Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: math1h3@jetson.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Sexism in the church?? Message-ID: Date: 2 May 91 09:40:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 150 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > In article , > CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes: > >> I believe that the most common error about callings is to >> assume that they are more specific than they really are. >> The Lord summons someone to serve him, but the calling does >> not usually have a "high precision" as to the exact function > > I am not certain I agree to this. I have no personal experience of a > "vocation" of the kind I hear seminarians talk about, so my comments > are entirely second hand. But I have heard some of them (a minority) > describe a strong resistance, a la Jonah, on their own part to what > winds up as a specifically sacerdotal call -- often they have TRIED > to meet (their initial understanding of) the call by various secular > and lay forms of ministry, or even religious orders (monastic or more > secular ones like the Franciscan) -- only to find themselves drowning > or in the belly of a fish [speaking allegorically :-)]. > I'd like to comment here. My own belief on this matter is that the Lord calls someone to the ministry through the church. Just as the Word is preached through the church, so also the Lord calls people to his service through the church. The church trains people for various forms of service: preaching, teaching, etc., and then extends the Lord's call. Now if a woman says that she feels she has been called to the preaching ministry, I think there are valid reasons to say that she has not. The Lord does not contradict himself; and God's Word is particularly clear on this point: a woman should learn in quietness and full submission, and not act as a man's master-teacher. (1 Timothy 2:11,12). If a woman claims to have been called to the preaching ministry, then first of all she claims to have a new revelation that contradicts the revelation we already have. We should reject her as a false spirit, as would the Bereans. > [While I agree that not all scenarios of compelling the unwilling are > realistic, some probably will happen. The Presbyterian Church (USA), > of which I'm an elder, has some experience with moving to a policy of > ordination of women. We do not impose female pastors on unwilling > churches. However we do require that officers of the church -- > specifically including pastors -- be willing to work with and > participate in ordination of female officers. When our position was > newer, this did result in some difficult situations. We did refuse to > ordain people if it became apparent that they would not be able to > ordain and work with female officers in their church. Furthermore, we > expect local churches to elect female elders and deacons. We do not > impose it on them -- it is treated pastorally rather than coercively, > and it can take years before the first female elder is elected -- but > we do expect it to happen, and some congregations have felt that they > are being pressured to violate their conscience. It's hard to see how > one can make a decision to allow ordination of women without having at > least some situations like this arise. --clh] I also want to comment on the question of central control vs. the local congregation. I think the real question is, what is the church? Luther once wrote (Smalcald Articles, article XII):" ... thank God, a seven-year old child knows what the church is, namely, holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd." The church is a body of believers gathered together on the basis of a common confession of faith. God wants the church to be perfectly united in doctrine, for as Paul wrote: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you in mind and thought." -- 1 Cor 1:10. The church is to avoid those who teach false doctrine: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." - Romans 16:17-18. So, for me, the question is not at all one of central authority. It is a question of fellowship. No authority can tell me what to believe, and expect me to obey. My faith is between me and the Lord. But you can decide for yourself whether to practice fellowship with me, and similarly I can decide for myself whether to practice fellowship with you. I speak here in a human sense. If we are agreed in doctrine, and we are both Christians, then there is no option -- it is God's will that we have fellowship. But if I discover that your are teaching false doctrine, and you refuse to repent, then it is my responsibility to avoid you, and not practice fellowship. The problem of central authority imposing its will against the congregation is usually only a problem on matters that are at least perceived as doctrinal by one side. The unfortunate thing is that in some denominations, the local congregation is not free to leave the fellowship of the denomination unless it gives up its property. In other words, the denomination owns the congregation. Strangely, we find this in denominations like the PCUSA that do not consider themselves to be 'doctrinal'. If there is no unity in doctrine, then what is the spiritual or rational basis for central authority? Who supports whom? Usually the local congregation supports the denomination, not the other way around! (I don't mean to pick on the PCUSA, it's just that as a matter of personal history, I have more familiarity with them than with others). The only real threat that a church can hold against an individual or group is : "We refuse to have fellowship with you". Of course implicit in such a statement is a belief the group consists of `heathens and tax collectors' (gasp! :-) ) Shouldn't such a threat be enough? This brings me to another point. Why do churches find it advisable or attractive to constrain people against their will? When a denomination decides to ordain women to the preaching ministry, why do they want to constrain congregations that disagree and may continue to make trouble? A similar situation exists in my own church. If a pastor leaves the ministry before retirement, he forfeits his (miserly) pension.(I believe this is correct). I would think that if we had some pastor who wanted to leave us for some church not in fellowship with us, then we ought to let him go and not give him an incentive to stay and make trouble. Unfortunately, some (most?) people cannot stand to see good money go to a man they see as bad. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran new mail address: DWagner@uh.edu [The theory proposed by the constitution of the PCUSA is that a larger group of Christians is less likely to be misled than a smaller one. Indeed the way the constitution is written, one could argue that we might have to be bound by decisions of a general council, if such a thing ever becomes possible, and possibly even by decisions of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. (The World Alliance doesn't normally try to dictate to its individual members, but a few years ago it tried the South African church for heresy because of apartheid. I've sometimes wondered whether some of the changes in South Africa could be traced to that.) This does seem to have some benefits in practice. Now and then churches fall apart into warring parties. In a number of cases, presbyteries have been able to intervene and heal the situation, whereas in a church with a congregational polity, the church would probably either split or continue in an unhealthy state. I think it's this sort of situation where the connectional polity is useful, more than one where a church has doctrinal disagreements with the denomination. Note that in the merger with the southern church, an escape clause was left so that churches that suddenly find themselves in a denomination with different policies on ordination could leave with their property. Actually I think the PCUSA is more "doctrinal" than some people realize. I spent a number of years as a Methodist when I was growing up. My parents were active in the denomination, so I ended up knowing what was going on at levels above just the local church. The PCUSA seems noticably more doctrinal. While we no longer follow the Westminster confession word for word, we take the reformed theological tradition seriously. --clh]