care, in yanking the wheel out of one ditch, to avoid doing so with such force that we land in the opposite error:

The fact that sex/male/female/marriage will not survive the resurrection, means that this complementary male/femaleness is NOT an intrinsic, indellible, inseparable part of being human.

in summary: male/female and the meaning of it´s utility is profound and has profound implications. It must not be negated in saying that men and women are interchangable. that would be de-humanizing in fact. It would also be de-humanizing to say that being human is intrinsically about male/female/sex/sexuality. two deep ditches. two errors. easy to err here by overstating a case to combat the opposite error.

To quote my beloved former professor Norman Wangerin:

“No, no, no!”

Dr. Veith, (respectfully), you have misrepresented Donatism. During the Donatist controversy, the scandalous ministers were removed from the office. The debate was about whether the ministry they had performed–had, in the past tense–was valid. The question was about the validity and efficacy of the sacraments.

That an apostate pastor could continue to serve was never (to my knowledge) even considered for debate until very recently.

It is an excellent question, though. A public sinner,* particularly an unrepentant public sinner, is precluded from the public office because of what they have done. A pious woman is precluded arbitrarily because of her God-given gender. (I suppose you could say that the very act of becoming a pastor would make her a public sinner, and so the distinction falls away.)

*This is not particularly about homosexuality. I suspect fws will agree with me in this regard. Homosexuality, or homosexual adultery, has become rather a flagship sin. I am equally troubled–perhaps even more troubled–by the ordination of divorced pastors. This is one of the (dis)qualifications that is specified in the scripture, and yet frequently ignored by supposed “conservative” and “biblical” churches.

Can anyone give a serious biblical argument for the ordination of divorced pastors?

Comment #9
” Certainly a breaking of the first commandment, that person having put themselves ahead of God.”

the augustana concedes that men, according to their free will are fully capable of ALL good works and keeping ALL the outward righteousness of the Law. ALL.of. it.

What they cannot do, and what WE as christians cannot do, insofar as we are not regenerate, is keep that first and second commandment. inner righteousness. faith. aka sanctification. aka fruit of faith.

Try telling your wife she is fat and that gluttony is a sin sometime. Obvious.

Suggestion my excellent and dear brother Dan: We deal with the sins of others using the law of love. We deal with our OWN sin using faith.

Sometimes christians get this twisting in thinking that 3rd use of the law is about faith and sanctification and is not about love, which is PURE law.

Application: Luther says he acknowleged errorists as fellow christians out of the law of love and not because of faith.

Comment #10
Jonathan said:

“I think the WELS are dealing with this question right now because of their women’s guild practice of holding the sacrament, and officiating it, entirely among themselves. Their issue is, it’s not just a layperson, but a laywoman celebrant.”

this is not april first so I will assume you are serious. dang! the WELS is in deep deep doo doo if this is true. where can we read to see this is so. very very serious on many levels.

I’m familiar with that passage of our confession, Daniel. However, it can’t be used as an argument for (neither against) the validity of an eucharist consecrated by a female pastor, ie. a lay person.

You can see it by reading the context in the previous paragraph: “Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about which at the present time men are
disturbed, as, for instance, whether a wicked priest can administer and distribute the Sacrament” And later: “For it is not founded upon the holiness of men,
but upon the Word of God”

The passage is directed against the Donatist heresy. Being a man or a woman is not a matter of personal holiness, being “a knave” is. FC already assumes a situation where the sacrament is ministered by a pastor, whose office per ce is ok (partly because they were all men at that time).

However, what can be used as an argument, is CAVII: “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” CAV states that the office was instituted for teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments. If consecrating the eucharist is not meant for laymen/women, it can be questioned if such an eucharist would be “rightly administered”. This is why I can’t be sure of the validity of it.

But if someone holds the eucharist consecrated by a layperson as valid, and yet a transgression, why would he enter such altar anyway? This is the reason why I actually think the question about the validity definately is not a major one, as long as the church agrees on the limits of the communion.

#7 Jonathan

I didn’t address the oxymoron of “lay minister.” When I saw one officiate communion in a church I was visiting, I stayed in the pew.

Comment #13
Dan Kempin said:

“…divorce…”

should divorcees even be allowed to remarry dan? or should they be informed that now they are in exactly the same boat as their gay bretheren: they must remain celebate and relationship-less for the rest of their life even absent the gift of celebacy. They will burn but must not marry as the solution.

The world looks at all this and sees rather cynical game being played here, where “the sins of others” are all that really matter. sacrifice and denial and restraint and discipline are what others are to do. Mercy is absent.

If divorced people can marry against clear scriptural prohibition , then what moral ground are we standing on when we valiantly stand firm against homosexual marriage withhout even a hint of empathy for their near impossible rock-and-hard-place situation? I suspect we tolerate serial polygamy for the simple fact that we can empathize there. A couple of queers. empathize? not so much. “wow, to never remarry? to have raging hormones with no outlet? I can relate and simpathize with that as a man or woman…”

Even making an exception for adultery or abandonment avoids Jesus saying that marriage IS life long. IS means IS. It dosn´t mean should be or ideally could be does it?

Comment #17
Dan at Necessary Roughness said:
#7 Jonathan

I didn’t address the oxymoron of “lay minister.” When I saw one officiate communion in a church I was visiting, I stayed in the pew.

the simple fix for lay ministers is to promptly ordain them!

In the LCMS districts don´t do this because they are trying to reintroduce the ministerium where pastors are appointed, hired, fired and transferred at the will of the DP.

the pastoral circuits can then be deployed, as they once were, to provide for continuing education and fill in gaps of experience/education older pastor counseling younger…

This is a great conversation and could only be improved by focusing more radically on the purpose of church, pastors etc… 😉

A very good article on this topic was written by Dr. Scaer read it here:

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaervalidityofordainedwomen.pdf

Dr. Veith,

If your webmaster is interested in tracking down a bug in this system…

Anytime I attempt to make a post and other people have posted comments in between the time I loaded the page and the time I hit submit, that comment is not posted. Furthermore, I cannot post it against because it tells me the post is duplicated.

Given that I see baptism and the Lord’s supper as ordinances, I don’t have a particular dog in the fight over those, so I would say that in Baptist theology, a woman or uncelibate homosexual pastor would equally fail the test of being a “one woman man” as described in 1 Timothy and Titus.

On the other hand, the woman pastor can be in a Biblical marriage, unlike the uncelibate homosexual, so at least she doesn’t add more sins this way on top of usurping the proper use of the pastorate. But on the other hand, it’s hard to argue that a woman pastor doesn’t fall afoul of the Biblical command to submit to her husband–over whom she would tend to exert ecclesiastical authority. No clear loser here!

fws @ 11,

I’d like to respond, but no matter what changes I make to my post, it’s just not posting it. Sorry!

fws, #18,

Why are you attacking me?

I said nothing about divorcees not being allowed to remarry. I said nothing about condemning those who are divorced in the same way that gays are often condemned, without mercy or compassion. Or am I misreading your comments?

My point was not related to divorcees, but to the pastoral ministry. Scripture says that a pastor must be “husband of one wife.” This is not to say that a divorcee cannot be forgiven, reconciled, remarried, and a pillar of the local church. They cannot, however, be a pastor–at least if we take the scripture seriously.

fws, on WELS laywomen officienne scandal see:

http://fatherhollywood.blogspot.com/2009/10/girls-gone-wild-wels-edition.html

#19 fws: Totally agree that they need to be ordained. I can’t speak to the motives of Synod. I’m sure those pastors that got an MDiv and the debt that comes with it would cry foul when people got ordained for much less college work and money. An MDiv certainly doesn’t stop a pastor from preaching poorly.

#14 fws: Just because the first and second commandment are dealing with our relationship to God and not to man doesn’t mean we aren’t accountable for keeping it under the Law. Looking at my life, I put things ahead of God, take his name in vain, and break the rest of his commandments. The difference is that God has granted me repentance, which I can tell because I am sorry for the things which I have done, hate the things that I do, and try not to do them again. This is no work of mine but of God, who has granted the forgiveness of sins through his Word and Sacrament.

The issue is not which commandment is broken but whether someone is repentant for breaking that commandment. If God hasn’t granted someone repentance for a sin, that person needs to be shown the Law in all its full force. That person should then confess of his or HER sin, receive forgiveness, believe the Gospel, and try not to do it again. We should pray that God leads everyone regardless of their sin to repentance and forgiveness.

#5: me

“For our faith and the sacrament must not be based on the person, whether he is godly or evil, consecrated or unconsecrated, called or an imposter, whether he is the devil or his mother, but upon Christ, upon his word, upon his office, upon his command and ordinance.”

In Luther’s Works but found here:
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/klugsacramentalpresence.pdf

The bigger question concerning the Sacrament of the
Altar is, “Just what IS it the ELCA has when people of
differing confessions (Episcopal, Methodists and
whatever is the latest in a string of those who do
not believe in the real presence) are allowed to
gather at ELCA altars?! Inquiring Lutherans want to know!

dan 19: “fws: Totally agree that they need to be ordained.”

Is Luther saying impersonators of the office of pastor have the sacramental efficacy because of the word, but that one who makes no such claim to ‘pastor’ and in fact affirms his layperson status does not have it?

Seems like splitting hairs, if, for Luther, the issue is the transmission of the Word.

That is a sad question, CRB, but one that I have as well.

Sadly for our friends and family members in the ELCA and now its splinter groups, all can see where accomodating one’s Biblical interpretations to the pressures of culture brings: theological confusion and an erosion of Godly authority. The whole Church is wounded by the ELCA’s cavalier attitude toward Holy Scripture.

Deep down we all want our own thing, and not even God’s clear Word will stand in our way. Bring us all to repentance, Lord, and prepare us for a right reception of Your mercy.

#25 dan.

now I am in hot water… i by no means meant my words to appear as an attack on you. Farrrrrrr from that. Please accept my sincere apology.

#30 jonathan

“IF for luther…” It would be unwise, to say the very least that the augustana was not also Luther´s personal and heartfelt confession, where it says that Lutherans do not allow men to preach or administer the sacraments without a regular call.

In the gospel, I can rejoice at people who take on the role of pastor or public teacher because they are proclaiming christ. just like you say. that is what matters. And then, for the very sake of that thing that matters, I would encourage things to move in the direction of some established church giving that person a divine call, ordaining him.

So we are free, but the exception proves the scriptural and confessional rule that pastors should be called and ordained in every congregation. Just as the apostles were completely free to wait on tables, but the Gospel imperative was to appoint persons as church administrators so they could focus on prayer preaching and sacrament.

Pastorates exist ONLY to preach/administer the sacraments. they have no reason for existence or divine authority for their office apart from that. There is NO other divinely instituted office in the church beyond just this one. This does not mean that church administrators, synod officials etc do not have a holy vocation, a holy order, as priests and not pastors. similar to their other vocations as fathers, etc. Sometimes they are also pastors. This is not either/or. that is legalism. this is both/and. ALL comprehended in the Holy Gospel and in God´s Will in providing first article gifts.

this does not in any way mean that human administrative duties are wrong for pastors to do. quite the opposite. We are free in the gospel here to make the pastorate look however we want it to or need it to look due to practical circumstances and using pious reason and wisdom.

I would argue with anyone who created legalisms here about form. The form can follow human reason and dictates. eg the papacy. Nothing wrong with having a pope. Divine office and call? nope. Only the part of his call where he is a pastor/bishop.

None of this removes the truth that delivering christ is the ONLY truly divine reason for the institution of their office. The only basis for pastoral and apostolic authority.

Usually form follows function/purpose doesn´t it. Lutherans who recognize this truth will tend to have pastors busy doing Christ crucified and intentionally avoiding distractions from that. Exacty as the apostles before them saw when they appointed persons to be synodical officials, er… wait on tables!

Comment #30
Jonathan said:
dan 19: “fws: Totally agree that they need to be ordained.”

Is Luther saying impersonators of the office of pastor have the sacramental efficacy because of the word, but that one who makes no such claim to ‘pastor’ and in fact affirms his layperson status does not have it?

Seems like splitting hairs, if, for Luther, the issue is the transmission of the Word.

Jonathan, you are asking the right questions but I think framing them in a Law sort of way. “efficacy” sacramental and otherwise does not depend, thank God, on anything IN us. this includes pastoral qualifications or the absence thereof. It also includes personal “qualifications” to be a christian: I will point you to Christ crucified. I will not point you to seeing whether you have TRUE faith or TRUE repentance. If you tell me you have looked into your heart and you can see no true faith or repentance, my response will be “good! God is good at filling empty vessels. It is the full ones he has difficulty with. Trust in Christ!”

Why us the transmission of the word THE important thing. Because we know that transmission of the word= transmission of the Word. Always. We can be certain of that!Even personally we can be certain when we look only there out of the utter utter darkness of our own heart. The word, the word the word. nothing but the Word.

For exactly those reasons, and no other reason whatsoever, God wants pastors to be ordained. Ordained is nothing more than “setting apart”. as in “I am reserving and declaring that THIS one is being sent to do nothing but bring Christ. Dedicated to that alone.

Maybe you are thinking of “ordination” as something more than that?

FWS: how is this tied to the idea of homosexuality? I am not seeing that. but I am seeing the two things linked over and over and over without explicit reasoning and worse, without biblical support for that theory. It IS a theory. should we not acknowledge it as such? sola scriptura ally speaking??

Robert Gagnon PhD, associate professor Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

Every text that treats the issue of homosexual practice in Scripture treats it as a high offense abhorrent to God….it makes absolutely no exceptions for same-sex intercourse. Indeed, every single text in Scripture that discusses sex, whether narrative, law, proverb, poetry, moral exhortation, or metaphor, presupposes a male-female prerequisite. There are no exceptions anywhere in Scripture.

Holy *Beep*!

35 comments in less than four hours, starting out from the very beginning of the day.

Veith, this might be a contender for the Most Commented top 5 if this keeps up!

And fws is only making 33% of the posts on this topic instead of 75%!

Yes, this topic could go all the way – most commented of all time!

fws 33, but “that they NEED to be ordained” itself sounds like law, no? My question is whether Luther, in Dan’s quote, is making a law disctinction statement there by tying efficacy to the word AND vocation of ordained pastor, regardless of which scoundrel may hold the office.

Dan,@13
“*This is not particularly about homosexuality. I suspect fws will agree with me in this regard. Homosexuality, or homosexual adultery, has become rather a flagship sin. I am equally troubled–perhaps even more troubled–by the ordination of divorced pastors. This is one of the (dis)qualifications that is specified in the scripture, and yet frequently ignored by supposed “conservative” and “biblical” churches.

Can anyone give a serious biblical argument for the ordination of divorced pastors?”
Used to be in the same boat with you here Dan. Then I got a divorce two months after my ordination. To say the least I did quite a bit of research on my position before leaving my tiny little congregation high and dry. I owed that much to them. I have found good theological reasoning for allowing divorced pastors. But that is another topic. You could Email me, and I would be happy to carry on the dialogue. Bror0122@hotmail.com

fws, #32

No apology necessary, but thanks. It can be difficult to read the tone of a short text like this, so sorry for taking it the wrong way.

To the rest of the commenters:

I have noticed a deafening lack of response to my assertion about divorced pastors. (13 and 25) Why so silent? It is not like this board to ignore such an inflammatory statement.

