The ELCA: “Another Sodomite Sect”

The biographical notes on my Touchstone writings have for years noted my theological training at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. I found this meant I was frequently mistaken for a Lutheran, which I am not, so in 2005 I wrote an explanatory note on this site which included these remarks:

 . . . . because my own theological viewpoint is as opposed to the liberal Lutheranism of that school as it could possibly be, it is most unlikely that the Lutheran School of Theology, if it is paying attention at all, is pleased to have its name appear next to mine on the pages of a magazine like Touchstone--so here I do it the service of issuing a disclaimer on its behalf.

In another sense, however, I regard myself as a true son of that institution. People like me, who manage to squeak out of mainline academies, are, I often think, products and representatives of the prayers and gifts of the faithful who gave to those schools with the understanding that a considerably different gospel than moves groups like the ELCA and its flagship seminary was being taught there. It is not, after all, your grandfather's (well, at least your great-grandfather's) Lutheranism that is promulgated by the typical seminary of that synod, but something far more, shall we say, evolved. 

Well, there comes a time when even such tenuous ties must be severed, when any fraternal association with the ELCA must be renounced. This month the delegates to its biennial convention approved a resolution that urged all denominational leaders not to discipline (as it has in the past, in accordance with church rules) sexually active homosexual clergy in “faithful committed same-gender relationships.” 

Of course, we are seeing a great deal of effort on the part of ELCA officials, who obviously fear the effects of this resolution on church life and funding, to nuance what this means. But a brief visit to the blogsites of Lutheran homosexual activists makes it clear that they understand its significance. Something immensely important has happened; the floodgate is now in fact open. The ELCA joins a number of other mainline Protestant denominations as, as one Catholic observer put it, just another Sodomite sect. 

No doubt we will now begin to see, as we did in former years among the Episcopalian traditionalists, the embarrassing spectacle of denial, declarations that “I didn’t leave the ELCA, the ELCA left me,” profession of loyalty to something that no longer exists, local resistance, and splintering. People who anticipate a large harvest for the Missouri Synod don’t understand the dynamics of American Lutheranism. I can predict with fair confidence, however, that the (fairly conservative) ELCA majority will continue to slide deeper into the dotard’s sleep of nescience and morbid tolerance that allowed this to happen in the first place, now and then mumbling something unintelligible about the gospel, Lutheran tradition, and evangelical catholicity. I hope I’m wrong, but doubt it. 

One small thing that will happen, however, is that the name of the Lutheran School of Theology, that Urquell of silliness and pretension, that notable sniffer of whatever airs blow from the theological academy of hell, will no longer appear in my biographical note. “Marty,” contrary to one of its advertisements, would not be proud, and we all have our limits.  

Comments

[GL]

People who anticipate a large harvest for the Missouri Synod don’t understand the dynamics of American Lutheranism.

SMH,

I am not Lutheran and I certainly do not "understand the dynamics of American Lutheranism," so I must ask why wouldn't orthodox Lutherans in the ELCA bolt to the LCMS, WELS or other conservative Lutheran denomination? As you indicated as to yourself, "we all have our limits." One would hope that there are orthodox Lutherans in the ELCA who would find the problems they have with the LCMS and WELS less troublesome than what they must now surely have with the ELCA. I am asking this strictly as an outside observer who cannot understand why an orthodox Lutheran would stay in the ELCA when there are alternatives within his own tradition.

[Nick]

I have to admit an interest too...

[Bobby Winters]

There are often very strong ties to fellow members of a local congregation which provide a pull whenever the slide into apostacy provides a push.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"One small thing that will happen, however, is that the name of the Lutheran School of Theology, that Urquell of silliness and pretension, that notable sniffer of whatever airs blow from the theological academy of hell, will no longer appear in my biographical note."

Good for you! Although the Lutheran School of Theology will continue to ask its alumni to contribute $$$ to the school. ;-)

[lcmslutheran]

I would agree. As a former Mo Synod member I have seen many members that had a visceral revulsion for the reigning officers but would not think of leaving. One big reason is worldly and has to do with benefits. Any minister (of the Word or teacher) that leaves the Synod also leaves their medical and retirement benefits. The other reason I see is that tendency of us humans to resist change. Another remark you will hear in ELCA is, "It's better to stay and fight rather than surrender to the evildoers". Mo Synod kids learn that saying from inside the womb onward.

[Occasus]

There are often very strong ties to fellow members of a local congregation which provide a pull whenever the slide into apostacy provides a push.

As a former ELCA Lutheran (now Roman Catholic), I agree. My wife's family is ELCA and as conservative as anyone posting here, but they'll never leave. Too many friends and family to leave behind. We're buffered here in West Michigan by the conservative nature of the area, however.

[Fr. Bill]

I await Brother Hutchens' answer to GL's and Nick's question. If he speaks further, I'd predict that he'll take off from ideas he expressed in the penultimate paragraph of his comments.

Much of what he forecasts to be the protestations of the conservatives within the ELCA are taken directly from the scripts of the conservatives within the Episcopal Church since Gene Robinson's consecration as bishop. The former should look to the latter as to how things will fare with them. The conservatives within the Episcopal Church were for some time an embarrassment to anyone who'd make a claim to being a son of the English Reformation. Now they're becoming an embarrassment to anyone who'd make a claim to being minimally Christian.

From watching the Anglican debacle from the inside for about 15 years now, here's how I'd answer the question with respect to conservatives within the Episcopal Church ...

Yes, we all have limits, but -- like boundaries -- limits have opposing sides. In other words, the conservative Episcopalian who identifies consecrating an active homosexual as bishop (one sort of limit) has just as powerful an aversion to what he'll call "fundamentalism" or "patriarchalism." He's cherry-picked himself a lovely bowl of Episcopal-appearing fruits and resents having to add to it (such as main-streaming homosexuality) or detracting from it (such as rejecting not only homosexuality but also sexual egalitarianism generally). As another Touchstone editor once remarked to me privately (I'm paraphrasing from memory), "Conservative Episcopals, for all their conservatism, are not actually orthodox."

I think it all boils down to an aversion to acknowledging that "I was wrong, decively and disasterously wrong," which keeps conservative Episcopals on the "official" Episcopal reservation. I expect it will turn out the same for "conservatives" within the ELCA.

[Yaknyeti]

My parents' church is conservative ELCA, and while I don't know all the factors that make them lean against the LCMS, here are a few:

- They have no problem with the ordination of women - or, at least, their general teaching authority in the church.
- They believe in open communion (to any baptized believer).
- The ELCA came from a merger of the ELC and ALC some decades ago (1970s?). It's not a huge stretch of some members' imaginations to go back to a separate denomination again, or join the "Free" Lutheran association.

