Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Why are they in the LCMS?

Today the 30 lb brick known as the Convention Workbook 2007 landed in my lap today (typing in falsetto). I have only quickly gone through the Theology and Church Relations section. In just a quick run through I noticed a single church kept popping up with the weirdest of resolutions such as 3-67 To Restudy and Provide for Ordination of Women
Whereas: The LCMS does not currently ordain women to the holy ministry because of its interpretation of selected NT passages such as 1 Tim. 2:11-14; which speak of women learning in silence, not teaching, and having "authority" over males; and
Whereas: Some lay people and pastors within the Synod are convinced that these passages address cultural issues and reflect the practice of an earlier time and are not intended to apply to the role of women in the church today; and
Whereas: The Gospels identify women as the first witnesses and proclaimers of the resurrection - a task assigned to the apostles (Mt 28:28; Lk24:9-10; Jn 20:18)
Whereas: St Paul speaks of unity in Christ that transcends gender among all who are baptized (Gal 3:27-28)
Whereas: Many women who serve as pastors in other denominations have demonstrated such gifts as preaching, teaching, counseling, and presiding at worship, therefore be it
Resolved: that the LCMS gathered in convention request the CTCR to restudy the biblical and theological basis for ordaining women, and be it further
Resolved, That the most recent edition of a study response written by Rev Arnie Voigt, which addresses biblical interpretation with in the context of LCMS concerns in a careful way, be published and distributed to each pastor and congregational president of the synod; and be it finally
Resolved that the delegates at this convention affirm the desire to provide for the ordination of women as soon as possible.
Coronado, CA
Now, I am not going to take the time to refute all the points in detail because that would make for a long post and be off my topic.
Why are these people still in the LCMS? They obviously do not agree with us doctrinally so why are they sticking around? Would they not be much happier in anything goes ELCA? I will be honest that in I firmly believe this constitutes public proclamation of error and that Resurrection should be censured and their continued membership in the LCMS should be revoked should they not repent of their error.


Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

Having been in the Pacific Southwest District, I can unfortunately say I am aware of this congregation and of their heretical pastor. He made an active attempt about five years ago to get the only confessional pastor in San Diego proper kicked out of his congregation. Fortunately, the new DP, who is known to be *moderate* took the side of the pastor, as he should've done, and as his predecessor of the same theological stance would've done. He stood up for the sanctity of the call. However, no church discipline was administered either.

The main reason why Resurrection is still in the LCMS is that they consider it their mission to bring the LCMS to enlightenment. Also, one of the things that prevents liberal churches from going to the ELCA is that the church would have to sign their property over to them. When you are talking about Coronado, you are talking about some of the priciest real estate in the country, if not the world. Just by refinancing the property every once in a while could finance their chosen "mission" nicely.

As to why they haven't been thrown out and their pastor defrocked - it is unclear to what degree the district and the higher ups in Synod agree with them or choose to ignore them. It is also unclear how much they donate.

Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

BTW, to alleviate the shock value...they've been submitting these resolutions for years.

What should be shocking, is that confessional resolutions do not even make the book (because the CTCR has spoken), while these continually do (but yet, the CTCR has spoken).

Dr. Luther in the 21st Century said...

This is my first time receiving the workbook so I did not know. Some how I am not surprised. Maybe it is time for those of us who still believe in the Word of God to stand up and say no more.

jWinters said...

This is interesting stuff. Before I get too into this, let me just state that I'm male-only clergy all the way. Having read the CTCR document on this issue, however, it appears that some of our exegesis is a little less than sharp sometimes. These folks from Resurrection have exegesis that is much worse (Galatians 3 isn't about pastoral ministry, and just because you were the first witness of the resurrection doesn't mean you're suddenly a pastor). If nothing else, this could open up discussion to make the LCMS position more clear and defensible.

Dr. Luther in the 21st Century said...

I am right there with you on our position being less than clear. It really amazed me when they did not listen to the men they called to teach exegesis when they complained about the CTCR's oversight of the Order of Creation. I have an idea based on creation, specifically on the marriage of man and woman being the image of God. I am going to use this to get off my fat caboose and finally develop my thoughts and submit them for publication.