Are you afraid to touch a hot potato? Do you consider this issue so settled as to need no response? Does it strike close to home?

I’m not trying to provoke you, but I’m curious as to why this particular issue doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar

Comment #37
Jonathan said:
fws 33, but “that they NEED to be ordained” itself sounds like law, no? My question is whether Luther, in Dan’s quote, is making a law disctinction statement there by tying efficacy to the word AND vocation of ordained pastor, regardless of which scoundrel may hold the office.

The apostles “needed” to be free from waiting on tables. did they wait on tables? yes? was that wrong? no! did they “need” to be free to focus on their proper calling as apostles (proclaiming christ!) ? yes! could they have, in christian freedom , continued to wait on tables? yes! the reason why they did not answers your question as to whether that “need” is law or gospel or merely striving to make form subservient to a function that is “the one thing needed.”

think both/and and not either/or. is there efficacy in the word? Yes! is there efficacy in the “half-sacrament” of ordination? Yes! BOTH are living vessels to bring us christ. Does God deliver forgiveness to us in baptism? the holy supper? private confession? conversation of the saints? ordination? yes! Yes! yes! yes!

is it necessary to be baptized and take communion to be saved? yes! can God save people through the word without baptism? yes! is that exceptional? yes!

Bror,

Your post came up after I posted, so thanks for disproving me before I even spoke!

If you are willing, I would love to discuss the theological reasoning. I know this strikes close to home and I wouldn’t press you, but if there is a sound theological basis, the church at large ought to hear it, lest they are scandalized in conscience by an apparent flouting of scripture. I won’t be back on the board today, so post here or email me at kempin04@yahoo.com

#36 webmonk

😉 point taken and digested.

OK Dan I’ll bite.

Divorce is kosher in the case of unfaithfulness and abandonment (the latter meaning ???). This is the default justification why a pastor who is the agrieved party could serve.

Otherwise, if he’s not the agrieved party, the divorce would require repentence for his part in the act of divorce. The divorce itself is the sin that results a wrongful abandonment and hence, like it or not, an end of marriage, such that there is no continuing sin. The key being repentence for the wrongful divorce.

However, I gather that you see the H of 1 W requirement as applying “serially” as well as “contemporaniously,” as in, if you’ve had one W, then you’ve had your quota. But if that’s the case, what about a widowed pastor who remarries? Your position supposes that the divorce is not a “divorce.” Jesus did indicate so for the divorced woman who remarries, but what of the man?

Veith has pretty much hit the nail on the head with this post. Women’s ordination is the greater scandal here according to scripture and any theological reasoning one might want to put there.
As for the validity of the sacraments the Lutheran position is that the individual’s belief concerning the word of God whether he be the pastor, or the laymen in the pew makes not difference concerning the validity of the sacrament. But the public profession of the church does make a huge difference. For this reason we do not regard Mormon Baptism as Trinitarian, even though the use the Trinitarian formula. We do not regard the Lord’s Supper at a baptist church as being valid either, even if they use the same words we do. This according to the Salod Declaration Article 7 Pg. 598 paragraph 32: (Kolb Wingert):
“Luther of blessed memory also added to this protestation the following article, among others: He says, “In thes same way I also say and confess that in the Sacrament of the Altar the True body and blood of Christ are orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even if the priests who distribute them or those who receive them do not believe or otherwise misuse the sacrament. It does not rest on human belief or unbelief but on the Word and ordinance of God– unless they first change God’s word and ordinance and misinterpret them, as the enemies of the sacrament do at the present time. They, indeed, have only bread and wine, for they do not also have the words and instituted ordinance of God but have perverted and changed it according to their own imagination.”
I don’t know what that says about a woman pastor giving the sacrament and its validity or not, that is whether or not Christ’s body and blood is present. However from the clear words of scripture she is sinning in usurping this pastoral office, in preaching and excercising authority over men. To commune at her altar in view of such a clear and blatant sin, would be to condone it and approve of it, which is a far thing from forgiving it.

Dan,
I suppose we can carry it on here since now jonathan to has responded. Problem is I don’t have much time today. Veith is trying to avoid my acrid posts by posting the juicy questions on my day off. I’m on to your conspiracy!

One thing Dan, is that though you can translate the verse you have in question as “Husband of one wife” It technically doesn’t read that way in the Greek. but Man of one woman. Now if you are the man of one woman you are married to that one woman. But the verse is really addressing something else entirely then whether or not the man in question is legally married or not. Paul himself writing this wasn’t married, and very likely divorced himself, though he never took on another wife either. In first Corinthians he lumps himself in, not with the virgins who have not yet been married, but with widowers and divorcees.
So the question is what else could this verse be targeting. For one it is known that the Jewish people of this time were still practicing polygamy. Two the Roman people themselves had 1 legal wife, but then had “Civil unions and other such nonsense with other women. Concubines were plentiful in ancient Greek and Roman society.
So the verse is not talking about the pastor who wakes up one morning and finds his wife has run off to California. It has to do with is this man faithful to one woman. I’m sure passing over any previous sins before the man became a christian, assuming that he hasn’t been womanizing while in his neophyte stage.
It probably means we should be a little less forgiving to the pastor boinking the organist (assuming that is not also his wife), and a lot more understanding of the pastor who has been maliciously abandoned etc. And the other things Jonathan writes above are very apropro.

Regarding divorce (hey might as well bring in a THIRD hot button item), methinks the key issue is to understand whether it impacts whether a man is truly a “one woman man.” Wife leaves husband for her issues? Probably no big issue. Wife leaves preacher for her husband’s abuse or infidelity? Big issue. Preacher leaves wife for any reason but infidelity? Big issue.

Ordaining authorities need to at least ask the questions when such things happen, I think.

So, given the Luther quotes, if it is all about the word, then as long as they get the words ‘right,’ and they don’t blatantly substitute “represents” for “is” as I have heard some prots recite it, then it doesn’t matter who is saying them; male, female, gay, straight, believer, unbeliever, pastor…or layman. It is the sacrament.

Now how about applying 43 and 45 and 46 to the active, unrepentant in a committed life-long (or even hedonistic serial) homo erotic relationship in office of pastor?

I say, apples and oranges, because it’s the H E behavior that is never God pleasing and rejection of the ‘good’-declared institution of M-F marriage that God ordained, which are the problems.

fws 42: just to make it clear, I was very much just teasing you a bit.

Homosexuality is a “topic of interest” for you, so I understand lots of posts on it from you. Get me on a topic of interest for my interests, and I’ll match you post for post.

Dear Dr. Veith:

I think you are spot on.

The Word truly creates the sacrament. And yet, the Word is not disembodied (as this would be to believe in ex opere operato). For example, a parrot can articulate the Words of Institution over bread and wine, but he lacks something – namely the incarnational authority to act in the stead of Christ.

A former coworker of mine told me about the slaughterhouse in which his father worked. They used to have a rabbi say prayers over the animals being slaughtered for kosher meat. To save money, they replaced the rabbi with a tape recorder. This is exactly the same pitfall that Lutherans fall into when they denounce women’s “ordination” while maintaining that their words, spoken in the office of an impostor, have the authority to bless and consecrate in the name of Christ.

The Eucharist is incarnational. The Word is not disembodied, and neither are the words. I can call up the Secretary of Defense on the phone and give him a specific order, but those words are not spoken with authority. President Obama can use the exact same words, and he, by virtue of his office, has authority. My words are ineffective, whereas his are. It is a matter of authority.

The use of words presumes the use of a speaker. The one speaking those words presumes authority – as the Lord breathed on His disciples and gave them authority to forgive and retain sins. Prior to giving the apostles their Great Commission, the Lord invoked the authority given Him by the Father. He passed that authority on to those who were sent (apostles).

It’s a matter of vocation.

Why do we Lutherans “get” vocation so well when it involves, say, the police or military, but we throw the doctrine of vocation to the wind when we deal with the office of the holy ministry and become vitually Quakers about it?

I would never question my baptism if it were administered by a clergyman who has been convicted of gross crimes. But if I were “baptized” by a female “pastor,” I would seek one who has been “rightly called” to administer baptism properly (unless, of course, we were talking about “emergency baptism” – which is a much different thing than an assertion that a woman has *pastoral* authority by virtue of a direct rebellious violation (and mockery) of God’s Word in her “ordination”). Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16 comes to mind.

And, if the word spoken by a woman “pastor” *is* effective, we should not prevent her from carrying out her “ministry.” She may be sinning in such a case, but she would be giving Christ to others for their own forgiveness. Thus women’s “ordination” (if valid) creates a dilemma by which in calling a woman “pastor” to repentance would only serve to actually deny people the Holy Sacrament.

I see no difference between a woman saying the verba over bread and wine and a tape recorder doing so. Nor do I see a difference between both of these and me putting on the uniform of a Marine officer and expecting my orders to be valid and my words to be effective by virtue of my sham office.

And we are going to have to come to grips with this as more and more people will have been “baptized” by priestesses – with some of the “baptisms” even being done without using the biblical Trinitarian language. There are no such problems with a person who has been baptized by, say a pedophile priest.

Some have tried to apply the Donatism argument against those of us who deny the validity of female “orders.” It is a false dichotomy. It is not Donatism to deny the validity of parrot or tape-recorder (or MP3-player) “Masses.”

Whew! I didn’t really think Luther or the scriptures would come down on the side of laypeople officiating the sacrament.

So, getting back to Luther’s “devil or his mother” quote, that means an imposter woman ‘pastor’ truly does offers the sacrament effecaciously, albeit wrongfully so.

Jonathan, @47
I don’t think it is a matter of blatantly substituting the words every time. But if the “church’s” confession is such that it misinterprets the words of institution, than this nullifies the sacraments validity. If that is what is believed, taught and confessed in that church body, such as it is the common understanding of the people gathered together, thant it is no sacrament. It is as if a holly wood actor were playing priest. This because as Larry asys above there is no ex opere operato, and the words of institution are not to be disembodied. Correctly speaking pastors, rightly called, (excluding women here) are the stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4:1. These mysteries necessarily include the sacraments of the Lord’s Supper, and Baptism. There is then maybe some question as to whether a person who has not rightly been called to be a steward of these same, can actually, and rightly administer them.
That aside it does not mean that by not having a valid sacrament these men, and women are not guilty of mocking the sacraments, and mocking Christ with their confessions of what the sacraments are. This is a much more serious question than most of Christendom is willing to recognize.

I guess I don’t see how women’s ordination could be worse than the ordination of an openly and actively homosexual man. Both are in active rebellion against God’s clear Word. Thus, they are both rebellious sinners. Scripture makes it clear that unrepentant sinners are to be removed from fellowship, following a process of church discipline. So, both pastors are illegitimate. Equally.

Dear Don:

The difference is this: a homosexual man can repent of his sin, confess, and be absolved. His wickedness in and of itself does not invalidate the sacraments he officiates over. But a woman cannot (nor should never even attempt!) to “repent” of her femininity.

Sex is an ontological reality. Sin can, and is, forgiven.

This is not to imply that unrepentant sinners should not be removed from the ministry – of course they should! There are homosexual Christians, lay and clergy, whose cross is to live celibate lives and struggle against temptation.

There is no equivalently contrite women “pastors.” The two issues are not analogous.

To clarify a bit, a man can well be ordained and serve in the ministry, and then later be removed from the ministry for one reason or another. Unlike a sinful pastor who is subsequently removed, a woman “pastor” should never be “ordained” to begin with – not because of a sinful condition, but rather because of the ontological reality of her sex.

Thank you, Rev. Beane. I get that concept, and I understand the rejection of Donatism. However, we are not here talking about a man who was ordained based on his understanding of and full acceptance of Holy Scripture and Lutheran doctrine, and then later fell into serious sin. We are talking about a man who was “ordained” as a man openly defiant of clear scripture and in open rebellion against God. I don’t see how that is a valid ordination.

#52 Pr E, So then an imposter woman priestess cannot ever effecaciously officiate the sacrament? What is received at her altar is not the forgiveness of sins? What of Luther’s statement of “Satan or his mother” officiating? Is that mere Luther polemic again?

Dear Jonathan:

Luther was certainly known for hyperbole. “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse” and “It’s raining cats and dogs” are cut of the same cloth. Satan has no mother. Luther is using the same technique to make a point as Jesus when He tells us to gouge out our eyes if they cause us to sin. Every quip from Luther should not be treated like a dogmatic decree – especially when it includes a reference to the devil’s mom.

Dear Don:

I agree that such an ordination would be improper. A pastor is also supposed to be “apt to teach.” Some pastors are better teachers than others. If a guy turns out not to be so good in Bible class after he is ordained, I don’t think that means you only get bread from him at communion, or we need to revisit his baptisms.

If a pastor is unrepentant, you might make the argument that he has already excommunicated himself from the church. But it is up to the church to excommunicate him. And this kind of questioning of the validity of his ordination really borders on Donatism, for just because his ordination isn’t proper, does it mean it’s invalid? And what about a pastor who has been baptizing people for decades only to be discovered late in life to be an unrepentant homosexual – but this was unknown at his ordination? Does this invalidate his sacraments? Our confessions say “no.” So, if he is ordained knowing that he is an unrepentant homosexual, do we now have to question all of his baptisms pending an investigation of who knew what and when did they know it concerning his ordination? Again, I think there is a difference between ontological fitness for receiving orders, vs. propriety.

A woman’s “ordination” isn’t just “improper” or indecorous, it is an impossibility. We can’t ordain a cat, even though we can certainly say the right words while laying hands on him. An unrepentant sinner who is excluded from the ministry is removed for the reason of being a sinner who refuses to repent, he is not excluded (as the lady is) because of whom God created her to be.

In fact, as only demonic religions have priestesses, I think we need to come to grips with just how wicked and dangerous to the Church women’s “ordination” is.

Rev. Beane:

Thank you. I could easily distinguish the “apt to teach” requirement, because that is not an issue of sin, and is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone responds to different methods of teaching, so that requirement is humanly subjective. As for unknown or secret sins, that is a different issue as well. Because the candidate, at his ordination proceeding, is still affirming scripture and Lutheran doctrine, and the ordaining body is acception those professions in good faith. For the sake of good order, and the need for congregants to be assured that they are receiving proper sacraments, his ability to consecrate and administer those sacraments, even though he is secretly in rebellious sin, must be inviolate.

I guess what I’m really asking is what happens when the ordination body, in its entirety, is reprobate? When they ordain an openly rebellious sinner, knowing of and approving of the rebellion? Is the ordination body, despite its open rebellion, and his open rebellion, validly ordaining a Lutheran minister?

Great question, Don. The answer seems pretty obvious to me – not validly ordaining, but rebelliously ordaining. They are binding consciences and delivering pastors and the souls under their care bad consciences. This is a wide open door for the Devil.

And yet, I gather that many who argue against a reprobate status of homo erotic practice and instead say that that behavior is somehow “God-pleasing” and therefore not a barrier to the office of pastor, also resort to the ontological argument. That is, the “I can’t repent of who I am because God made me this way” argument.

Snafu opines, “The passage is directed against the Donatist heresy. Being a man or a woman is not a matter of personal holiness, being “a knave” is. FC already assumes a situation where the sacrament is ministered by a pastor, whose office per ce is ok (partly because they were all men at that time).”