[Gene Godbold]

Every time I read one of these threads, I hear the immortal chorus of one of AC/DCs more popular songs: We're on a hiiiighwaay to Hell...
:-)

I second Fr. Bill's observations about the Episcopal Church. They're lapping the nice ELCA Lutherans, though, in antiChristianity.

[Kevin]

GL & Nick -

There are many reasons ELCA'ers might give for remaining... others have already noted family ties and loyalty to the local congregation.

Geography is another one... a large portion of Lutherans are still congregated in the small towns of the midwest, where there might not be an LCMS option for 25 miles (as is the case with my parent's church).

Also, unless you have an interest in church politics, it's relatively easy to believe that what happens in your (relatively conservative) local church is the norm, rather than the exception. And liberal pastors who value their positions will be cagey about how they approach the issue with their more conservative congregations.

Most, I would guess, however, are willing to stay in part because they believe it when the leadership says that this is "not a change in policy", and that the new guidlines are part of a "loving response" to homosexuals. I think it takes a nearly willful blindness to believe this, but such things happen when the alternative is to leave the congregation where you've been a member for 30 years...

It's really a smart strategy by the revisionists - don't be up front about anything that might upset the conservatives, shift & dissembulate, allow the revisionists to due what they wish in their more liberal synods. Eventually, the membership will age and the next generation, whose morals were influenced much more strongly by the culture than the church, will allow what has for years been de facto practice to finally become official teaching.

- Kevin

(disclosure: I am still officially on the membership of my parent's ELCA church, though we now worship at an LCMS church where we live. I've retained ELCA membership up to this point in order to exert some conservative influence on the board of the local Church Camp, on which I serve. My term is up this year though...)

[labrialumn]

When the 'Seminex boys' left the LCMS (actually, most of them didn't, and appear to be very influential in the Concordias) in 1973 and thereabouts, and precipitated the union between the LCA and the ALC, conservative congregations left -then- and formed the AALC.

Those who stayed in might be traditional, they might have conservative moral motions, but they likely don't have such a strong belief in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture that they would want to join the LCMS, let alone ELS and WELS. I doubt that many would join the AALC. Some might join the Free Lutherans, most will stay in, frogs in the stewpot, a few might leave to form something new.

Fr. Bill, I found out that that is true. The truly orthodox Episcopalians left 30 years ago. The 'conservatives' of today do not accept Biblical authority in practice, even in the matter of homosexuality(!) woman's ordination, and other matters which are too conservative for their social groups (my diagnosis, it might be incorrect) I'm not saying that they aren't fellow believers, but they are sub-orthodox in many cases.

[William Tighe]

As a "Catholic observer" of such things, I would opine, somewhat along the lines of Yankyeti's observation, that perhaps the biggest single stumbling block to bolting the ELCA for the LC-MS (or even more conservative bodies such as the WELS or the ELS) is the widespread support for WO among even quite conservative members of the ELCA. This is quite a contrast with ECUSA, where those who hold most firmly to a traditional Anglo-Catholic view of Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church tend to be those most opposed to WO -- although the great "Achilles Heel" of ECUSA has been the almost total absence of "Conservative Evangelicals" of a Calvinistic mould who, in places where they either abound in Anglicanism (e.g., the Archdiocese of Sydney in Australia and 2 or 3 rural Australian Anglican dioceses) or at least form a recognized constituency (as in the Church of England), generally oppose WO with the same degree of fervor as do conservative Anglo-Catholics, although for totally different reasons. (In America, "Evangelical Episcopalians" tend to be generic wishy-washy "Evangelicals" with charismatic leanings and a taste for liturgy and sacraments, but with no firm views about Church Order and a tendency to favor WO -- just like the grand panjandrum and exemplary figure for so many of them, the late Robert Webber, once of Wheaton College.)

My experience of ELCA Lutherans (which is not inconsiderable) is that even the deeply conservative among them, whether "socially" conservative or "theologically" conservative, or both, have a deep and even aggressive devotion to WO. This can be seen particularly glaringly among the leaders and adherents of the "Evangelical Catholic" movement in the ELCA, such as Carl Braaten, Paul Hinlicky and Frank Senn, who for all of their purported "Catholicity" as regards liturgy, sacraments, church order and (sometimes) vaguely "Romish" aspirations, have always taken the line of "Rome is wrong and will have to recognize that it is wrong" as regards WO. I well remember, as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of this tendency, an article that Frank Senn (pastor of Immanuel ELCA church in Evanston, IL and a premier Lutheran liturgical scholar, as well as "Senior" of a society of Catholic-minded ELCA clergy, the "Society of the Holy Trinity") published in *Lutheran Forum* in 1994 in which he argued that as the ELCA was going to the dogs, increasingly tolerating theological liberalism and moral antinomianism, the "Evangelical Catholics" should take their own initiative to seek a "Lutheran-Rite Church" in communion with Rome. So far, so good, perhaps, but then he went on to declare that a sine qua non for such a goal would be Rome's recognition of "the validity of out Orders, including those of our women pastors" and her acceptance that women would continue to be ordained within such a "Lutheran-Rite" body, even if not in the Catholic church at large.

I remember the amazement with which I read it at the time, and at the powerful delusion under which a man of such intellectual and spiritual gifts must be laboring even to imagine that such a "recognition" could ever be forthcoming from Rome. It is the more remarkable, in that many of the same "Evangelical Catholics" in the ELCA also supported the 1997/1999 "concordat" between the ELCA and ECUSA in full awareness of the doctrinal latitudinarianism and moral degeneracy of the latter body, simply in the belief that the "Catholic Church Order" of ECUSA, if embraced by the ELCA, could somehow further ecumenical "progress" with Rome. Well, now we see, as St. Augustine once wrote about men of a similar cleverness, "Acceperunt mercedem suam vani vanam."

The Missouri Synod has real problems, among them being its bedrock congregationalism, and there are among them liberal organizations such as "Daystar" (which is pro-WO) and "Jesus First" (which promotes an almost-Baptistic idea of congregational autonomy linked with an individualistic pietism and an aversion to anything smacking of "Catholicism" and "sacerdotalism") which are the ecclesiological equivalent of cancer cells in its body; and the Missouri Synod's current leadership might well be characterized as in some respects "neither hot nor cold" -- but for all that it is a genuinely Christian body and one that strived to hold fast to what it has received from the Great Tradition, instead of treading it underfoot with ECUSA and now the ELCA, to the members of both of which bodies Gandalf's admonition, "Fly, you fools!," fully applies.

[David Gray]

>He's cherry-picked himself a lovely bowl of Episcopal-appearing fruits and resents having to add to it (such as main-streaming homosexuality) or detracting from it (such as rejecting not only homosexuality but also sexual egalitarianism generally).

>I would opine, somewhat along the lines of Yankyeti's observation, that perhaps the biggest single stumbling block to bolting the ELCA for the LC-MS (or even more conservative bodies such as the WELS or the ELS) is the widespread support for WO among even quite conservative members of the ELCA.

That's true for those in all denominations which ordain women. Be it PCUSA, UMC, TEC, etc. none have rational basis for resisting the homosexual push once they set aside God's ecclesiastical guidance. Which is why those "conservatives" really aren't all that conservative.

[Lex]

"The ELCA joins a number of other mainline Protestant denominations as, as one Catholic observer put it, just another Sodomite sect."

After all that has happened, it takes a lot of guts for a Catholic to condem other Christian denominations for sexual immorality. Wasn't there just a big settlement the Vatican had to pay because its priests can't keep their hands off little alter boys?

[William Tighe]

Well, Lex, last I heard the Vatican hasn't declared that paedophilia or homosexual activity is an indifferent, or potentially virtuous, practice, which is precisely what the ELCA has done, in an uinderhanded and devious manner. So if your posting has an intelligible point you have failed to make it.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"My experience of ELCA Lutherans (which is not inconsiderable) is that even the deeply conservative among them, whether "socially" conservative or "theologically" conservative, or both, have a deep and even aggressive devotion to WO."

Dr. Tighe is aware of how detrimental I think WO is the spiritual health of the church universal. That being said, I do acknowledge 2 WO church organizations that have been doing well, at least in terms of numbers: One, Assemblies of God, and two, the Willow Creek Churches.

[David Gray]

>After all that has happened, it takes a lot of guts for a Catholic to condem other Christian denominations for sexual immorality.

The RCs haven't declared that sexual immorality is doctrinally acceptable. The ELCA has.

[Kevin]

David -

In fact, the ELCA hasn't explicitly declared homosexual acts doctrinally acceptable... what the assembly did was to recommend that bishops refrain from disciplining pastors who break the rules.

Now in practice, I agree that this ammounts to the same thing, but some members of the assembly must think it doesn't, as they also voted down recomendations to actually change "the rules"...

[GL]

All of our denominations and sects have a human (i.e., fallen) tendency to look the other way and to give a pass for certain sinful behavior. Many of the mainline Protestant denominations have come to *formally* agree to look the other way when the sin is some sort of sexual immorality and some have gone so far as to even deny that some such acts are sins. Sadly, certain high officials in the Roman Catholic Church looked the other way at acts of sodomy by priest. In the evangelical Protestant churches, many have looked the other way at pornography, worldliness, and materialism run amok. We all have reasons to beat our chest and cry, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner" both in our personal lives and as to our own denominations.

The distinction, however, is that looking the away or even denying that certain types of sexual immorality are sins has become the *formal* policy of some denominations. They have not only abdicated their role as disciplinarians, they have become *formally* false teachers.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"They have not only abdicated their role as disciplinarians, they have become *formally* false teachers."

In my personal observations, folks who are *enablers* refuse to acknowledge or accede that they are, in fact, enabling the wrongful behavior. They refuse any responsibility whatsoever as to their role in being complicit to the continuance of the destructive behavior. They would deny fervently that they are aiding and abetting the heresy and/or apostasy, or destructive behavior.

They would proclaim that your interpretation of their silence and tacit approval from that silence is extreme legalism and sinful judgmentalism on your part.

To proclaim that someone has abdicated has abdicated their role as loving disciplinarian and formally becoming a *false* teacher would constitute a grave offense to them, bordering on hate speech.

[Gene Godbold]

I agree with John Chrysostom (among others) that those who are chosen by God to serve His flock have a particularly, um, strenuous path to walk. I'm only a deacon but serving as such for the last six or so years has heightened my awareness of the dangers of sin and the idea that I could affect a lot of lives and the way some people see the religion of the Lord of the Entire Universe if I screw up. Some of these leaders of the church appear to me to take their burden way too lightly. They treat the Body of Christ like it's an institution of man. Heck, maybe that's not even right, as some among them don't even take it as seriously as most men do the source of their livelihood! They relativize this commandment and nullify that one like they are kids playing at tiddliwinks rather than men of God striving against the forces of sin and death. At the very least they seem to have lost any sense of the awful drama and majesty of the enterprise. Some of them need to have some sense slapped into their silly heads.

[Darrel Hoerle]

With my roots in the LCMS, I was very disappointed, but not surprised, to read of this latest development in the ELCA. Given their unequal yoking with the Episcopal Church, among other things, it was probably all but inevitable. This is another of those cases where I find myself quoting G.K. Chesterton:

"At least six times during the last few years, I have found myself in a situation in which I should certainly have become a Catholic, if I had not been restrained from that rash step by the fortunate accident that I was one already." (The Well and the Shallows)

[peter speckhard]

I just covered the LCMS convention in Houston for Forum Letter and was struck particularly with the social statements that passed overwhelmingly. One prevents any LCMS affiliated organization from participating in foster-child placements or adoptions into homosexual contexts. Another merely asks ths synod to publicize its anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research stance while making known its support for adult stem cell research. Quite a contrast to the ELCA, though I suspect it is true that Women's Ordination and literal six-day Creationism will prevent most conservative ELCA pastors from fleeing to the LCMS. But a lot of laymen will, especially after 2009. Just a prediction.

[Fr Dave Poedel, STS]

Small correction to William Tighe's post above: The Society of the Holy Trinity is made up of clergy from ELCA, LCMS (I are one), and a few Canadian and Australian members.

[Jared Rakness]

One other consideration is that many of the ELCA's clergy won't have a problem with the decisions of the CWA. The statistic that I've heard from Skip Sunberg are that if the ELCA split into two denominations, 70% of the clergy would go with 30% of the congregations/members, this being the more liberal side of the church. So many of the congregations may not hear about this because of the leadership of the clergy, or if they do it will be spun into something positive. Just a thought.

[James A. Altena]

"'Marty,' contrary to one of its advertisements, would not be proud, and we all have our limits."