I could have quoted from a dozen places in the Book of Concord that clearly state that Christ’s word alone makes the sacrament efficacious (not any personal distinctives). Must the BOC specifically state that Christ’s word is always efficacious whether spoken by a knave, a lay person, a women, or a child? No! These are all “persons.”

Snafu opines, “However, what can be used as an argument, is CAVII: “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” CAV states that the office was instituted for teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments. If consecrating the eucharist is not meant for laymen/women, it can be questioned if such an eucharist would be “rightly administered”. This is why I can’t be sure of the validity of it.”

Nonsense! The Sacraments are often wrongly administered but they remain valid and efficacious whenever Christ’s words are truly spoken. For example, in the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Papists turn the free gift of Christ’s body and blood into a work that men do to merit grace. Though the Sacrament is wrongly administered, their communicants receive the true body and blood of Christ.

Snafu opines, “But if someone holds the eucharist consecrated by a layperson as valid, and yet a transgression, why would he enter such altar anyway? This is the reason why I actually think the question about the validity definately is not a major one, as long as the church agrees on the limits of the communion.”

It’s major one. To deny the validity of lay consecration is to deny the efficacy of Christ’s word. The sacraments become works of men not works of Christ.

Comment #61
Jonathan said:
And yet, I gather that many who argue against a reprobate status of homo erotic practice and instead say that that behavior is somehow “God-pleasing” and therefore not a barrier to the office of pastor, also resort to the ontological argument. That is, the “I can’t repent of who I am because God made me this way” argument.

We can argue about the reality of global warming and whether homosexuality is an ontological state of being. Neither is a scriptural, moral or religious debate.

Sinning in thought, word and deed is sin. We “do” sinning because we ARE sinners , even though this is not a part of who we are as human beings.

We are so far from knowing what a truly good existence would look like. It would look like the mundane life of Jesus that scripture tells us looked so extremely ordinary and common place and un-special and un-remarkable in a way that we MUST find threatening to our ideas of holiness if we only read what is written.

So what do we do? We turn our lives over to Christ and allow those lives to die, an act of faith contrary to all common sense and logic, and look to live only through faith, in Him.

We pray Jonathan that God will preserve this word that we do not deserve in our midst. He promises he will not! Trust that Jonathan. I am not so pessimistic therefore. western europe was largely arian for a long time, much like the jehovah´s witnesses. Truth finally won out. Pastors living in unrepentant sin, be they gay or otherwise is a terrible thing. I am not so sure this is worse than female pastors. and I am not so sure that having a female pastor means you cannot receive the sacrament from her.

not so sure. That is the part that should never happen in God´s church. Right there is the problem.

“He promises he will not!” oooooh bigggggg typo.

Comment #49
WebMonk said:
“fws 42: just to make it clear, I was very much just teasing you a bit.

Homosexuality is a “topic of interest” for you, so I understand lots of posts on it from you. Get me on a topic of interest for my interests, and I’ll match you post for post.”

Thanks webmonk.

Have you noticed that if the topic is Jesus in any way, I am even worse??!!

#62 what daniel says!!!

I feel like a tennis ball here on the issue of who can officiate! Just when I think I’ve got it down–smack! So far we’ve got: lay person, woman priestess, MP3, parrot, cat, pastor, male, gay, straight–all from the same textual sources.

#18 Of course remarriage shouldn’t be legal while the divorced spouse is still living.

In response to fws and post #3, question #1: The order of creation is one reason, but a better one might be this: Who does the pastor represent in the church? Christ, the BRIDEGROOM, and the church is his bride. The church is the receiver of the gifts of God and God is the giver of all good things. Woman was created from man, hence, woman received from man her life. Adam was the giver, as God used his rib to create woman.
So, if the pastor is the representative of Christ, and the pastor is a woman, you have a quandary: You either have two receivers and no givers, or two brides and no bridegroom. That is to say, if you want to get down and dirty, women’s ordination turns Jesus into a lesbian or the church is no bride of a woman.

#69 Rev Ray

Christ is also the true Vine and we are the branches. I am just not sure we were meant to “reverse engineer ” that as metaphor. Jesus is THE bridegroom. All others are such pale imitations that, in fact, there will be none in the resurrection. Neither will their be male or female. Yet I am not thinking that my Lord is an action figure lacking certain , ahem,vital parts of the anatomy.

We can go too far here.

Something just doesn´t feel certain and sure about that method. Methods of unpacking scripture should feel certain and sure.

After all this, I think its a toss up. Perhaps women’s ordination wins top honor, because the ladies got their first. GLBT ordination gets the silver here. And the rest of us are losers in this contest.

On this subject here’s a substantial paper by Prof. John Pless of CTS Fort Wayne:

http://www.reformationtoday.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/the-ordination-of-women-and-ecclesial-endorsement-of-homosexuality.pdf

Women pastors and gay/lesbian pastors are cut from the same cloth. They are an affront to our Creator/Redeemer God in that they contradict His divine will revealed in Holy Scripture and in the created order.
Robert at bioethike.com

I heard the recent podcast on Issues Etc of the representative from LutheranCORE, as they announced they are going to start a new denomination. Wilken inquired of that pastor regarding inerrancy as well as the similar argumentation regarding ordination of women and homosexuality. The response by the CORE pastor was the most superficial argument in favor of women pastors I have ever heard. It was basically a Pietistic/charismatic rehash that I’d expect from a college freshman. CORE is nothing to get excited about at all – as WordAlone is also theologically bankrupt and stuck in both rationalism and Pietism. The smaller errors within the old ALC and LCA continue to still come to fruition even within the less liberal groups in ELCA. Gospel reductionism and gnosticism are really the same thing.

The Father also created in ASCENDING order….were female humans created before or after males?!!!
C-CS

Dear Robert:

You write:

“Women pastors and gay/lesbian pastors are cut from the same cloth. They are an affront to our Creator/Redeemer God in that they contradict His divine will revealed in Holy Scripture and in the created order.”

I think you are 100% spot on.

The ELCA committed itself to gay unions and clergy when they accepted female “ordination.” They chose reason over Scripture and sided with the world over the Church. When ontological sex is reduced to conceptual gender, then a man can not only “ordain,” but also “marry” regardless of sex. The abomination of the homoerotic display of the “art” of our blessed Lord and the apostles in the Uppsala Cathedral a few years ago would never have happened in a church that did not “ordain” women. One abomination feeds the other.

But while one leads to the other, I don’t think they are equal in every way.

Homosexuality can be repented of. One cannot repent of one’s sex. Homosexuality is a sin that can (and if not repented of, should) disqualify a man from ministry. Being a woman is a glorified created state, the very opposite of sin, and yet also disqualifies her from ministry. Both conditions disqualify, but only one is eternal and ontological (and not a matter of sin) – and that is biological sex. However, sexual sin does not necessarily, permanently and ontologically make on ineligible.

The ELCA *should not* ordain gay male pastors, but they *can not* ordain even a godly and pious woman any more than they can ordain a 1965 Mustang or make a man capable of bearing children. The ordaining of homosexuals is bad practice and sinful, but women’s “ordination” is an impossibility.

Pastor Frahm at #72. Thanks very much for this link that is a sober and enlightening exposition of this issue. The fact is that the mainstream church moves to ordain women and sodomite pastors is based essentially on an emotional response to the broader culture of the West’s dubious moves to “liberate” both women and sodomites.

Excuse the “is” above in sentence two.

ELCA ordains women and radical women are quickly promoted in the ranks.
One Lindsay K. Mack, a seminary student at Union Theological Seminary, sits on the Lutheran World Relief Board.
How typical of ELCA, very in-your-face.
Lindsay is learning her theology from Serene Jones, the new UTS President, formerly of Yale Divinity. Serene is a feminist radical who opposed the federal ban on partial birth abortion.
LCMS needs to sever ties with Lutheran World Relief, Thrivent, and other joint ventures with ELCA. A vote is expected at next year’s Trienniel.

#79 “ELCA ordains women and radical women are quickly promoted in the ranks.” Not that this helps, but the PCUSA has the same problem. I believe that the ordination of women is a slippery slope from which it is almost impossible to recover. fws. I have read all your posts and I appreciate your perspective. Actually, “everyone” I have read all your posts.

Fr. Larry @ 76,
That women cannot “repent” of their sex is a non-starter. That’s not the point. They CAN repent of desiring to be men, i.e., usurping a man’s role in the pastoral office. THAT’S the SIN.
THUS, an unrepentant woman pastor is a woman usurping a man’s role in the church whereas a unrepentant gay pastor is a man ursurping a woman’s role (whether active or passive) in the home.
That the HOME is the FIRST CHURCH (in addition to how homosex comes naturally after women’s ordination), shows that these two sins are of the same species.
As is contraception, but I digress.
Robert at bioethike.com

Dear Robert:

Very well put, and I agree.

The distinction that I am drawing is simply that a gay man is not biologically and ontologically disqualified from ministry. Rather, he is disqualified by a lack of repentance. He may even function in the ministry for many years even though he really ought to resign. However, even in such a case, the sacraments he officiates over are valid and efficacious. Otherwise, we would be accepting Donatism.

By contrast, a parrot that is trained to repeat the words of institution cannot, by definition, serve in the ministry. It has nothing to do with sin in his case, but rather of who he is. It is a matter of biology and ontolology that disqualifies him.

A “woman pastor” exists in the same way that a “parrot pastor” does. She doesn’t. Her case is like the “pregnant man” on Oprah. That was not a “pregnant man,” but rather a biological ontological woman who has disfigured her body to give the illusion of maleness. She is an impostor, and actor.

A “woman pastor” is cut of the same cloth. She is also a spiritual thespian.

And you are right, she is, (in addition to my point that she is not a pastor and is actually officiating over “parrot sacraments”), she has the additional issue of personal sin and rebellion (that the trained parrot doesn’t have) in desiring that which was not given her – following in her mother Eve’s fatal footsteps.

My point is that it is her biological ontological sex that renders her “sacraments” void – not her sinful desire of usurpation.

Once again, great points!

Larry’s quote…”Homosexuality can be repented of. One cannot repent of one’s sex”
Two questions–where is that in the red letter edition KJV-Christ’s words? and…
>>> are you stating that the Father messed up and made a ‘mistake’ when HE CREATED the FEMALE human!!!?!!!!!
No wonder the Lutheran Church is dying—you are relegating a full 1/2 of the God given talents of the congregations!!! ..SHAME on you!!!….
FROM >>>>
A life-Lutheran—a 26 year CHRISTIAN (I’m well over 26 years old)!!!!—after reading the KJV (Many times through)…and the Founding documents of this Great Republic…
C-CS
LFL

Dear Christian Soldier:

You ask:

“are you stating that the Father messed up and made a ‘mistake’ when HE CREATED the FEMALE human!!!?!!!!!”

No. That’s the point I was trying to make (I’m sorry that I didn’t make that clear). Women are not told they may not serve in the ministry because of the “sin” of being a woman. It isn’t a sin. It is a glorious vocation to be a woman – especially to be a wife and mother – whereas homosexuality is, by contrast, sinful.

In the same way, I can never give birth to a child. It isn’t because of the “sin” that I am a man, rather it is because that is not what the Lord created me to be. Men and women are different. And it is the denial of this latter point that joins the issue of women’s “ordination” to homosexual “marriage.” Both are examples of the creature rebelling against the Creator for making him what he is.

I hope that clears things up.

As far as your question about the red-letter edition of the KJV (a wonderful translation!), I don’t think I understand your question. Can you help me understand it better? And what a great joy and blessing that you are a faithful and lifelong student of God’s holy Word!

Thanks, and blessings!

Pr. Beane

Being a pastor, like any other vocation, isn’t simply about natural, God-given talents. It’s about being called. Many men in the world have more empathy and patience than I do and work well with small children, yet God in his unfathomable mercy and grace called *me* (not them) to be a mother. And God’s gifts to the church aren’t “wasted” because the female half of the world are not called to be pastors. If anything, to suggest such a thing is a serious insult to women and the gifts that God *has* given them, both in their families and in their legitimate service to Christ’s Church.

Dr. Veith asked a complex question. I would think that it would be better answered if it were broken apart. For instance, even among those who object to the ordination of women, there is a split between those who think that it violates rules and those who think it cannot be done. Dr. Veith assumes the latter. Assuming that, then it could be argued that women’s ordination is probably worse, as if that is true, then nobody receives the Sacrament. (Then again, many might think that to fail to receive it might be safer than receiving the real thing, yet in an environment that puts God to the test. Was it such a good thing to receive the Lord’s Supper during one of the raucous feasts at Corinth before discipline was restored?)

That stated, I think that certain of the theology which would lead to these conclusions is not well known. The best defense I’ve seen of the Incarnational view of the doctrine of the Ministry was written by David Scaer. While the arguments may be convincing to many, I don’t think they’re obvious. The more obvious rule-based arguments are generally open to objections that can be put forth by egalitarians who hold a high view of Scripture. Most involve readings in ways that we are not consistent with in our other ethical decisions. So I think that if people are in danger of not receiving the Sacrament from a woman pastor, the basis of the doctrine needs to be argued. Scaer asserts his position well, and even makes good positive arguments in favor of it. I have not seen much that addresses possible counterarguments, however. Just what kind of a hermeneutic do we end up with if he is right, and what other positions might it lead to?

Such ‘word-smithing’ FWS. It is a great intellect you possess, this is obvious. Me, just a simple layman. Sometimes, we see the scriptures and, those of us/you who are “intellectual athletes” feel it imperative to apply presuppositions to whatever the subject matter is. I think we all know – “in our hearts” the ‘right-and-wrong’ positions innately. Us, the non-seminarians, throughout history, (sans the unique ‘fws-type’ minority) not with ‘ignorance’ but with common sense in the context of the overall biblical record and the human-record KNOW certain things without parsing each and every component of an idea. We know homosexuality is an aberration of ‘the way things were created to be’ as well as the ordination thereof. Get real! And putting a woman in the office – in the ‘stead’ of our saviour who is our Bride-groom – and where we, the church, are the bride…..C’mon! “Intellectualize” and “rationalize” to your heart’s content – and I know that ‘love’ and ‘long-suffering’ are virtues of Christ, who lives these gifts through us – of course – but stepping back – the positions to which we should hold onto, are quite obvious!

#87 arvid

‘[we]KNOW certain things without parsing each and every component of an idea. ‘

Apart from Jesus, I believe there are few things we can know and understand for sure.

Consider making your reason captive to the Word of God and things are not then so ‘obvious’ as they would seem.

example: there was nothing remarkable or obvious about Jesus being perfectly good and God when He walked, as one of us, upon the earth. How is that fact possible? every mouth should be stopped at this in awe and reflection.

In Jesus was perfect Holiness that noone notices as being other than perfectly ordinary.

Certain things seem so obvious to us and the pharisees. Other things can only be given us to know through faith and the Holy Spirit. even the bible remains a dark book without the light of Christ, that even the religious world , for whom things seem so pridefully obvious, could not overcome.

arvid 87

‘We know homosexuality is an aberration of ‘the way things were created to be’ as well as the ordination thereof.’

Well now. We also are certain that physical blindness is a result of sin and the fall of man into sin.

Jesus says that it is not in at least one case doesn’t he? He says that blindness in that case existed so that God might be glorified.

What else is it that you and me are so sure that we simply know, and our ‘knowing’ is in fact what is the result of the sinful lenses through which we view God’s good creation?