Perhaps instead of Martin Luther, they meant Martin Marty? :-)

[smh]

There is little I can add to Dr. Tighe's commentary. I have never been able to understand the phenomenon of ELCA Lutherans with what we might call orthodox sensibilities, and from whose lips the profession of evangelical catholicism is never far, who simply see no problems with women's ordination, who speak as though it were an insignificant matter that the rest of the church will soon enough come to its senses on, and which can be virtually ignored as an ecumenical problem. But then again, the logic and fundamental theological ratio of Lutheranism itself--after studying its dogmatics for years--remains opaque to me as well--unless it is explained in terms of a tribal ethos in which the characteristically Lutheran beliefs stand less for a reasoned exposition of biblical doctrine than a symbol of ethnic identity and solidarity.

I would be willing to take that idea and run with it at least a little way, since it helps to explain why so many non-LCMS Lutherans find the "Prussian" atmosphere of that Synod--or so I have heard it described more than once--so repellent that they would sooner become Catholics than join it.

That is the other factor I had in mind. A Lutheran is not simply a Lutheran, but a certain kind of Lutheran, with a family background, an ethnic heritage, and a way of thinking that goes with it. A great many of them that I know, when the LCMS is mentioned, have told me they can hear the click of jackboots and see the glint of spiked helmets advancing from many leagues off. They don't necessarily dislike the Missouri Synod because they're liberals. They dislike it because they find it humorless, overbearing, and full of strange habits and obsessions, however orthodox.

Will the LCMS gain members from this? Yes, some. But I doubt there will be a large harvest, for this reason and those that others have pointed out.

[labrialumn]

William Tighe, you appear more up on what is happening in Missouri than I. Thank you for the post. I didn't realize that Jesus First was so low church. I thought that their main point was rejecting the crypto-Calvinist "confessionalist'istist views about not loving or acknowledging other Christians.

SMH, LC-MS is Saxon, not Prussian in its origin, and these Old Lutherans fled to America to escape persecution at the hands of Bismark and his Prussians. And the Nazi characterization you provided is so very far from the present reality. The Germanness is now limited to a yearly polka mass and brats mit kraut for a church luncheon.

[smh]

"Marty would be proud" was emblazoned on a Lutheran School of Theology tee-shirt that was being worn around the school some years ago. The image and likeness that accompanied it looked a lot more like Dr. Luther than Dr. Marty.

Thinking of what Luther would think of the ELCA--or Calvin of the PCUSA, or Wesley of the United Methodists, or Edwards or Nevin of the United Church of Christ, is not something one should do when in a bad mood.

[smh]

Labrilumn, I am only repeating what was told me--by Lutherans who did not seem to appreciate the difference. And I am not speaking of the kind of simple ethnicity surviving in Wurst und Kraut dinners, but something deeper, that floats upon the blood.

I will hasten to add that I by no means endorse this estimation of the LCMS. I am only saying that it is out there, does not seem uncommon, and that the horrible pastiche I put up is a combination of commentary given me by relatively conservative members of the ELCA of Swedish, Danish, and Finnish backgrounds back in the days when J.A.O. Preus was the president of the Synod. Certainly my correspondent with the Augustana background was playing on the name.

[Chris Jackson]

The Teutonic quality of the Missouri Synod is fast fleeting except for enclaves in the Midwest. Yet, the reputation endures.

(Admittedly, the "Germanness" of the LCMS endures pretty markedly in our pastors and their tendency to harsh rhetoric, "stiffness," and reserve, compared to the clergy of many other churches.)

Yet, the Missouri Synod is in many ways very tightknit and thus somewhat impenetrable to "newbies." It seems that our rather extensive parochial school system from preschool to college fosters this.

[Steve Rempe]

One thing that must be taken into account when dealing with the various flavors of Lutheranism is ethnic identity that is connected with the different bodies. The LCMS is largely German in its make-up historically, and the ELCA draws more from the Scandanavian branch of the family tree. In many ways, it is the equivalent of a family squabble, with the ELCA members bemused by the perceived backwardness and isolationistic tendencies of the LCMS, and the Missourians fretting about how the ELCAers have strayed from confessional Lutheranism. Both I believe long for the day when the other will see the error of their ways and return to what it means to be Lutheran.

As the product of a "mixed marriage" (Swedish Augustana/ALC/ELCA mom, German LCMS dad) I've seen this from both sides. I grew up ALC/ELCA (largely because my local church(es) was good), but now attend an LCMS church in the DC area. My conservative ELCA relatives still have pre-conceived notions about the LCMS, but I've found that when they actually attend a Missouri church, they are pleasantly surprised.

[GL]

Dr. Tighe and SMH,

Thanks for those answers. It is sad that so many generations on, these latent ancestral "tribal" attachments or so strong that one would prefer swallowing hard at gross apostasy so as to remain in one's "ancestral" denomination to swallowing hard and accepting what is perceived as overly legalistic dogmas to be in an otherwise orthodox denomination in one's own tradition. Unfortunately, however, it makes perfect sense to me. I suppose forming a congregation which is a part of the "'Free' Lutheran association" means giving up considerable assets as do many orthodox Anglicans who leave the ECUSA and that such existing congregation are even less available as alternatives to many than LCMS congregations. (When I left the SBC and became Presbyterian, I seriously considered Lutheranism, but considered the LCMS the only viable alternative in my area and was dissuaded, in part, by their position on worship and prayer fellowship with non-Lutheran Christians.)

Next question: Why have mainline Protestant denominations been so much more susceptible to the feminist and, now, the homosexual societal drift than evangelical denominations? Is it that these denomination have historically be populated by those of higher social, economic and educational status and that this status makes them more tolerant of these particular deviations for traditional Christianity or is it something about their earlier doctrines that made them more amenable to such trends? (Believe me, I know from sad experience that evangelicals are susceptible to our own forms of surrender to the secular society of which we are a part, particularly worldliness and materialism. We can perhaps address the issue of why that is the case on a later thread.)

[kate]

In answer to GL's question about susceptibility, perhaps it's in part a matter of how long it takes for apostasy to germinate and 'flower' in Protestantism. The mainline Protestant denominations have had a head start of a few centuries on most so-called evangelical churches.

Plus, the fact that evangelical churches are mostly congregational in ecclesiology means that apostasy plays out differently than in more centralized denominations. When an individual non-denominational Bible church goes apostate, who notices?

[Cathy Ammlung]

Okay, I speak as a woman pastor, in the ELCA, okay? Figure I might as well be up front. I'm also a member of the Society of the Holy Trinity,as a former board member of Solid Rock Lutherans, which worked in 2005 to defeat the various same-sex blessing proposals, AND I am a subscriber to Touchstone.

First: whether or not you oppose the ordination of women, please be advised that there are some of us who strive - with fear and trembling - to preach the Gospel in its purity and to administer the Sacraments in accordance with that Gospel. And yes we know that we are accountable to Almighty God for this ministry to which we believe we have been called by that same God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are not all Baal-worshipping feminist deconstructionists, okay? :-)

(And no I'm not going to be drawn further into a discussion on this right now....)

Second: As to why the congregation I serve (as associate pastor) does not presently leave the ELCA; or, more personally, as to why either I or the senior pastor (also a member of the Society of the Holy Trinity) does not leave, I can offer a couple of insights.

First, we believe that we have been called and ordained to serve in the Church and, in our present calls, to a particular congregation. It does not seem that God has yet called up to LEAVE our ministry in this place. And, however dreadfully things may be going in the ELCA, we are still called to serve these people in this place, and it would be a lot like a shepherd abandoning his flock were we, as clergy, to up and run. What wolves might circle, masquerading as shepherds?

So why not bring the entire congregation with us? In part, yes, there are familial and sociological issues that would complicate things for some members, although it's unclear as to how many. Although we have a lot of "first families" represented, there are a lot of newer folks who don't have those familial and intergenerational ties to one congregation or denomination.

But, more critically, because we don't see ourselves as congregational - since we actually do take seriously the notion that we are part of the whole Body of Christ, however imperfectly we do that - we look to the possibility not of simply leaving, but of joining with another larger part of that Body. There are a bunch of what someone called Lutheran Micro-synods (sort of like microbreweries, I guess!) but they really do seem awfully "Sect-like," even to us. There are several options, and a few more may evolve in the next couple of years. We can only "jump" once; we would like to try, with prayerful intercession to the Holy Spirit for guidance, to do the best that is open to us. And we simply don't see that quite yet.

Nevertheless, the time is almost certainly coming. And if I retire, or am called away from this congregation before that happens, I will almost certainly resign from the clergy roster and convert to Orthodoxy. And yes,, yes, yes, I am fully aware of their opposition to women priests. I would gladly live under obedience to that, among many other things that I may not fully understand or agree with personally, for the sake of the "one thing needful."

[Christopher]

Cathy,

You say:

"It does not seem that God has yet called up to LEAVE our ministry in this place."

I would be curious as to whether you have any thing in particular that would be an indication to you that God has done this. If so, can you put these "signs", if you will, into words and principals? I ask because it appears to me you are simply saying "you don't know", as to what specifically is your Dogmatic Minimum, if I may put it that way. Clearly, you have a minimum - as I can safely say that you would not say God calls you to "serve" your parish if it decided to follow the Dali Lama. No doubt this is a difficult time for you, but I wonder what your minimum is.

[Bill R]

"Leave"? Cathy, you make it sound as if you're trying to avoid the rudeness of being the first to exit a garden party. As William Tighe said above, quoting Gandalf the Great: "Fly, you fools!"

Abraham had to be called out of Ur; Moses left his Egyptian heritage; the old covenant Jews really did have to abandon virtually all that they knew as Judaism when the Apostles proclaimed the Gospel in Jerusalem. Those who insist on a Christianity that is comfortable will find themselves cut off: a branch left to wither and die.

[kate]

Bill R., I think you're too hard on Cathy.

Reading her comment, I don't suppose she's finding the going very comfortable right now, and I imagine she's familiar with the various leave-takings you mention.

I do not even favor WO, but given that she is where she is, perhaps it would be generous to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is truly seeking God's will in her ministry, rather than implying that by staying she is choosing comfort over obedience.

[Christopher]

Kate,

I agree that she is in a difficult position. That being said, I see Bill R's point to. It is not like Cathy has not seen this coming. We all have. Any Touchstone subscriber is aware of the "decline of the mainline". They essentially are heading toward Unitarian Universalism, and it's simply a matter of time before they are indistinguishable from it (I predict 50 to 75 years before the process is complete). Cathy has seen this coming, and in her own way resisted it. I suppose at some point she has to decide. I am wondering what her "minimum" is, the "switch" that would be her (and her families) limit. This may have changed through time, but surely she has thought about it...

[James A. Altena]

"First: whether or not you oppose the ordination of women, please be advised that there are some of us who strive - with fear and trembling - to preach the Gospel in its purity and to administer the Sacraments in accordance with that Gospel."

Alas, however good your intentions, if you truly so strove, you would not support women's ordination, much less be one such supposedly "ordained" woman. And that is the point -- good intentions are not enough; what is required is obedience.

"It does not seem that God has yet called up to LEAVE our ministry in this place."

And, alas again, this statement explains the problem in the previous statements. The whole problem begins with thinking in terms of "OUR" -- that is, "MY" ministry, instead of God's ministry and the Church's ministry. It implicitly and wrongly presumes that:

1) the only worthwhile ministry is ordained ministry (i.e., ministry is about exercising power and having authority and recognition, rather than servcie and obedience), and

2) that discernment of a call to any ministry, particularly the ordained ministry, begins with self rather than the Church -- which means setting one's own judgment against and above the judgment of the Church as the supposedly true oracle of God and right interpreter of Scripture.

At bottom, the "ordination" of women is as much a sin of rebellion as Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit. And C. S. Lewis in "Perelandra" covers all the subtle rationales for justifying both.

Also, a proper ministry is in God's Church. Christ promised that His Church would be indefectable -- but that promise does not extend to each and every visible ecclesial body that claims to manifest it (the fallacy of division). And when any such body clearly turns against God's word in brazen disobedience, then (as my friend Bill R. has noted) there is a moral obligation to leave that body forthwith. There is a difference between sin that occurs through weakness and that which occurs through knowing, deliberate, and willful use of strength in rebellion. And the latter is now fully and formally manifest in the ELCA, as it has been for some time in TEC, the UCC, and similar apostate bodies.

"And if I retire, or am called away from this congregation before that happens, I will almost certainly resign from the clergy roster and convert to Orthodoxy. And yes, yes, yes, I am fully aware of their opposition to women priests. I would gladly live under obedience to that, among many other things that I may not fully understand or agree with personally, for the sake of the 'one thing needful.'"

Then there is no ground or rationale to not "live under" and accept and embrace that obedience now. Since when did submission to obedience become a choice or preference or convenience of our own time and place? The formula is "faith seeking understanding", not the corrosive modern theolgoical revisionism of "understanding seeking faith".

[JRM]

Apparently Mr. Altena's rules for civility at MC do not apply to him.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

Dear Cathy,

I'd like to proffer for your prayerful consideration the example of Alice Linsley, a formerly ordained priestess in The Episcopal Church. She renounced her orders and converted to Othodoxy. She is a living example of someone that traveled the path that you're considering.