Question: are things as they are the result of the fall, or is the problem more how we perceive what is and our utter inability to keep the first and second commandments?

‘whatsovever is not of faith is sin’ The opposite of sin is not goodness, it is faith.

Comment #84
Rev. Larry Beane said:

you were destined for hell but Jesus had other plans. There is nothing at all logical or reasonable about this.

making your reason captive to the Word of God would be alot better than relying on the logic of ‘natural law’ to deduce what is good or bad, right or wrong.

extramarital sex is always wrong. yes , in thought word and deed. this applys to gay men who cannot marry as well as yourself. equally. no separate law and gospel for queers.

for you, beyond this, to call homosexuality sinful has no basis in scripture. to call something sin where there is none is to usurp God and is very wicked.

Dear fws:

I think you’re right that we have to be careful about using logic and natural law apart from Scripture to define sin.

However, in Romans 1:18-27, St. Paul argues that homosexuality is sinful precisely because it is contrary to natural law. He concludes that homosexuality is actually a form of idolatry.

In this case, to ignore the implications of natural law is to violate Scripture.

Comment #91
Rev. Larry Beane said:

In your mind would I be able to comment as follows (I will number these points for ease of response)

I observe the following from romans chapter 1:

1)the “they” there seems to be referring to the SAME group throughout the chapter. Therefore, what the ‘they’ will be identified as being part of that group of sinners, looking to each thing as ‘diagnostic.’ this would include the characteristics listed on vs29-32. no capacity for to give or receive real love, pathological liars, etc. If the ‘they’ = ‘homosexuals’ then I would expect these to be symptomatic of the ‘disease’ of homosexuality. right? I would expect the majority of homosexuals to display these caracteristics CHARACTERISTICALLY. agree?

2)In vs 26 romans refers to ‘they’ as having ‘their’ women. These men start out as heterosexuals. idolatry then leads to abandonment of wife/women, which at some point seemed to them normal and natural, and corruption of those males leads, directly, to corruption of their women as well.

3)sex is first mentioned in vs 29 with the word ‘fornication’. what those men are doing that is called ‘unnatural’ by paul is a matter of speculation.

4) it would be helpful to know where the greek word for ‘unnatural’ is used elsewhere in the greek NT and septuagint to get the force of that word. I have seen it translated into english as ‘unseemly’, ‘not our custom’ and other ways that implies alot of meanings. in addition the word ‘unnatural’ can mean alot of things in english can’t it? is it unnatural to be physically blind? albino? I am not, in saying this, denying the force of Pauls words that whatever these ‘they’ were doing was morally perverted. at the same time, whatever that was, i AM reading that Paul is saying in the transition in vs 28 something like: ‘ ok up to this point I am describing unspeakably repugnant things, and those things are soooo repugnant that God turned these ‘they’ over to even WORSE things” and then goes on to list what those things are that are even worse than what he describes up to vs 27.

4) In romans 2:1 I get another idea altogether of who the ‘they’ is referring to, in it’s entirety.

I am not making a point here pastor beene. so don’t look for any undropped shoe here, or an attempt to avoid the force of anything here.

I do have a point to make however: I do not see what is described in Romans 1 as painting a picture that is in any way predictive of what you would find a homosexual or his ‘lifestyle’ or characteristics or even predelections to look like. In fact, I don’t know of ANY homosexual who would find anything described in romans 1 as attractive or desireable. quite the opposite. I DO know alot of hedonistic heterosexuals, along the lines of what you would see described in playboy, as fitting what I see in romans one.

where does that leave me in my understanding?

Once again: I believe that any extramarital sex, which would include gay sex, is immoral and is ‘unnatural’ in same sense that ALL sin is unnatural, even that seemingly ‘natural’ tendency of men to lust after women or even a wife, reducing that person to an ‘it’. I am nowhere denying that samegender sex is not a sin. ok?

I AM questioning the wisdom of saying THIS passage has anything to say about what is understood today as ‘homosexual’.

example: prison sex or prison rape is NOT homosexual sex even though it is happening between two men and is sex. you may disagree, but then what we have is not a moral or doctrinal disagreement is it? it is very important to separate the two if we seek to communicate God’s truth clearly to the world.

typo. should read: i am no where denying that same gender sex is a sin.

our perfect picture of what is perfectly ‘natural’ confounds and confuses us. that picture is Jesus as described in the holy scriptures.

this Jesus was utterly unremarkable and ordinary. yet he was perfectly good. no one noticed. and I think it would be safe to assume he did not have sex. but also I am told that he was tempted in every way as you are (can I assume?) with women, AND he was tempted in EVERY way as I am as a homosexual. yet without sin.

I would not even begin to understand that. pastor beene you seem to understand what ‘natural’ looks like completely and can tell me what that means , fully, from scripture. I do not claim even a scintilla of what you claim.

at the same time, I do know Jesus. and… I know, from the 10 commandments, what is sin. Every single sin i look at as a depravity that is truly an unnatural act.

I am feeling that you are suggesting that my understanding of ‘natural’ needs to somehow be amplfied to arrive at a more complete picture of what true morality is.

i must not only believe that extramarital sex is sin, and that anything that reduces another human to a sexual it is depravity, I must also loathe other, nonsexual aspects of homosexuality. why? because it is ‘unnatural’ as stated in a part of scripture that describes things that any homosexual I know would be repulsed at.

I am missing something, or maybe you are. or maybe we both are. what is that thing?

#91 pastor beene:

YOu DO realize that the sexual practices described in lev 18, the sodom and gomorrah story and romans 1 would be utterly repugnant to the vast majority of gay men right? You DO understand this?

in those passages there IS same-gender sex, or implied or threatened sex , male-on-male. I got that.

let me break it down for you this way:

stories of a man raping a woman in the bible. or women raping men (eg lot and his daughters). These stories ARE about sex between men and women. any normal heterosexual would be repulsed and not attracted to the sex that those passages describe. If I were to construct a logical chain with these passages to home in on your sins, it would not make sense:

as in : ‘these passages describe male-female sex, therefore they describe and define and characterize heterosexual sex. YOU , without evidence of proper shame, claim to be a heterosexual.

Therefore these passages characterize and define your sexual relations with your wife and your sexual practices and indeed much more, your agressive agenda and ‘lifestyle’ in general. therefore you must repent of these practices, and if you do not demonstrate contrition or argue that these passages are not about you, then you are telling me that these passages are not describing sinful acts or you are trying to escape the fact that you are a sinner.

make sense? flaw in logic here?

Dear fws:

You write:

“it would be helpful to know where the greek word for ‘unnatural’ is used elsewhere in the greek NT and septuagint to get the force of that word.”

It sounds like you’ve already drawn your conclusion before doing the research. You’ve provided an analysis of the passage in order to argue that Paul is not talking about homosexuality, and yet you are saying that you don’t know what the Greek word means. You’ve put the cart before the horse, and have drawn a conclusion before asking the question. Under that circumstance, there is nothing I can say that will make any difference, as your mind is already made up (“hardened” as St. Paul says in Romans 11).

But what you’re asking here isn’t hard to find. You can look it up in a Greek Lexicon (many of which are available online) or in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

The unnaturalness of homosexuality is obvious even without Scripture. The parts of the body have specific functions based on their design by the Creator.

Homosexuality is a rebellion against the Creator by distorting creation. An even more blatant example is the “trans-gender” movement – in which men and women mutilate themselves to pretend to be of the opposite sex (and then muddy the water by applying the grammar term “gender” to the biological term “sex”). This is a way to shake one’s fist at God and accuse him of making a mistake. Acceptance of who God made us to be, whether male or female, is a matter of submission to Him.

And this is exactly St. Paul’s natural law argument of Romans 1, at least to those who hear the Word of God with repentant and submissive hearts.

I would really like to thank FWS for his contributions to this debate. As a member of the Anglican Church in Canada these issues are very much on my mind especially the possible analogous position of divorced and remarried Christians to non celibate Homosexuals. The painful circumstances of my own divorce and unparallel joy I have found in remarriage and new family continued to be the most concrete manifestation of God grace I have experience to date in my own life. I know a bit about the pain that Gay Christens face as they battle their own under demons (I knew one man since childhood and watched him struggle with his faith, his sexual orientation and finally with Aids for over 20 years) I have no doubt of the authenticity of this man’s his faith (for what its worth he was a loving father and a pillar in his church) but he was never able to fully escape his very real torments. I can’t help but think that for many gay Christians it is perhaps better that they marry instead of burn. I am by no means suggesting that homosexuals are not “living in sin” only suggesting that they may not be any deeper in the muck than the rest off us simultaneously saved and sinner.

God Bless
Steve in Toronto

#91 pastor beene.

‘He concludes that homosexuality is actually a form of idolatry.’

you describe a logical flow that is different from that of st paul right?

‘they’ are idolatrous > ‘they’ worship creation rather than the creator > THEREFORE they put aside their wives/girlfriends (vs26) and idolize one another.

this is sort of idolatry on steriods. idolatry taken to it’s ultimate absurdity: idolatrous man becomes at same time idolator and object of idolatry. they lust for one another. and…. they do ‘unnatural’ things with each other, physically, that paul does not specify.

BECAUSE of this, the rest of creation goes crazy, those former wives/girlfriend of these idolators, then themselves turn to each other, AS a result of what the men are doing.

FINALLY, because of all this, God abandons the ‘they’ to even WORSE sins. what could POSSIBLY be worse you ask? well. paul is now very explicit.

in vs 30 paul lists “fornication” as being something God now abandons them to. This is the first explicit mention of sex. although it would be hard to imagine exactly what lust+physical could be that is ‘unnatural’ mentioned in the text previously. further they become pathological liars. they become incapable of true love and affection. etc etc etc.

then we are told that the ‘they’ is who in romans 2:1. and romans 1 ascribes ALL the characteristics and behaviors to the ‘they’ which uniformly refers to the SAME ‘they’ thoughout.

typo:

‘although it would be hard to imagine exactly what lust+physical could be that is ‘unnatural’ mentioned in the text previously.’ add: ‘ if it were anything but sex.’ sado masochism? dunno. and st paul doesnt tell us. the fact that he later explicitly lists ‘fornication’ might imply something, or he is just being redundant. possible too…..

Interesting that, Prof. Pless of Concordia Theological seminary in a recent paper writes as follows that Luther had a biblically based view that homosexual behavior is a “monstrous depravity.”

“Luther identifies the sin of Sodom with homosexuality. Commenting on Genesis 19:4-5, he [Luther] writes, ‘I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy’.28 In the same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to ‘the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ‘ as ‘extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.’ ”

FWS’s view that scripture provides no basis for the sinfulness of sodomy is quite mistaken. He somehow thinks that if he repeats this myth, we will fall for it.

96 psator beene

“The unnaturalness of homosexuality is obvious even without Scripture. The parts of the body have specific functions based on their design by the Creator.”

yes . it seems clear that man made male and female to be sexually complementary. so you raise this point why? I agree. so?

“it sounds like you have already drawn your own conclusions”

really? you did not read what I wrote I can conclude. ALL sin is ‘unnatural’ ALL extramarital sex, including gay sex, IS unnatural. your point of disagreement here is what? to what end? what important thing am i missing doctrinally that would threaten my faith or that of others?

‘And this is exactly St. Paul’s natural law argument of Romans 1’

i don’t see a ‘natural law argument’ as being in romans one. paul asserts, he does not argue, that whatever the ‘they’ were doing in romans 1 was ‘unnatural’ to state something as a FACT is not to make an argument is it?

and to ask how that greek word, only sometimes translated as ‘unnatural’ is deployed elsewhere in the NT or septuagint does NOT require you to impugn my motives for asking this. The context of my comments would not drive you to this as the only possible conclusion as to divining my motives. that is wrong pastor beene and beneath the level of dignity your office as pastor calls you to for it is a violation of the 8th commandment.

I said: same gender sex is always sin. you seem to not be hearing me in this context. this begs me to consider that you lack a capacity to hear. I hope I am wrong, since you appear to be a Lutheran pastor. precious souls are at stake here.

There is also a logical fallacy at work here. In addressing the sin of homosexuality, the accusation is made that this is to excuse heterosexual sins.

Not one person has said any such thing.

But there is a clear attempt in our culture to redefine marriage as the coupling of any two people regardless of their biological sex. And just because there are millions of people (who are also well-connected politically) who want this doesn’t make it right or natural.

Our Lord Jesus Christ clearly defines marriage, and does so in the same way that the Father defines marriage in the Garden of Eden. It involves two people of opposite biological sex. And in pointing this out, and in drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is a sinful distortion of the created order is in no way to excuse fornication, adultery, and frivolous divorce – which are also sins.

This fallacy is a rhetorical trick to take the attention off of one’s own sins and place the attention elsewhere. It is the rhetorical equivalent of a toddler, in seeking to avoid punishment, protesting: “But Johnny is also doing something bad!”

We’re all sinners, but we do none of our fellow sinners any favors by giving them approval – even if it has become politically correct to do so. If homosexuals are truly interested in equality, they should accept that they are equally convicted by the law, and do not get a free ride because of their orientation.

People are free under the civil law to behave as they wish. But they are not “free” to compel anyone to look at a cat and force them to say it is a dog. This discussion isn’t about tolerance, but has become one of bullying those who accept God’s Word into giving sin a green light.

There were also Israelites who believed the Ten Commandments did not prohibit their use of statues of Baal.

#100 peter

‘FWS’s view that scripture provides no basis for the sinfulness of sodomy is quite mistaken. He somehow thinks that if he repeats this myth, we will fall for it.’

i hope this is not rude. but even a child with an 8th grade level of reading comprehension could not be so blind to what I wrote to respond as you have done.

i repeat: i do believe that extramarital sex, including samegender sex is always sin. period.

what IS it that you think you are arguing with me about?

#102 rev beene.

you are responding to me. I have written about 10 times now on this thread the following:

i believe that all extramarital sex, which would always include same gender sex, IS sinful and unnatural.

just what part of this does your level of reading comprehension, which at this point seems very very very low, require clarification on?

I am sorry this sounds snarky, but really. you respond to me repeatedly in ways that betray a lack of english comprehension.

Dear fws:

I’m sorry. I’m still learning English, and my reading comprehension is far from where I would like it to be – but I can assure you, I’m working diligently on it. I can only plead for your patience as a wise and thoughtful tutor.

#97 steve in toronto.

i always try to get people to aim for celebacy as homosexuals.

It is very hard to ask an 18 year old to do this when I further have to tell him or her that there will NEVER be a wedding night.

this is about raging hormones. but it is about way more. telling another human being that they will never marry is, for all but the sexualy deranged, about romantic aspirations, fears of lonliness, love, need to be held, affection. etc etc etc.

I feel dismayed at pastor looking at this in a detached way like the humans they are advising are like some biological lab specimen they can feel morally free to vivisect and so destroy.

to inform a human being that they will go to hell if they cannot overcome their feelings beyond sexual feelings, to the extent that they must also supress even romantic longings. and that these too are base and ignoble and merit hell. this seems dehumanizing to me. if i am not mistaken, romeo and julliet were in love, romantically so. and they did not have sex. this used to be called chivalry

I have been ‘in love’ with alot of men in my life. i have never come close to imagining having sex with these men. no more than you would get that the romeo and julliet story was about raging hormones. I am a christian. the fact that i could ne, or what is called lust. it is called respect for others. it is called self control and restraint. but to never realize a deeper relationship with these men has caused real pain. for someone to tell me that this is the equivalent of what happened in the sodom and gomorrah story is NOT something that I would EVER do to another human being. that would be cruel inhuman and unnatural.

not everyone has the same capacity for self restraint, and some are born with a much more intense sex drive than others. I would not be so arrogant as to tell others to “suck it up” just because I am able to.

this is NOT what a Lutheran pastor is supposed to do.

so do I think gay marriage or sex is moral or right? no. do I think celebacy is the better choice if in any way possible? yes. do I think it is maybe a safer thing, worldly speaking, than furtive, hedonistic sex. yes I do.