Here's an interview with her: http://www2.arkansasonline.com/blogs/bible-blog/2007/mar/03/canterbury-constanti/

Here's Alice's blog: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/

Peace and Blessings Cathy,

Your Partner for His Truth and Love

[Josh S]

As a proselyte to the LCMS from evangelicalism, I wouldn't so much say it's German-ness and jackboots. Maybe folks from the ELCA see it that way because we actually expect our pastors to believe a dogma or two instead of just wear nice vestments. I do see weirdness that comes from the cultural and ecclesiastical isolation, however.

[Juli]

Since when did submission to obedience become a choice or preference or convenience of our own time and place?

As someone who was received into the Orthodox church, I am conscious that for many "converts" into Orthodoxy (or other Christian communions), we exercise personal choice in these matters to a degree that was unheard of just a few generations back. We don't assume that we live and die as adherents of the church (or religion generally) into which we were born. Even when we become Orthodox (or Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic), we visit parishes all over town to find the right "fit." So yes, I am in obedience to my tradition and its local expression, but many faithful Christian are not. Ditto for any Roman Catholic posting here, or [fill in the blanks].

[Bill R]

"Apparently Mr. Altena's rules for civility at MC do not apply to him." - JRM

No, rather the rules for civility must by necessity give way to the law of charity, that is, the cure of souls.

[David Gray]

>No, rather the rules for civility must by necessity give way to the law of charity, that is, the cure of souls.

Spot on.

[Rob Grano]

I see nothing uncivil in Mr. Altena's comments and I agree with him in general.

Having said that, however, I do think Kate is correct in giving Cathy the benefit of the doubt, I myself having been in a similar position before I became Orthodox. I was firmly convinced of the truth of the Orthodox faith, and was ready to be chrismated, but there were family and personal issues at the time that delayed my entrance for almost a year. I ceased attending the Episcopal parish I had been a member of, and was attending Orthodox liturgy regularly, but could not take communion in either body, thus going without the sacrament for well over a year.

Perhaps Cathy is in a similar position. If so, that should be taken into consideration, and her delay not put down to simple sloth or disobedience.

[GL]

I'm with Bill R., James A. and David Gray on this one. And I would further add that I saw nothing uncivil in what James wrote. His comments were forceful, but polite. And Bill R. was not too hard.

We live in very disturbing times, times in which apostasy is spreading like gangrene within many Christian denominations and in which worldliness, materialism and shallowness infect many which are not apostate. Certainly none of us belong to denominations or communions which are perfect. Yet, all of us must decide where we will draw lines and when old, tender attachments must give way to our superior duty of obedience. We should all remember in our prayers those orthodox Christians who find themselves in denominations that have apostatized so that they hear His voice (not ours) about what they should do. Were my family members of an ELCA congregation as of today, we would begin our search for a congregation in another denomination immediately.

[Josh S]

I remember the amazement with which I read it at the time, and at the powerful delusion under which a man of such intellectual and spiritual gifts must be laboring even to imagine that such a "recognition" could ever be forthcoming from Rome.

Sometimes I think that the purpose of most theology is to give high-minded explanations and rationales for powerful delusions.

[dilys]

I am well-acquainted with a woman "priest" who left TEC, and am also a personal coach who guides people through sometimes harrowing career changes.

It is not something outsiders to Cathy's situation can evaluate, but there are two very different ways she may be tackling this:

1. "They're off course but I'm all right Jack. I preach orthodox doctrine, at least in many points. Later. It's not convenient and I might be letting someone down. Not to mention the pension."

2. "It is clear this denomination is veering toward the dark side, and I am convinced that Orthodoxy offers the true Church. I will seek to participate as possible in Orthodox worship. I will look immediately, if not publicly, toward other ways and places of making a living. I will find assistance in this, and move as soon as possible."

The position of clergy is different from that of a member of a parish. My own friend had a family business to move into, so the making-a-living issue was fortunately not a cause of delay. But the rest of us weighing-in need to consider what we would do if the decision would destroy a career path. Although we might hope we would take a leap of faith into the lilies of the field, would we? All I could say to Cathy, is that it may be best to keep one's head down and proceed, rather than engage in cheery explanation for delay, if one is called to jump a sinking ship.

If not, I'm with those who seriously wonder why. Nothing has gotten better with delay in The Poster Child for all this. If the pension or the familiar context is the deciding factor that is delaying a beginning, may I remind myself among others that none of us has unlimited time to build bigger barns.

[DGP]

Sometimes I think that the purpose of most theology is to give high-minded explanations and rationales for powerful delusions.

That's pretty good -- false theology as delirium quaerens rationum, or whatever the proper Latin would be. I may use that....

[Gene Godbold]

Dear DGP,
Didn't the guy (RC) who wrote Degenerate Moderns posit that all "modern" heresies (and I think he included all Protestants here :-) start as a result of rationalizing fleshly desires?

[GL]

Dilys makes a very good point. There comes a time when we may even need to chuck our careers to do what obedience calls us to, but if we are not in such a person's shoes, we should be slow to criticize their agonizing over such a decision. I will note that I do not believe women should be in positions in which they exercise church authority over men (I believe Scripture is crystal clear on this issue, no less so than on the issue of homosexual conduct), so my views on this particular instance are informed by that belief.

[Cathy Ammlung]

ARG! Just tried posting and hit the wrong button so I have to start over.

Okay, where do I start? Now that I'm gonna go back on what I said about not getting into the issue of WO...but sorry, youse folks have kind of jumped on me, my faith, my motioves, and probably a bunch of other stuff and I guess I can't back down form responding. ONCE. THIS IS IT. I promise. In fact if I post again it WILL NOT BE ABOUT WO, okay?!?

First, the comment that inevitably I "must" be acting from self, with only disobedient desire for power, is simply wrong. Well, wrong once we all stipulate that because I am a sinful human being - not because I'm specifically a woman, mind you! - OF COURSE there will be improper and sinful motives in the mix. Probably are in the mix for all of you who wrote those types of comments, too. Anyhow, I totally agree with whoever wrote that ministry is obedient service. Totally agree.

You may insist I was misled and deluded, but I spent many, many years running away from the call to ministry. I did a great deal of reading and wrestling with Scripture, talking not only with my pastor but many others, and reading what I could, including the work Jack Reumann did as the ELCA predecessor bodies discussed women's ordination. Then I was ganged up on (back in 1983, I think) by about 30 pastors at a Word and Witness workshop (to which I was sent by my pastor, to lead this lengthy program of Bible study and evangelism), all of whom said, "Cathy, if anyone is being called by God to the ministry, it is you. Contact your bishop and begin the process." Okay, in recent years I have read things that I didn't even know about back then, especially stuff from the Orthodox perspective. And I know y'all on this list are vehemently opposed to WO and therefore conclude that I MUST HAVE acted out of NOTHING BUT selfish, sinful impulses. T'ain't quite so simple. I didn't so much "seek" ordination as "try doing everything else with my life that seemed God-pleasing and still ending up here." Okay, you insist that's where I went bad. Trust me, it was as honest and humble (well, for me, that's obviously a slippery word...) an attempt to do what not only I but my church was seeing as God's call, not mine - and presumably my church was informed by prayerful reading and interpretation of God's Word (and yes I know you'll argue with that, so let's just stipulate our disagreement and move on, shall we?!? Otherwise we'll be arguing all day and night over semantics!).

Okay, on to another point someone raised: are there some sort of tipping points that would make it impossible to stay in the ELCA another moment?

That's a tougher question to answer. Clearly some of you assume that ANY hesitancy is simply due to my cowardice or discomfort because, to you, obviously the right choice would be to run like mad ASAP. And since I am a sinner, I will not dispute that those judgments figure in, to some extent.

But is that all there is? I dearly pray not. On a personal level, this is something that my husband and I must prayerfully consider together. When we leave the ELCA, it will be together - for the same destination. And I won't go someplace that Rich cannot in good faith go. And that doesn't mean Rich would prefer to remain indefinitely in the ELCA. Far from it.

On a pastoral level, I see only two possibilities. One is that the senior pastor will propose to the congregation that we leave the ELCA for another Lutheran body. If that happens, well and good. If it does not, particularly if the congregation, presented with that choice, refuses, then I would resign because it would be clear that the congregation was rejecting the concerns and priorities that the senior pastor (and I) saw as critical matters of faith; that means that I might need to "shake off the dust from my sandals" and leave that place. And then I would be free, on the personal level, to seek another church home.

Would I resign from the ministry at that point? I think so. Whether that is because "to everything there is a season," and that season is concluded, or whether it would be because the arguments against women being ordained would press down upon me, I don't know yet.

Only know this: I do not consider ordination to ministry a "right," a "justice issue," a matter of gaining power, prestige, authority, etc. It is a matter of obedience to our Lord. To the very best of my ability, that is ALL it has ever been. Is that enough? Absolutely NOT. ABSOLUTELY not. C'mon, I'm Lutheran, I take that "justification by grace, received through faith" stuff seriously.

Nevertheless, at least grant me the courtesy of not immediately jumping to the most malign conclusions about this.

AND...I need to shut up now. We've taken this thread way far afield, and I don't want to abuse the privilege of expressing myself here.

Cathy

[Cathy Ammlung]

ARG! Just tried posting and hit the wrong button so I have to start over.

Okay, where do I start? Now that I'm gonna go back on what I said about not getting into the issue of WO...but sorry, youse folks have kind of jumped on me, my faith, my motioves, and probably a bunch of other stuff and I guess I can't back down form responding. ONCE. THIS IS IT. I promise. In fact if I post again it WILL NOT BE ABOUT WO, okay?!?

First, the comment that inevitably I "must" be acting from self, with only disobedient desire for power, is simply wrong. Well, wrong once we all stipulate that because I am a sinful human being - not because I'm specifically a woman, mind you! - OF COURSE there will be improper and sinful motives in the mix. Probably are in the mix for all of you who wrote those types of comments, too. Anyhow, I totally agree with whoever wrote that ministry is obedient service. Totally agree.

You may insist I was misled and deluded, but I spent many, many years running away from the call to ministry. I did a great deal of reading and wrestling with Scripture, talking not only with my pastor but many others, and reading what I could, including the work Jack Reumann did as the ELCA predecessor bodies discussed women's ordination. Then I was ganged up on (back in 1983, I think) by about 30 pastors at a Word and Witness workshop (to which I was sent by my pastor, to lead this lengthy program of Bible study and evangelism), all of whom said, "Cathy, if anyone is being called by God to the ministry, it is you. Contact your bishop and begin the process." Okay, in recent years I have read things that I didn't even know about back then, especially stuff from the Orthodox perspective. And I know y'all on this list are vehemently opposed to WO and therefore conclude that I MUST HAVE acted out of NOTHING BUT selfish, sinful impulses. T'ain't quite so simple. I didn't so much "seek" ordination as "try doing everything else with my life that seemed God-pleasing and still ending up here." Okay, you insist that's where I went bad. Trust me, it was as honest and humble (well, for me, that's obviously a slippery word...) an attempt to do what not only I but my church was seeing as God's call, not mine - and presumably my church was informed by prayerful reading and interpretation of God's Word (and yes I know you'll argue with that, so let's just stipulate our disagreement and move on, shall we?!? Otherwise we'll be arguing all day and night over semantics!).

Okay, on to another point someone raised: are there some sort of tipping points that would make it impossible to stay in the ELCA another moment?

That's a tougher question to answer. Clearly some of you assume that ANY hesitancy is simply due to my cowardice or discomfort because, to you, obviously the right choice would be to run like mad ASAP. And since I am a sinner, I will not dispute that those judgments figure in, to some extent.

But is that all there is? I dearly pray not. On a personal level, this is something that my husband and I must prayerfully consider together. When we leave the ELCA, it will be together - for the same destination. And I won't go someplace that Rich cannot in good faith go. And that doesn't mean Rich would prefer to remain indefinitely in the ELCA. Far from it.

On a pastoral level, I see only two possibilities. One is that the senior pastor will propose to the congregation that we leave the ELCA for another Lutheran body. If that happens, well and good. If it does not, particularly if the congregation, presented with that choice, refuses, then I would resign because it would be clear that the congregation was rejecting the concerns and priorities that the senior pastor (and I) saw as critical matters of faith; that means that I might need to "shake off the dust from my sandals" and leave that place. And then I would be free, on the personal level, to seek another church home.

Would I resign from the ministry at that point? I think so. Whether that is because "to everything there is a season," and that season is concluded, or whether it would be because the arguments against women being ordained would press down upon me, I don't know yet.

Only know this: I do not consider ordination to ministry a "right," a "justice issue," a matter of gaining power, prestige, authority, etc. It is a matter of obedience to our Lord. To the very best of my ability, that is ALL it has ever been. Is that enough? Absolutely NOT. ABSOLUTELY not. C'mon, I'm Lutheran, I take that "justification by grace, received through faith" stuff seriously.