#105 beene

ah now. sarcasm.

I would like to believe that you are a better and more generous man as a pastor then you are managing to reflect here.

we are both sinners. I am no better than you and i do find myself responding to posts that hurt my ego with sarcasm or a biting retort.

it is still wrong isn’t it?

sad thing: I was not being sarcastic. you have continually responded by saying that I said , somehow, that homosexual sex is NOT sin or that I am arguing for that position.

I have repeatedly stated, I think clearly, that this is not the case.

how can I respond , in a christian way to you since this seems to be the endless loop you insist on?

please forgive me if I attacked your ego. we can do better as two christian brothers can’t we? what would that example look like of truly listening and responding with the greatest respect and not being dismissive?

Dear fws:

I find it interesting that you think sarcasm is a sin.

But I do think that our discussion has played out and gotten to the point where we can only agree to disagree. There really is nothing more to say when there is such a fundamental disagreement on how to read Scripture.

We also disagree fundamentally on natural law. To use a metaphor, if a person is using the highway off-ramp as an entrance, something bad is likely to happen. The natural order (even in its fallen state) works better when we use things in the way in which they are designed. The guy who drives the wrong way on the highway may get a thrill, but he is endangering himself – and not to warn him would be a sin.

This is a different matter than simply changing lanes without signalling.

FWS, “i repeat: i do believe that extramarital sex, including samegender sex is always sin. period.”

Do we take this to mean that as soon as the gay militants establish a regime of same sex marriage, then sodomy becomes acceptable behavior?

The truth is that, as a pastor recently pointed out to you, homosexuality is an activity, not an identity.
The Bible, as Luther remarks, regards homosexuality,
as a perversion and a moral monstrosity.

Your distinction between the terms “homosexual” and “homosexual behavior” is rather dubious. The ancients, including biblical writers, well understood that homosexuality is a form of sexual behavior, not identity. The modern fallacy of homosexual identity mistakes what is a sad, complex disorder of nature with a valid form of nature.

108 pastor beene

any attitude that is less that completely respectful IS sin. thou shalt not kill is not merely kept in the negative, it is also kept in the positive isn~t it: as in we should help and befriend in every bodily need. in the case of not bearing false witness: we should defend him, speak well of him and select the most favorable plausable interpretation.

I sin daily here. I assume you do too. should not you and I try to go beyond disagreeing to disagree, lapse into sarcasm, and instead model generous, forgiving, patient, listening behaviors here for those who are maybe quietly watching us have at it? wouldn’t there be incredible value in that? to call one another to reach beyond our mutual current capacity to show the utmost value and honor for one another whether earned or not? to respond to rudeness with what st paul describes as the fruits of th spirit?

I am not saying I am in any way better than you Larry. I am hoping you can see things the same way I do on this point of christian love and generosity of spirit. this does not mean we cannot disagree. it does mean we should listen . really listen.

i am hearing you say that it is really really important to you to not only say that same-gender sex is always sinful. that does not , in your mind go far enough.

i am not clear why that matters.

Let me try ONE more time, this, assuming that the problem is my shortcomings in communication:

No homosexual would be attracted to the sexual practices contemplated in any of the passages quoted as being about homosexuality in the bible. they would be repulsed in fact.

you might say: wait a minute now. these passages are about men having sex with men. homosexuality! so what. i does not matter. why?

the logic here looks like this: story of male/female rape in the bible >correct conclusion: this is sin > correct conclusion: this is heterosexual sex > incorrect conclusion: because it is sex with male/female, this defines what heterosexual sex looks like since males and females like to have sex with each other. . incorrect conclusion: the thrust of these passages is to condemn heterosexual sex.

I agree that ANY extramarital sex IS sin. but I also say it does horrible damage to the text to use this sort of logic in exegesis.

this is not the way to condemn homosexual sex. the way to do that is the SAME way we condemn any extramarital sex as sin and unnatural. using the same passages.

romans 1 is not about homosexual sex. therefore whatever it describes as ‘unnatural’ is not homosexuality. I can say this, strictly speaking of the text, and STILL agree with you that homosexuality is not ‘natural’ in a very real sense in the same way that blindness, clearly, is against God’s readily apparent design. ‘right? i just don’t get to say my opinion here is based on scripture. logic? yes. clear logic? yes!

it seems clear that smoking usually causes cancer. It does not follow that I get to say smoking IS always a sin.

It is not ‘natural’ to be blind nor is it natural for the blind to see. it is not natural, in the same way, for men to be gay. in the same way it is not ‘natural’ for men to not be attracted romantically and sexual to females. satisfied?

i am not seeing the scriptural imperative and necessity to say that this ‘unnaturalness’ is sin or even the result of sin.

what we do as sinners, blind men homosexuals heterosexuals IS always unnatural in the most important sense when it results in sin in though word or deed.

Comment #109
Peter Leavitt said:
FWS, “i repeat: i do believe that extramarital sex, including samegender sex is always sin. period.”

Do we take this to mean that as soon as the gay militants establish a regime of same sex marriage, then sodomy becomes acceptable behavior?

great question! I stated, repeatedly: “extramarital sex which would logically include any same-gender sex since gays cannot marry, is sin.”

tell me what part of that phrase could be misunderstood to mean what you say by anyone with more than a 3rd grade reading comprehension, and I will gladly change my choice of words.

if you and luther, and the ancients and even everyone before 100 year ago say that the word ‘homosexual’ means only sex acts and the rest of the world understands a far broader meaning, is this a moral issue? how so?

so:people cannot merely agree that same gender sex acts are ALWAYS sin. no. for you this does not go far enough. people who only go that far are somehow morally deficient. they need to use the same dictionary you use. how bizzare is that?

further since the words ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ meaning homosexual did not even exist before 1900…..

dont you have better more substantive things to argue about peter?

If the S&G account were about the evils of “rape” and or s_xual abuse, then why would Lot offer to give his daughters over to the men of the city instead of the angels? It occurs to me that the worse sin is the abomination of homo- erotic behavior.

pastor been. before you respond may i suggest the following: that you refrain from picking out some part of my post, and leap on it , in order to ignore the overall point I am trying to make, and disagreeing with THAT point. my smoking example for example IS lame. but to home in on that would not be truly listening would it?

is there something you are saying that you think have not directly addressed in a way that takes what you say seriously and in a way that also honors the authority of God’s word as THE truth?

Dear fws:

Sacrasm is a literary device. It may be sinful, but it isn’t necessarily so. Scripture itself is full of sarcasm.

Homosexuality is different. It is never unsinful – even though the organized homosexual movement goes to great pains to argue that it is not only unsinful, but laudable – even using the Scriptures the way you have to make their case.

#114 beane

in this case your sarcasm was not sinful then. because scripture says so. ok . got it. I see how your logic works now from your illustration.

so now i am part of some homosexual movement seeking to justify same-gender sex as ok and not sinful. really? quote ONE thing I wrote to show me that I say this. you simply cannot. shame on you! the word for what you are doing is “slander”. slander is a sin. or are you going to argue “not alway since people do it in the bible”. c’mon now!

I don’t honestly see how anyone could honestly read anything at all that i have ever written in my life (go ahead and google!) that would allow them to walk away with your understanding.

Would an alcoholic need to repent of the condition of being an alcoholic, or would it be enough if she were in recovery and was successfully abtained from drinking? For that matter, would a pedophiliac need to repent of his condition? Or if siblings had the hots for each other, but didn’t act on it, would their condition require repentence?

This ‘repentence’ question seems to be the raisson d’etere, since we are now all in agreement that h.e. behavior is sin.

#112 jonathan

ezekiel 18 is the divine inspired explanation as to why sodom and gomorrah were destroyed.

we have been dialoging for some time here. I am a homosexual. if what you are saying is true, you need to say you can place me in that crowd clamoring predatorily, to rape those angels.

I agree that Lot offering his daughters to the crowd indicates that the crowd was intent on homosexual rape. not a great father. definitively a picture of the most dispicable evil yes? imagine your parents doing that to you! yet he was spared. why? ah but the greatest evil here is what the story is about: the abomination of homosexuality….

you conclude from this fact of a father offering up is daughters to be raped, and the refusal of that offer, then , that sodom and gomorrah is about homosexuality? in what way? homosexuality=violent, predatory, rape? homosexuality , by nature , looks like the behavior seen in the sodom and gomorrah story? Jonathan: can you honestly place me into that story as one of the people clamoring to rape someone else’s visitors?

what is it you are saying? just how is sodom and gomorrah about homosexuality? in what sense?

this to me is a story about a group wanting to rape angels, abrahams interceeding to save a brother that looks more evil than the inhabitants of sodom. lots to chew on here. homosexuality is not one of the chewable items here.

disagree?

fws,
If you could expand on the thought that being homosexual is more than about sexual attraction, I would appreciate it.
I know that you spoke about being in love with other men before and counseling young gay people about the time they realize they will never get married and the implications of lonelines, etc, but it seems to me that you are leaving out at least in part true Christian community in regards to deep friendships. I believe that our society has become sexualized to the point that we regard friendships in a sexual light.See modern society’s views on the relationship between Sam and Frodo in The Lord of the Rings movies. Tolkien wrote that relationship to mirror his own relationships with men that served with in the military. I know that true friendship is different than a marriage relationship, but true friendship and true Christian community can be very fulfilling. Marriage is supposed to be a small model of Christian community, but I believe that those who cannot marry for one reason or another should be able to join in true community with each other.
I know this is a little off topic, but the original topic has been done to death in my opinion. 🙂
Anyway, that is the beginning of my thoughts. I would appreciate your reaction to them.

116

would a blind man need to repent of the inability to see?

gay men are incapable of having natural sexual and romantic attractions for females. i do not see this as a sin or about morality. did you choose to be incable of having sexual and romantic attractions for females? I am not trying to equate you with me Jonathan, I am saying that I did not make a moral choice about my attractions and neither did or could you.

the words alcoholic, liar, child molester have NO meaning apart from the pathological behaviors they describe.

to lump homosexual in the same list as child molester is extremely offensive to me.

you are right. we are all agreed that extramarital sex is always sin and that on that basis, same-gender sex is always wrong.

i think we are arguing now about whether that is enough or if scripture demands that we condemn homosexuals in other ways as well.

112 fws,
Yes, agree to disagree. Sure, the abuse was certainly bad. But, that it would involve h.e. bahavior made it ghastly abhorrant, took it to an unfathomable level of depravity precisely because of the unnatural twisted behavior they had in mind to accomplish their desire. Hence, Lot said, if your hell bent on getting some, at least don’t resort to unspeakable sins against nature to boot; here, take my daughters instead.

Anyway, why all your fierce resistence to such an interpretation of O.T. and Paul if you’re already on board that all H.E. behavior is sin? I don’t get it.

#118 kandyce.

Great question. i think the real problem here is a scriptural one. people read romans one to be about homosexuality. gramatically the ‘they’ in romans 1 MUST be the same ‘they’ throughout the chapter.

if ‘they’ = homosexual, then this means that homosexuals, according to vs 30 are incapable of natural affections. they cannot love the way a normal human can.

i have had deep relationships with other men. my pastor for example. I never had even the slightest hint of romantic or physical attraction for him. some hetero men do assume, crazy as it sounds, that gay men are attracted, sexually so to any other man. probably this is because the passages in the bible that are … supposedly… about homosexuality, are predatory and about rape etc. if I believed those passages truly depicted the characteristics of a homosexual, I would want all homosexuals in prison.

so let me get back at you. you probably have a sex drive. maybe a strong one, maybe a weak one. with a weak one, celebacy would be really no big deal. on the other hand, if you were a young 12 year old girl dreaming of finding your prince… er… princess…. just how devastating would it be for your father and mother to have to inform you that you should NEVER even think that you could have this in your life? what would be worse? no sex or no intimate adult relationship?

we ARE sexual beings, but we are not just or even that. when God created animals it was “be fruitful and multiply” in other words “be horny and have a sex drive so you can make babies!”

it was way diferent with man, I believe touching on man in God’s image. “it is not good for man to be alone” that was the reason for eve’s creation from man’s side. but this is not about making a cool babe to care for adams romantic and sexual needs. I too am in that story. eve was also a mother. and so , you are right, I am not alone. but God’s means of curing adams aloneness is unavailable to me. if having an eve is an important thing for all the adams, such that in a world that was “good” the one thing that was not good was that man was ‘alone”. then why would that dilema be any less important or urgent for gays and lesbians? is it right for conservative christians to reduce this to being all about carnality and lack of self discipline and all? or is this attitude due to a misreading of scripture? a misreading that imputes to all homosexuals base instincts and motives that are somehow diferent and somehow less than human?

I am in no way insinuating that homosexuals are paedofeliacs or alcoholics (or liars for that matter, even though I didn’t use that one). Each sin can stand on its own. What I am getting at in the repentence of the condition question is, if the sin has to do with a condition based on behavior that is based on one’s feelings, then can’t they all equally say, I have these feelings, I can’t help it, that’s who I am, that’s how I was made, so I have no need to repent of how God must’ve created me. Yet, by your reaction, I sense that you see other conditions (such as the paedophiac) as different, or do you? Why is that, or isn’t that?

#118 kandyce. the fact is that I and others like me cannot feel a natural romantic or physical afinity for females similar to a blind man not being able to see.

this does not make the urgency that promted God to make eve any less an issue for gay men and lesbians. and it is disgusting to have this topic of discussion reduced always to sex urges and acts. disgusting.

i am not an animal filled with predatory lust for other men. I am a christian and a human being with a conscience and a respect for others. to refrain from sex when marriage is not a morally acceptable option is all about self control and self discipline. try it!

#118 kandyce

the cure for aloneness was twofold. a society of the lifelong union of man and woman and secondly, but not secondarily in any way, the creation of society from that. brothers and sisters and pastors and teachers…

God COULD , i suppose have created human society without sex or without that “intimate society of two”. he did not do that. BOTH are important in answering the need to cure the UNgoodness of ‘alone’.

why would anyone assume that gay men and women, would not feel the same things that propel men and women to bond in an intimate relationship? isn’t this longing a deeply reflexive and human instinct. maybe THE most human of instincts (based on the bible here)?

I DO know men, even christian men, who seem to say that they really have contempt for women, but get married for sex since they are christian. they say they are only interested in women for the sex and merely tolerate the other parts of having to live with a female. I find that attitude disgusting. maybe these men assume that gay men are similarly driven purely by a sex drive , like animals, because that is how things are with them.

this would be a mistake. it IS sometimes true. more often not.

#122 jonathan

try this.

behavioral labels (ie labels that are meaningLESS if uncoupled from some behavior): hero, liar, alcoholic, child molester, good citizen, hedonist, womanizer, etc). remove the behavior and you effectively remove the label. these labels are about behavior and so about choices.

ontological labels (black man, white man, homosexual, blind man, deaf man). these labels remain true about someone regardless of behavior. they can drive and influence behavior, but they are morally neutral otherwise.

i place ‘homosexual’ in the second category. i was ‘homosexual’ at age 3. i didn’t “identify’ as one. but i was one. this seems to parallel the experience of almost all homosexuals I know Jonathan.

feel free to disagree with me. but be clear that your disagreeing here is not us disagreeing about morals or morality or what the bible says or does not say.

fact: every gay man and lesbian I have ever known made a choice about their sexuality.

they chose to be heterosexual. they studied how to be that like actors study a role. they spent time on their knees, lots of time, begging God to make that so. they were told they lacked will power and self discipline, so they became pastors, or priests or psychologists to learn how to acquire those qualities. or , they listened when someone said that the love of a good woman would cure them , and so they ended up ruining the lives of that truly good and innocent woman and the lives of their children as well.

think gay being incapable of attraction romantic, not just sexual for females equals a blind man incapable of sight. sort of like that. and is blindness because of sin? will blindness exist in the resurrection? what did Jesus say about the blind man? was it because of his sin? was it because of original sin?

#122 jonathan

“I have these feelings, I can’t help it, that’s who I am, that’s how I was made, so I have no need to repent of how God must’ve created me.”

I disagree. you have heterosexual feelings. some are God given and are natural. those are the feelings you have for females that look to them like first article gifts. those things Father God gives all men. to all men he gives rain. then there are those feeling that “feel” to you ‘natural’ : lust, not feeling uncomfortable with advertising using nearly naked women to sell things that are not skin care products if you catch my drift here…… and you LIKE that. woman reduced to being a thing. skirt chasing as a ‘guy thing’ and so ‘natural’. not.

men can and DO have romantic affinities for females that look like chivalry. there is not a hint of lust or sexual impropriety. why? true respect for that woman. THIS looks like christian love. sex as a consequence of that, is the stuff of poetry, but then even that can be made into a false god or idol.

there is no escaping sin and no real knowing what is ‘natural’ for certain. in a perfectly good world, devoid of original sin, would the difference be no albinos, no birth ‘defects’ , no blindness, no homosexuals, or would the difference be in our attitudes , orientation and perception?

what changed in the fall? perception.

whatsoever is not of faith is sin. the opposite of evil is not goodness. it is faith: a right heart attitude towards God.

jonathan

feel free to argue with me as to whether that word ‘homosexual’ better fits in the ontological or behavioral category.

be my guest. but that would be a philosophical, empirical, scientific or other discussion. it is not a moral argument.

ALL men sin sexually irregardless of their ontological or behavioral label. no amount of relabeling would change that reality.

that being the case, would it not be more christian to try to understand how someone self identifies and why, without assuming, apriori, that they are simply trying to avoid confessing that they are sinners or avoiding that something they think or do is a sin?

i would be very reluctant to tell a fat person that they are going to hell because they could not stop what is a obvious sin, one of the seven deadly ones. I would not excomunicate them. heck, i would probably not even confront them, even if I suspected they did not recognize and repent of that specific sin as sin. would YOU feel a nervous itch to be sure they were right in their repentence Jonathan? why or why not?i would assume they are sincere in confessing the general confession every sunday in church.

when I was raised in the WELS they said that suicide was the unforgivable sin. why? because you were commiting a sin that you could not repent of. repentence = salvation. bad theology Jonathan. I hope you are not in that space.

#118 kandyce

btw when I quote scripture using the word ‘alone’ i am careful to not to project any particular content into that word, romantic or otherwise. the content is probably alot more profound than we could understand in our fallen state.

from experience, I know that i can feel alone in a crowded room. from that I gather that ‘alone’ is way more than just a feeling of loneliness. this is bolstered by Gods careful replay of how he brought Adam to feel this ‘aloneness’ he paraded all the animals before adam and adam realized there was nothing there “like him”.

profound stuff. we can easily do damage to the text by projecting too much (or too little) into it from our own sinful perspectives of wanting to be THE point of reference for everything.

fws,
thank you for your input. I respect your point of view, and I do have more to say, but I am not good with this communicating in comment sections thing, and nothing that I have to say will affect anyone’s salvation.
I will continue to pray that God will continually use us all in our imperfect states to witness to His perfection and salvation.

#120 jonathan

we are not arguing whether or not same gender sex is always sinful. it is.

we are arguing whether same-gender sex is the same thing as ‘homosexual sex’

i do not consider prison rape to be homosexuality or homosexual sex. similarly, i don’t see the sodom and gomorrah story as being about homosexuality. why? If there is NO homosexual who would find that story as anything but repugnant, let me know. that SHOULD tell you something should it not j-man?

if you can catch this concept, you can maybe have a beginning of understanding the rest of what I am, imperfectly, trying to say.

#129 kandice

cool. try thinking of homosexuality as a condition. you may not agree with this. that is fine, but you will start to understand and so be of service to your homosexual brother or sister. finding that i was homosexual came as a rude surprise. one i did not welcome. it did not make itself known to me through lustful or even sexual desires stirring inside. it was not that way.

was your first inkling that you were interested in boys a sexual one? did it result from a choice you made? or did it just sorta creep up on ya and catch you bysurprise? awareness of an ‘interest’ in boy happened the same way for me as it did for you. surprised? shouldn’t be. i am human just like you.

please do not reduce this issue to a doctrine or moral position or choice or philosophy . feel free to think that it is, but also know that you will mark yourself to any gay person as someone who simply doesn’t know or understand anything about what it looks and feels like to be a homosexual.

fws, re the blind man, Jesus said his blindness was not caused by sin, period. So, not sure I follow your argument there. Blindness = homosexuality? Wuh?
More to the point though, if there were a connection, how about this one: Jesus can heal the broken human condition.

Anyway, in summary, you are confident that homosexuality itself is an ontological condition (i.e., God made me this way), mainly because of the fact that you find yourself in it and have felt that way from earliest recollection. However, you are not willing to say that another condition, say that of a paedophile (again, not to dwell on that for any reason other than it is an obvious lightening rod issue) is not also in the same ontological state, this, because being foreign to you find the behavior, if not the condition itself, morally repugnant; therefore it must not be an ontological condition. However, I see no way to reconcile that homosexuality as an ontological condition (or not) is not sinful, but the other cannot not be a sinful condition. The same could be argued about any other sinful behavior and the underlying sinful condition from which it issues.

I really appeciate the debate–thanks! It has helped me realize that homosexuality, the condition from which sinful h.e. behavior flows, must itself be a sinful condition that is in need of repentence. Indeed, we all suffer from a common sinful condition, however it just takes different forms. We are all in the same boat.

Kyrie Eleison!
Pax Christi

FWS at #111: in answer to the question “Do we take this to mean that as soon as the gay militants establish a regime of same sex marriage, then sodomy becomes acceptable behavior?” great question! I stated, repeatedly: “extramarital sex which would logically include any same-gender sex since gays cannot marry, is sin.”

Actually, sodomites can marry in Massachusetts, so the question remains is sodomy within legal marriage acceptable or non sinful behavior?

Daniel, you could quote me that dozen of those BOC passages and I’d still probably give you the same answer. But anyway, I’d like to be sure of what I say and I can check those places again, if you give me the loci. I use the Triglota.

I don’t understand why saying the consecrating words is not considered as “work of men” but the office is? Saying the words does depend on the ability of the person to articulate words, doesn’t it? How does this essentialy differ from any other personal distinctive? If we were Roman Catholic, I’d understand somehow the talk of the office as a work of men, as they claim that the ordination induces a “character indelebilis”, which could be understood as a personal distinctive (although I’m not sure if even them papists understand it that way!). I’ve been taught that Lutherans believe the office is also a gracious gift from God, not a work of men. The Word of God contains the office as well, it’s not something we put up according to our best knowledge.

You’re right on what you say about wrongly administering the sacraments: a large portion of the Christianity is heterodox on this issue and yet we believe they receive the true blood and body of Christ. I should’ve been more precise on this.

But I think that you also regard at least some wrongly administered sacraments invalid? (e.g. rev. Bayne’s example of the parrot) If you draw the line somewhere, I’d like to hear, where does the line go? Mere notion that there are some eucharists out there that are wrongly administered and still valid, does not yet solve the case for lay consecration.

132 jonathan

homoerotic behavior. what in the heck do you mean by that?

if all gay men and lesbians would be repulsed by the behaviors described in lev 18, the sodom and gomorrah story and romans 1 then are these passages depicting homoerotic behaviors? how can that be?

you are saying u are attracted to guys Jonathan? or children?

133 peter

Comment #109 Peter Leavitt said:
FWS, “i repeat: i do believe that extramarital sex, including samegender sex is always sin. period.”

Do we take this to mean that as soon as the gay militants establish a regime of same sex marriage, then sodomy becomes acceptable behavior?

excuse me peter, I dont know how to say that you are challenged in reading comprehension skills politely. this right here is why I think that. forgive me if this seems rude, but how could I possibly be more clear than what I said? and you still are not understanding. amazing stuff……

132 jonathan

if you cannot see any difference at all child molestation and two adults commiting adultery with each other voluntarily, then I really dont know what to say.

132 jonathan.

child molestation is a form of rape. since you seem to think that biblical rape passages describe homosexuality, then I understand your,,, um.. logic perfectly now. thank you for sharing.

FWS, at 135, that last sentence that questions whether Jonathan is attracted to guys or children has no possible relation to his remarks at 132; your question is quite nasty and mean spirited in a similar way to your unsubstantiated accusation that the LCMS intentionally harbors sodomite pastors. Have you no sense of decency?

As to Leviticus Eighteen, it is among many Biblical passages that utterly condemns the sort of lying with men or sodomy that “gay” sodomites routinely practice.

139 peter

there are LCMS pastors who are gay. fact. why is stating the truth nasty and mean spirited ? and no, contrary to your clear views, homosexuals are not rapists.

134 snafu.

out of the theoretical. why does your question matter? the answer is there at that point.

FWS, my comment on LCMS pastors had to with your unsubstantiated allegation that LCMS covers for its sodomite pastors. Also, I’ve never suggested that homosexuals are rapists. You are indeed rather slippery and nasty with your allegations.

FWS: out of the theoretical. why does your question matter? the answer is there at that point. This is a rather incoherent answer to the question of whether legally married sodomites in Massachusetts are involved in sinful behavior.

143 peter. my comment in 143 was not to you. you got confused buddy.

sodom and gomorrah is a story about rape. you say it is about homosexuality. yet you say homosexuality is not about rape. please explain.

i dont follow your comments about ‘my comment on LCMS pastors had to with your unsubstantiated allegation that LCMS covers for its sodomite pastors. ‘

what is it you are saying there?

FWS, following Luther, it is clear that Genesis 19: 4-5 clearly has to do with the men of Sodom wanting to w “know” [in the biblical sense] the male angels that Lot protected.

Luther didn’t even want to discuss this passage as most Germans were unaware of what Luther regarded as the “perversity” and “monstrous depravity” of sodomy.

As to the LCMS issue, I referred to your comment on the ELCA splits thread as follows:

The LCMS has a golden opportunity to show, by their example, how to deal with gay clergy in their midst.
but then this would mean that the LCMS openly acknowledge the gay clergy in their midst wouldnt it?

You here were alleging without substantiation that the LCNS is covering up for its “gay” clergy. A pastor on this thread properly called you for the unsubstantiated remark.

peter

still dont understand your point about lcms gay clergy. putting gay in quotes etc.

you are saying there are no clergy in the lcms who identify as gay? or that the lcms has them but is not covering this fact up? or that they are ‘gay’ in quotes, because they are not REALLY gay because they are celibate or?

FWS, I’m saying nothing about gay clergy in the LCMS. You’re the one that has made allegations on this subject with no substantiation.

FWS 141,
Which question do you mean? If the first one in the first comment, I can only repeat what I said there: the question is secondary, because a Christian not accepting WO shouldn’t find himself attending such an altar.

What do you mean by “the answer is there at that point.”? I don’t understand.

Snafu (134) opines, “Daniel, you could quote me that dozen of those BOC passages and I’d still probably give you the same answer. But anyway, I’d like to be sure of what I say and I can check those places again, if you give me the loci. I use the Triglota.”

Here’s a few passages from the LC, Sacrament of the Altar: “What do you think God cares about what we do or believe, so that on that account He should suffer His ordinance to be changed? . . . For they regard the Sacraments, aside from the Word of God, as something that we do. . .It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament. . .The Word must make a Sacrament of the element. . .And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be misused. . . For the Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person. . .you have here His body and blood by virtue of these words which are added to the bread and wine. . .Now the only way in which it is conveyed and appropriated to us is in the words.”

Snafu opines, “I don’t understand why saying the consecrating words is not considered as “work of men” but the office is? Saying the words does depend on the ability of the person to articulate words, doesn’t it? Howdoes this essentialy differ from any other personal distinctive?” If we were Roman Catholic, I’d understand somehow the talk of the office as a work of men, as they claim that the ordination induces a “character indelebilis”, which could be understood as a personal distinctive (although I’m not sure if even them papists understand it that way!).”

The consecrating voice is merely an instrument of Christ. Christ alone causes His words to be spoken. It is not any “character indelebilis” that makes a sacrament valid but solely Christ’s almighty will and power to have His word spoken whenever and wherever He pleases. Questioning the validity of a sacrament based on personal distinctive is pure popery.

Snafu opines, “I’ve been taught that Lutherans believe the office is also a gracious gift from God, not a work of men. The Word of God contains the office as well, it’s not something we put up according to our best knowledge.”

We are discussing the validity of the sacrament not the public office of administering the sacrament.

“But an incurable cancer of slandering persists in these people who studiously and maliciously try to stir up things by condemning statements correctly or even moderately and tolerably expressed, trying to pervert them by their incurable passion for criticism. I do not think such people should be heard or given attention.”

“Moreover, let us not show a lust for controversy, nor an inclination for disputing, an impudence to argue, a desire to win, nor a foolish longing to show off one’s wisdom, but rather a mind desirous of the truth, a humble spirit, and a heart which fears God, so that in God’s sight and with His Word leading us we may depend on the word of His mouth alone and not pervert the things which He has revealed to us in Scripture according to the norm and measure of our own reason, but humbly and firmly embrace them in the simple obedience of faith.”

The above quotes are attributed to the pen of Martin Chemnitz, and I believe that they bear considerable weight in the current series of discussions that are currently swirling about regarding these issues.

fws,

It is almost as if you have repeated the arguments that you utilize so very often that you have come to the point where you have sufficiently justified yourself, even if that is not your stated and true aim.

Furthermore, anyone who has sharply disagreed with you concerning these matters has, by your own keystroke, been accused of everything from having a tiny and narrow-minded circle of pseudo-friends to possessing the equivalent of a lower grade-school education. It ought to go without saying that this is surely not the best way to plead your case.

Further still, when these things are subsequently pointed out to you, you insist upon back-pedaling by offering up some sort of mock contrition in which it is also implied that the other person “started it,” or some suggestion that the “offending” party should likewise “apologize.”

And so the fruitlessness of engaging you in conversation has become all-too evident; frankly, I can’t imagine why anyone continues to bother, as you arbitrarily dole out both accolades and insults with the same aplomb. Certainly, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I fear that that, too, would result in nothing short of a further display of false humility, something that those who would wear their self-imposed status of victim-hood with the pride and splendor of a peacock (even if that is not their stated and true aim).

Growing up is hard to do, but we all must; such are the very real pains of sanctification.

Try it on for size.

In my comments-149 on Snafu-134, I overlooked these questions, “But I think that you also regard at least some wrongly administered sacraments invalid? (e.g. rev. Bayne’s example of the parrot) If you draw the line somewhere, I’d like to hear, where does the line go?”

Everything depends on the will of Christ to have His words spoken, water applied, bread and wine distributed, eaten, and drunk. As the LC, Sacrament of the Altar, states, “It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.”

The BOC does not specifically address the validity of parrot communion. However, if Christ caused a parrot to speak His true words, the communion would be entirely valid.

149 Daniel,
I did not say that “character indelebilis” makes the sacrament valid. I guess you missed my point there. I was saying that diminishing the role of the office requires partly a similar view of the office than the Roman Catholics are said to have.

Daniel: “The consecrating voice is merely an instrument of Christ. Christ alone causes His words to be spoken.”

This is true. The same applies to the office, because God instituted it. That’s why I can’t understand, why you think of it as work of men.

However, I’m running out of time to continue this discussion, especially when the Catechism passages have the same content as the FC, which I already commented on. Wish you all good, Daniel.

Wyldeirishman at #150, Well said.

Snafu-152 opines, “I did not say that “character indelebilis” makes the sacrament valid. I guess you missed my point there. I was saying that diminishing the role of the office requires partly a similar view of the office than the Roman Catholics are said to have.”

Papist errors regarding the doctrine of the public ministry are described in the BOC. The Church has the command to call, elect, and ordain men to the public ministry. That is law not gospel. However, the public office itself is pure gospel since it is gift of God for the edifying of the Church. (Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops, para. 67).

But, let’s suppose a Church rejects this gift of God by electing a woman to the public office. Does that mean her sermons, baptisms, and consecrations of the supper are invalid? No! The efficacy of preaching and of the sacraments is not founded on the obedience of this woman or of her Church (i.e.,, the works and will of man) but solely on Word of God.

Please note that efficacy of preaching and of the sacraments administered by rightly called public ministers is not founded on their obedience or that of their Church either (i.e.,, the works and will of man) but solely on Word of God. “For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel” AC, V.

Dear Daniel:

You write:

“But, let’s suppose a Church rejects this gift of God by electing a woman to the public office. Does that mean her sermons, baptisms, and consecrations of the supper are invalid? No! The efficacy of preaching and of the sacraments is not founded on the obedience of this woman or of her Church (i.e.,, the works and will of man) but solely on Word of God.”

In such a case, the Word of God is specifically being rejected. It is being mocked and distorted.

Korah showed the same contempt for the Word of God that revealed that Moses, not he (Korah) had authority to minister to the people of God. The Lord did not approach this the way you describe.

To put it another way, if a group of Hindus decided to add Jesus to their pantheon, and started having their priests say the Words of Institution over bread and wine, they would not have the Supper. And neither do the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons have baptism – though they use the identical words along with water!

The Formula of Concord likewise denies that the Reformed supper is valid – even though they too use the identical words of Christ in the consecration.

The issue is not the *sin* of the usurping “minister.” The issue is *authority.* If the Church has rejected God’s Word, even to the point of putting a person in the office who is specifically and ontologically prohibited from that office by the Word of God – it is no longer part of the Church.

Rev. Larry Beane opines concerning female public preaching, baptism, and consecration of the Supper, “In such a case, the Word of God is specifically being rejected. It is being mocked and distorted.

Korah showed the same contempt for the Word of God that revealed that Moses, not he (Korah) had authority to minister to the people of God. The Lord did not approach this the way you describe.”

The Lord destroyed Korah and his followers. The Lord has not yet destroyed the female public ministers and their followers. The Lord remains long-suffering toward these rebellious congregations not willing that they should perish but that they should come to repentance. However, what does this have to do with the validity of female preaching and sacraments?

Rev. Beane opines, “To put it another way, if a group of Hindus decided to add Jesus to their pantheon, and started having their priests say the Words of Institution over bread and wine, they would not have the Supper. And neither do the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons have baptism – though they use the identical words along with water!

The Formula of Concord likewise denies that the Reformed supper is valid – even though they too use the identical words of Christ in the consecration.

The issue is not the *sin* of the usurping “minister.” The issue is *authority.* If the Church has rejected God’s Word, even to the point of putting a person in the office who is specifically and ontologically prohibited from that office by the Word of God – it is no longer part of the Church.”

Whether congregations that place a woman in the public office are part of the Church is irrelevant to the validity of their sacraments. For example, the Papists who teach the Supper is a work of men are not part of the Church but their consecration of the Supper is valid. Why? Because they do not change the essential meaning of the words of institution. Reform who teach that Baptism is a work of men are not part of the Church but their baptisms are valid. Why? Because they do not change the words or their meaning. Reform who teach that men are justified by faith in Christ alone are part of the Church but their Supper is invalid. Why? Because they change the meaning of the words of institution.

Even if the Hindus added Jesus to the collection of gods, they would not have a valid Supper. Why? Because they change the meaning of the word “He”. If the Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons want to have valid sacraments, they must stop changing the Word of God. At that point, they would have valid sacraments whether they believed the Word or not or were part of the Church or not.

#156 what daniel gorman says. that is the truth.

Are you guys for real? Talk about a hijacked conversation. Lutherans should read Rome’s document on the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals. As for female clergy, it is a quite clear example of a cultural sell-ouut. But it hardly violates natural law.

“If the Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons want to have valid sacraments, they must stop changing the Word of God. At that point, they would have valid sacraments whether they believed the Word or not or were part of the Church or not.”

Hmmm…I wonder if Nadab or Abihu would have a different slant on that.

Ahem! Might I just point out that I CALLED IT!!!

Yes, way back in post 35, yours truly predicted this would be a Top 5 Most Commented contender. As of this comment, this post is #4 !!!!

Culture war RULEZ!!!!

(granted that this thread has touched on a LOT of topics)

Here is a hypothetical.

In the LCMS, we do have women ministers called “deaconesses,” some of whom serve as institutional chaplains. Let’s say such a deaconess/chaplain is present at the deathbed of a patient in a nursing home, and death is imminent. The person is begging for Holy Communion, but there is no pastor present.

What happens if the deaconess/chaplain grabs the elements out of the chapel, says the words of institution over the bread and wine, and gives this to the dying person.

Is this a real communion? And if it is, why should the LCMS say this is improper. In fact, if it is a valid communion and brings comfort to the dying (catechism: “in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given…”), maybe the LCMS should actually train deaconesses to do this as part of their ministry.

Can anyone who believes this to be a valid sacrament make an argument why the deaconess ought to allow the person to die without it?

And if this a valid communion and proper, what about remote situations where there is no pastor present, but there is a deaconess. Should she at least temporarily assume Word and Sacrament responsibilities in the absence of a pastor? Would it be better to allow people to die without the Gospel than receive it from a woman minister? After all, the argument goes, the person (including his or her status as ordained or lay) is irrelevant since only the words matter.

Ditto for a battlefield situation. Should an LCMS deaconess say a Mass for men and women who are about to go into combat, knowing that there is a very good chance these people will perish?

Beane, not being Lutheran or LCMS, I can’t speak as one with personal experience, but there have been lots of discussions which I’ve seen where it was stated by Lutherans that a communion given by a female is a perfectly valid communion – no reason it shouldn’t be.

I’m not sure why a Lutheran would say a Mass, unless Mass is meant as a generic term for a service of some sort.

From what I understand, it’s not the giving of the Communion which is held to be not proper for a female, but rather the office of the pastor/priest. The pastor is generally the one to give the communion, but I’ve not heard a Lutheran say that a female could not give a perfectly valid Communion.

(the topic has died down, so even though I’m not LCMS I’m answering in the probably vain hope that eventually this thread will reach the number 3 spot in Most Commented)

Dear Webmonk:

Regarding the Mass, we confess with our Apology of the Augsburg Confession (to which we Lutherans are bound):

“In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession 24:1)

So, it isn’t a generic service, but rather a specific service of both Word and Sacrament, of both preaching and the Lord’s Supper. We Lutherans claim historic continuity from the pre-reformation Church, and decry novelty in doctrine and practice: (“no novelty has been introduced which did not exist in the church from ancient times, and … no conspicuous change in the public ceremonies of the Mass…” (Augsburg Confession 24:40).

And we “introduce nothing, either in doctrine or ceremonies, that is contrary to Holy Scripture or the universal Christian Church” (conclusion of the Augsburg Confession).

Certainly, lay-communion and female clergy fall into the categories of novelty and contrariness to the universal Church – not to mention Scripture.

Also, according to our confessions (Augsburg Confession Article 15) it isn’t just “generally” that an ordained (rite vocatus) pastor is to officiate at the Lord’s Supper, it’s something we are bound to by confession.

I know other churches have other customs, but we Lutherans are bound to the Book of Concord because it is a correct exposition of Holy Scripture.

And you have indeed heard a Lutheran say that “a female could not give a perfectly valid communion.” That’s exactly what I’m saying. 🙂 I’m not the only one saying it. It is the question that Dr. Veith raised in the first place. Unfortunately, we’re immersed in a secular culture of feminism and the largest American Lutheran body has female clergy – so we are a minority voice in not “ordaining” women. And even within the church bodies that don’t ordain women, there are novelties, such as lay-female-consecration (in the WELS) and the idea that many in the LCMS have that says the Word spoken without authority is still efficacious.

I don’t buy it any more than I believe a parrot, a Buddhist priest, or an MP3 player can consecrate the Lord’s Supper. I believe it is a matter of authority, and that the Lord established the office of the ministry to carry out this apostolic authority – in the same way that the office of the U.S. presidency has the authority to sign bills from congress and enact laws – whereas I have no such authority.

I hope this clarifies my side of the argument a bit!

Rev. Larry Beane asks, “Is this a real communion?” Undoubtably!

Rev. Larry Beane asks, “Can anyone who believes this to be a valid sacrament make an argument why the deaconess ought to allow the person to die without it?”

If deaconess cannot find a male minister in time, she should give the dying person absolution for all his sins. In the Sacrament of Repentance as in Sacrament of the Altar, the dying person receives forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

Rev. Larry Beane asks, “And if this a valid communion and proper, what about remote situations where there is no pastor present, but there is a deaconess. Should she at least temporarily assume Word and Sacrament responsibilities in the absence of a pastor? Would it be better to allow people to die without the Gospel than receive it from a woman minister?”

In the unlikely event there are no Christian men, a deaconess may preach and baptize.

Rev. Larry Beane asks, “Ditto for a battlefield situation. Should an LCMS deaconess say a Mass for men and women who are about to go into combat, knowing that there is a very good chance these people will perish?”

See above.

Dear Daniel:

You are answering questions I never asked.

The church has always recognized emergency baptism and absolution.

The question involves the propriety of a woman minister saying the words of institution over bread and wine, and giving that to a dying person and calling it the body and blood of Christ.

I say it is beyond improper for a layman of either sex (including deaconesses or other women ministers) to do this.

Larry (@165), first of all, I’m pretty certain you meant to say (@163) the 14th article of the Augsburg Confession.

Second of all, since the Lutheran Confessions are held to because they explicate the Word of God, I wonder what passage one would point to in Scripture that is the basis for this 14th article — that is, where in the Bible does it say that only ordained pastors can distribute the Sacraments?

Finally, what is the meaning of the phrase “regularly called”? Is it true that one is only called if he has gone to seminary and goes by the title of “Pastor”? Or do churches call many people to fill many positions, even if they are “laymen”?

Dear Todd:

“Regularly called” is a literal translation of “rite vocatus” – which is a medieval legal term for ordination. The word “rite” is the adverb form of “ritus” – which is the English word “rite.” We have no exact equivalent in English, so the word “rite” means something like “by the rite” or “according to the rite.”

As far as defending Article 14 goes, there is not a single prooftext. We Lutherans don’t do theology that way. There is, however, a tapestry of doctrinal passages throughout Scripture that establishes a pattern of authority being granted – as well as the examples of Jesus giving the Holy Spirit specifically to the apostles, and the apostles ordaining (“laying hands on”) other men to pass along this authority their received from our Lord.

There are also examples of usurped authority. Korah in the Old Testament and Simon Magus of the New Testament come to mind. A good example of a woman trying to usurp authority (and the consequence) can be found in the passage about Miriam complaining to Moses along the lines of “Who do you think you are?” and then claiming authority she was not given.

For Lutherans, it is not necessary to defend Article XIV – unless one doesn’t believe it and feels the need to have it proven. We Lutherans (especially pastors) have already sworn an oath that we believe the confessions “because” they are the Word of God.

In other words, to defend Article 14 for the benefit of Lutherans is like feeling the need to prove the Trinity to people who already claim to be Christians.

If a person doesn’t believe Article XIV, he is not, by definition, a Lutheran.

Larry (@167), I wonder if this is how you would answer someone in your own congregation, should they have the same question as I did: “If you ask, you aren’t even a Lutheran! So which is it, do you have a question, or are you a Lutheran?”

None of your response actually answers my question, anyhow, which was about the Sacraments. The passages in Scripture that deal with the Sacraments — especially Holy Communion — are not all that many in number, and in none of them can I remember the instruction being given that only ordained men perform them. I would hope it would be obvious that a description of things being done to or for the Apostles is not equal to a prescription that such things only be done by Apostles or those in what you apparently describe as the apostolic succession.

Then, too, there is the interesting question of how it is that Ananias — described as a “disciple” — baptized Paul, who would later describe himself as an “apostle”. Was Ananias wrong to do so? Or must you posit that Ananias had had hands laid on him (though I see no basis for such an assertion)?

One also wonders about the passage (in Mark 9 or Luke 9) in which the disciples ask Jesus about those usurping authority, as it were:

“Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

Exorcism is not Holy Communion.

Larry (@169), you seem to enjoy not answering my questions. Am I wasting my time in asking you them?

Yes, “Exorcism is not Holy Communion.” I quoted Mark 9 to you in response to your references to Korah, Simon Magus, et al. — which, you’ll notice, are also stories that are not about Holy Communion. So what is your point, then?

You have done nothing to answer my question on the Biblical foundations of the claim that only ordained (laid-on by hands?) ministers can administer Holy Communion (or baptism). I’m not sure you want to.

Dear Todd:

Exorcism is a prayer for deliverance. Anyone can pray for a demon to leave. I think ordination helps, because it is part of the pastoral vocation to cast out demons, but again, it is a form of prayer. Preaching and administering sacraments is given to men under authority (Matt 28, John 20). There are no examples from Scripture of a woman officiating at holy communion, nor are there examples from the history of the church.

As far as whether or not you are wasting your time, I’m the wrong guy to ask. Your time is your time. I think the NFL is largely a waste of time – and I’m greatly outnumbered on that. 🙂

But here is the issue:

I have no idea if you are a Lutheran or not. That makes a big difference as to how I answer the question. I mean, if you accept Article 14, we have common ground to discuss the issue in that context. If you are not a Lutheran, we don’t have AC14 as a common ground to discuss the issue. Heck, I don’t even know if you are a Christian or not – and to a non-Christian, there would even be less common ground to discuss the issue.

But if you are a Lutheran (as Dr. Veith, who raised the initial question in the first place is), then the question cannot be whether or not the Lutheran confessions assert that only ordained pastors may administer holy communion. Because they do. And we Lutherans are bound by it. That means we don’t have to run down a red herring of trying to define AC14.

My original hypothetical involved an LCMS deaconess. It is within the context of Lutheranism that I posed it. A Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, or non-denominational Christian will, of course, give a very different answer. We have differing theologies of sacraments and of the ministry. In fact, Holy Communion is an entirely different thing to our brothers and sisters in Christ from those traditions.

So, if you are not a Lutheran, you are not constrained by Article 14 as we are. And it is a fair question as to why Article 14 reads the way it does, and why Lutherans believe in Article 14. But that is a different subject than the one I raised, and I’m afraid I can’t give you a short answer. The entire Lutheran theology of the office of the holy ministry can’t be presented in a single blog comment or with a nice and tidy chapter and verse. The best way to understand it from our context is to read the explanation in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession – which is a further explanation of the AC itself.

We Lutherans use the Book of Concord as a creedal statement, and to us, it is no more subject to discussion than having to recreate the argument for the Nicene Creed. Questions regarding the assertions made by the Nicene Creed and the Augsburg Confession are closed.

The hypothetical I raised is mainly for my fellow LCMS Lutherans to consider. Given what the Lutheran confessions teach, assuming that we all accept the Bible and the Book of Concord, should the LCMS deaconess say a Mass in an emergency situation? And if she did, would it be valid?

My question is to those Lutherans who argue for validity – if this is the case, why in God’s name would we prohibit a woman minister from saying Mass in an emergency?

In order to be consistent in my hypothetical example, we either: 1) Have a woman minister say Mass (which flies in the face of 2,000 years of doctrine and practice as well as our confessions), 2) deny a valid Mass to a dying person (which would seem cruel and legalistic), or 2) accept that there is no valid Mass said by a deaconess (which is more consistent with the Church universal from all times and places).

I hope this helps.

Rev. Larry Beane-165 opines, “You are answering questions I never asked.” You’re welcome.

Rev. Larry Beane opines, “The church has always recognized emergency baptism and absolution.”

Are they efficacious because a real emergency exists or because the Word of God is always efficacious? Let’s suppose a congregation and its rightly called and ordained male minister ask laywomen to publicly preach, lector, baptize, absolve, and consecrate the elements, Which of those Word and Sacrament ministries, if any, would be efficacious? If some are efficacious but not others, why?

The LCMS has traded in the sound doctrines of the efficacy of word and sacrament, AC V, and the regular call, AC XIV, for a papist/anabaptist doctrine of delegated efficacy (i.e., the word and sacrament become efficacious when delegated to laymen and laywomen by the voter’s assembly and/or the minister).

Dear Daniel:

The Word is efficacious. But at the same time, our confessions deny the concept of ex opere operato.

The Lord has always placed ministers of some sort (prophets, priests, pastors) to be authorized agents of His Word. And at the same time, the Church has indeed always recognized emergency baptism. In extraordinary (life and death) situations, baptized Christians are authorized to be ministers of baptism. In such cases, they indeed have authority. Under normal circumstances, I have no authority to perform surgery, but as a medical layman, if someone is choking to death, I could (if I knew how) legally perform a tracheotomy. This is not an airtight analogy by any means, but it is a parallel situation.

Of course, those who want to tear down the office of the physician may try to leverage this emergency surgery doctrine into some sort of “everyone a surgeon” philosophy. Lest we forget, baptism and surgery are not about power, but about saving lives. It is the Lord who places people into offices – be they doctors or pastors. God only allows men to be pastors, and only some of them. Don’t blame me for this. It was like that when I got here.

This is one of the great things about being Lutheran. We don’t make up new doctrines. The idea of laymen (male of female) consecrating the sacrament of the altar is not an issue for us because it has never been an issue in the history of the Church. It is just not done. We don’t need an explicit rule against it because it is not even on the radar screen. In all of the historic branches of Christianity (those that recognize the Real Presence), they both recognize emergency lay baptism, and at the same time, have no provision for lay consecration. This is the historic practice of the Church, and this is also spelled out in our confessions.

It is only in the modern era of democracy and feminism that the desire for a Quakerist or Feminist understanding of the ministry of the Word and Sacraments is being pushed. This is not coming from Scripture, but from the culture.

Even in our hymnal we see this theology made alive in the real world. LSB 1023 has the rite and rubrics for emergency baptism. One of my members (a female layman) conducted one that is today recognized by the Roman Catholic Church – as they always were in the pre-Reformation Church. At the same time, there is no discussion of lay Masses in the modern RC Church, nor was there in our mutual ancestral pre-Reformation Church.

Our Lutheran orders of worship also traditionally recognize two distinct formulas of absolution. When led by a pastor, the formula is in the first person and is spoken of on behalf of Christ (by virtue of the pastor’s office). On the other hand, the lay version is a declaration of grace as opposed to a speaking with authority by virtue of the office. And when no ordained pastor is present, the service concludes without Holy Communion. Our historic liturgy reflects our doctrine.

It’s not me opining these things, this is our Lutheran (Evangelical Catholic) doctrine. I understand having to explain, or even defend it, to non-Lutherans, but how sad that in this day and age, we seem to have to explain, justify, and re-prove again and again the articles of faith our pastors and congregations have voluntarily bound themselves to!

It sounds like Daniel Gorman isn’t objecting to any of the articles of the BOC, just to your interpretation of them.

Dear Webmonk:

You’re absolutely right that interpretation can be a tricky business. Those who “ordain” women read the same Bible that we do, but they do interpret it differently. The Mormons read the same Bible but with a different interpretation.

I certainly don’t want to speak for Daniel, but as for me, I’m not giving “my” interpretation, but rather the historic Church’s interpretation. It baffles me why my wife is disqualified from holding the office of the ministry and consecrating Holy Communion. It makes no logical sense. I don’t understand it, but I submit to it. I trust that God knows what He is doing and is smarter than I am (and yes, I’m setting the bar pretty low here :-). And I believe it would be a disservice to God’s Word for me to go scoping for loopholes and seeking to break the universal traditional interpretation of the Church for the sake of my own personal opinions and more culturally-satisfying outcomes.

Having non-ordained people “consecrate” the Lord’s Supper or having women “ordained” are both recent innovations that were simply not done in the near 20 centuries of church history, some five centuries of which our churches have been confessing the Book of Concord. They are just the kind of sectarian aberrations that our Book of Concord decries. I think it is “chronological snobbery” (per C.S. Lewis) to suggest we’re somehow more enlightened than our fathers and mothers in the faith.

It is the same with the homosexual agenda’s interpretation of Scripture that either excuses, or even celebrates, sinful expressions of sexuality. Just because such interpretations exist do not give them legitimacy. It is a difficult thing these days to convince people that the interpretations of the past are not to be done away with simply because the culture has changed.

Yes, yes. I’m sure you aren’t giving your interpretation of Article XIV. You are merely stating what the historic church meant by it.

Run Daniel and tODD. You guys obviously have no business calling yourself Lutherans because you disagree with what Beane says is the historic understanding of Art XIV. Beane has shown the true interpretation, all others beware.

Rev. Larry Beane opines, “The Word is efficacious. But at the same time, our confessions deny the concept of ex opere operato.” Yes, faith is required to rightly receive the efficacious word! But nothing besides faith. Sola fide!

Rev. Larry Beane opines, “This is one of the great things about being Lutheran. We don’t make up new doctrines.”

We (meaning LCMS, ELS, WELS, ELCA, etc.) make up new doctrines all the time. For example, all the major synods allow lay reading of scripture in public service and lay distribution of the Supper. Yes, the historic church allowed such aberrations but they are clearly contrary to AC XIV.

Rev. Larry Beane opines, “The idea of laymen (male of female) consecrating the sacrament of the altar is not an issue for us because it has never been an issue in the history of the Church. It is just not done. We don’t need an explicit rule against it because it is not even on the radar screen. In all of the historic branches of Christianity (those that recognize the Real Presence), they both recognize emergency lay baptism, and at the same time, have no provision for lay consecration. This is the historic practice of the Church, and this is also spelled out in our confessions.”

The Papists have lay reading, lay distribution, lay people administering communion at hospitals, and even lay consecration when they can’t find a Priest. But, of course, they are not bound to the AC XIV like we are.

You didn’t answer my question regarding the efficacy of public, non-emergency administration of word and sacrament ministry. But thanks anyway.

Rev. Larry Beane opines, “Our Lutheran orders of worship also traditionally recognize two distinct formulas of absolution. When led by a pastor, the formula is in the first person and is spoken of on behalf of Christ (by virtue of the pastor’s office). On the other hand, the lay version is a declaration of grace as opposed to a speaking with authority by virtue of the office. And when no ordained pastor is present, the service concludes without Holy Communion. Our historic liturgy reflects our doctrine.”

Yes, our historic liturgy does reflect our doctrine. Unfortunately, the historic liturgy has been tossed out along with our doctrine (AC XI). Congregational absolution is a recent invention (circa 1941). The lay (a recent invention) version was said by the pastor with or without communion before 1941.

Lay reading and distribution (which were done in the ancient church as well) are not consecration.

Where was lay consecration ever done in the ancient church? I’m open to changing my mind if someone can show an example instead of just sharing private snarky opinions.

The modern Roman Church most certainly does not have lay consecration. If this is not right, please correct me with a citation of canon law, a historic example, something said by a pope – anything. When RC lay people bring the sacrament to hospitals, it has already been consecrated by a priest. Some Lutherans likewise have deacons bring pre-consecrated elements to the sick. Having a lay person consecrate is ahistorical and simply contrary to our confessions – even if it is done, that does not make it in accordance with our (ironically-called) Book of Concord.

I do not believe lay consecration is efficacious. This is what our fathers in the faith have taught us. I think it is a Korah-like usurpation of the office. I base this on the fact that the office of the ministry is divinely established and it is confessed in the BOC. A lot of people disagree – including some Christians. But I’m sticking with the historic position – which is the default Lutheran position – if you believe the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession.

And the assertion that the “lay absolution” is post-1941 is simply wrong. Look at the ancient Confiteor in the Office of Compline. The laity give a form of absolution stated as a prayer (not in the first person). This has been in the Western liturgy since the days of St. Benedict. The preliminary rite of absolution in our modern Divine Service is a reworked Confiteor.

Dear WebMonk:

You write:

“Run Daniel and tODD. You guys obviously have no business calling yourself Lutherans because you disagree with what Beane says is the historic understanding of Art XIV. Beane has shown the true interpretation, all others beware.”

That’s exactly what our brethren and sistren in the ELCA say about us when we in the LCMS, WELS, RCC, EO, and conservative Protestant bodies assert that the Bible prohibits female ordination. How dare we say the Bible (or the Confessions) can’t be twisted around to say it can mean anything we want it to? How dare we assert that a text can indeed have a concrete meaning? Why, how offensively unpostmodern of us!

And again, if someone has evidence that AC 14 means that laypeople have the authority from Jesus to consecrate, especially with some historic evidence to back up this interpretation, I’m all ears. If someone can show me where the ancient church practiced emergency lay-communion and if someone can show me examples of lay-consecration in the Lutheran confessions, I will be happy to change my mind on this.

Rev. Larry Beane opined, “Lay reading and distribution (which were done in the ancient church as well) are not consecration.”

“Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” AC XIV

Please note that the AC XIV doesn’t say “no one should publicly consecrate the Holy Supper unless he be regularly called.” All lay public teaching and administration of the Sacraments is prohibited by the AC.

I concede that the Fathers sometimes erred (although not as often as you imply) by permitting lay teaching and distribution of communion. The Lutheran church corrected most of these abuses until they were reintroduced into many Lutheran churches in the latter half of the 20th century.

Rev. Larry Beane opined, “The modern Roman Church most certainly does not have lay consecration. If this is not right, please correct me with a citation of canon law, a historic example, something said by a pope – anything.”

The practice was winked at. A Pope issued a statement deploring lay consecration and calling for reform. You can look it up on the internet.

Rev. Larry Beane opined, “And the assertion that the “lay absolution” is post-1941 is simply wrong. Look at the ancient Confiteor in the Office of Compline. The laity give a form of absolution stated as a prayer (not in the first person). This has been in the Western liturgy since the days of St. Benedict. The preliminary rite of absolution in our modern Divine Service is a reworked Confiteor.”

You are technically wrong. The Confiteor wasn’t “lay” until it was reassigned to the laity after 1941. In the Middle Ages, the Confiteor was spoken by a priest (See “The Lutheran Liturgy”, Reed, 1947, p. 245). The Confiteor has never been an “absolution.” It was and is a Declaration of Grace (See “A Manual on Worship”, Strodach, 1946, p. 200) not the Sacrament of Repentance. The Confiteor should not be publicly taught by a layman (“no one should publicly teach . . .unless he be regularly called.” AC XIV).

Dear Daniel:

You write:

“You can look it up on the internet.”

Yes, indeed. Unicorns too. Maybe you could be a little more specific? I think the burden of proof is on you when you make a statement like this. Your claim that “The practice is winked at” does not answer my request for “a citation of canon law, a historic example, something said by a pope – anything.”

You write:

“You are technically wrong. The Confiteor wasn’t “lay” until it was reassigned to the laity after 1941. In the Middle Ages, the Confiteor was spoken by a priest (See “The Lutheran Liturgy”, Reed, 1947, p. 245). The Confiteor has never been an “absolution.” It was and is a Declaration of Grace (See “A Manual on Worship”, Strodach, 1946, p. 200) not the Sacrament of Repentance. The Confiteor should not be publicly taught by a layman (”no one should publicly teach . . .unless he be regularly called.” AC XIV).”

The Confiteor was not “reassigned to the laity in 1941.” The Order of Compline doesn’t even appear in the 1941 hymnal. In the ancient Order of Compline used in monasteries, the lay monks would indeed speak a declarative form of absolution – more accurately, a prayer for the absolution of the one leading the office. That’s the very point I was making. It is different than that of the priest who is authorized by his office to absolve in the first person on behalf of Christ. Of course, any Christian can, may, and should tell people about the forgiveness of sins and pray for his brethren. But both God-pleasing offices, pastor and laity, have different roles in the Kingdom. “Everyone a minister” is nonsense.

We make liturgical distinctions between the ordained and non-ordained all the time in our rubrics. In LSB, there is a distinction between the liturgical elements assigned to pastors (P) and leaders (L).

Can you show me any ancient or modern texts in which the Words of Institution are ever assigned an L instead of a P?

And I will not accept “look it up on the internet” as a scholarly satisfying answer.

As a postscript, the reason why the Roman Catholic Church denies the validity of Lutheran Masses is because they deny the validity of our orders. In Roman Catholic theology, no priestly orders = no Mass. See *The Catechism of the Catholic Church* 1142, 1399, 1400, and especially 1411: “Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

According to RC doctrine, we Lutheran pastors do not have the power to confect the Mass, because according to RC canon law, we are considered laymen lacking valid orders.

There is no provision for lay-consecration in the RC Church, there was no provision for it in the pre-Reformation church to which both Lutherans and Roman Catholics trace their heritage, and there is no provision for it in the Book of Concord.

Bother. I tried to get it up to the #3 spot, but I guess it wasn’t to be.