Nevertheless, at least grant me the courtesy of not immediately jumping to the most malign conclusions about this.

AND...I need to shut up now. We've taken this thread way far afield, and I don't want to abuse the privilege of expressing myself here.

Cathy

[Cathy Ammlung]

Oh, one more thing about leaving the ELCA: (And NOT about WO, okay?! ;-) )

"They're off course but I'm all right Jack. I preach orthodox doctrine, at least in many points. Later. It's not convenient and I might be letting someone down. Not to mention the pension." That is NOT how I am proceeding. For one thing, that is a lousy way to proceed and I actually resent the possibility that you'd impugn that motive to anyone agonizing over this difficult and weighty a decision. And, by the way, Pension and health benefits don't figure in for me. I've never been part of the ELCA pension plan and have always been covered under Rich's health plan.

Enough said; the second possibility is somewhat closer to what's happening but that's not something I feel free to discuss here.

Cathy

[GL]

Cathy,

I will pray for you. I disagree with women having authority over men in the church, but that does not mean that I do not empathize with you plight. I have had to make hard career choices in the past and I know they are very hard to make. I also understand that someone whose income, benefits and retirement are tied to one's decision faces more difficulties in reaching a conclusion than one who does not.

Again, were a denomination of which I were a part make it a formal policy to look the other way as to openly practicing homosexual clergy, I would feel that I had no choice but to leave and to begin working on doing so immediately. Were my income, benefits and retirement at stake, however, I would likely try to find a way to mitigate the loss or substitute for it before going public with that decision. At some point, however, I would leave even if I had not been totally successful in those efforts.

This is not advice to you, but a statement of what I would feel compelled to do. Again, my prayers are with you. May God bless you.

[kate]

GL, I'm glad you are confident of where lines have to be drawn in these disturbing times. My Christian pilgrimage has been full of lines drawn and I trust I have been bound by the right ones.

However, my limited knowledge of the history of Protestantism makes me cautious about judging how and where individual Christians, even ordained ones, should be practicing the faith.

My forebears exited the Catholic Church for its 'heresy' centuries ago, claiming the true Reformed faith. Their conviction that the Catholic faith had departed from the Truth was absolute, no less so than your (and my) conviction that mainline Protestant denominations today -- heirs as they are of those separating reformers -- have become apostate. I now make common cause with the orthodox among Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, whereas we were merrily chopping off each other's heads several hundred years ago. The ironies should make us humble.

My comments are NOT meant to soften our obligation before God to speak the Truth. But I do mean to encourage us to find ways to speak the Truth in love, desiring that our words of witness can be used by the Holy Spirit to show others the Way, not to back them against a wall.

For the commenters who have aphoristically opposed civility and charity, I think Jesus' examples of being 'uncivilly' loving were usually, if not always, directed at the hard of heart, something that I didn't sense in Cathy's comments.

[mark]

God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit or something bad would happen to them. They did not take God at His word. They ate of the fruit. They ate in unbelief. Had they believed God they would not have eaten of the fruit. They had to walk in faith, believing the word of God. They had to walk a little blind, not having complete understanding.

Man held the command of God subject to his understanding. He did not believe God. He did not have faith. It was not about works. It was about faith. Adam did not walk in faith. He did not submit to the Word of God. And this is what we still do today. God healed Naaman through the waters of the Jordan. God gifts a child with faith through the waters of baptism. But infant baptism is denied because we don understand how God gifts us in baptism.

We use reason to answer the question of whether God has spoke and to discern what he has said. But there are mysteries where reason must accept what it cannot completely understand. People deny the Lord’s Supper because they don’t understand it completely. Paul wrote: "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." I have often wondered if this does not include denominations who adopt interpretive models which allow them to rationalize behavior clearly condemned in Scripture. That model applied to other areas cause problems. And there are consequences.

Luther said the greatest expression of God’s wrath is His silence. He allows to go our own way. We prefer our sins to God and He allows the choice. St. Augustine said that the penalty of sin is sin. We choose sin and that sin is our punishment.

[Cathy Ammlung]

GL, Thanks for your prayers and your observations. I appreciate them greatly. Trust me, many of us are working on leaving. It is NOT a matter of income, benefits, etc., as I just posted - at least not for me. For some, it is, and I respect that. It IS a matter of how to proceed so long as I am serving as a pastor in this congregation; and also, how my husband and I can proceed together.

Next month, Lutheran CORE will host a meeting post-CWA. This group worked tirelessly, albeit with limited success, to avert the decisions about tolerating or refraining from disciplining openly gay clergy. The September meeting in the Waukegan, IL area will address what actually happened - both parlimentarily and in terms of the ramifications - and how those who choose to remain in the ELCA might work to recall the denomination to repentance. There are many clergy and congregations who only remain in the ELCA because they hope that groups like CORE or WordAlone might be God's "beacheads of resistance," so to speak, in the ELCA: points from which the Spirit might lead the denomination back from the edge of a precipice. It might not happen. Some of the poeple going to this meeting are openly wondering if God's jugment against the church is such that his Spirit is being withdrawn form the ELCA. Now THAT is a weighty point to ponder and act upon, isn't it?

[Yaknyeti]

Dear James,

Regarding your post to Cathy, I immediately see one error and one incivility.

It is wrong to denigrate Cathy's efforts to serve God. Surely she can strive to honestly express the gospel without having perfect theology/ practice... just like the rest of us! Please don't fault her effort or intention based on differing interpretations of Scripture and Tradition, however wrong-headed you think hers are. Or do you not like the Catholic idea of invincible ignorance?

It is uncivil to drag her into a squabble about women's ordination (WO) when she has asked not to delve into that, unless that matter is inseparable from her dilemma. Is it? Would you have responded the same way if she had posted as "Carl," or if she were a member of her church council instead of a pastor? If so, I'll retract this charge.

She is a part of her local church family, and those ties can't simply be ignored. I agree with her that she has a responsibility to stick with her congregation until they prove as intransigent as the denominational leadership... or until God gives her an explicit call (to leave, repent, whatever). We certainly have the example of Abraham, leaving on God's orders without a final definition in mind, but we also have Jeremiah, who stayed with his rebellious and stiff-necked people even when they threw him in a pit and later dragged him off to Egypt despite God's command otherwise.

Even presuming that she's wrong about WO (which I don't concede), God's call may be for her to step down from the pastoral role but remain in her congregation as they together determine how to respond to a heretical church hierarchy.

[Fr. Robert McMeekin]

Cathy,

As a former Lutheran pastor--now an Orthodox priest--I sympathize with your sadness and frustration, particularly given the ELCA Church-wide Assembly's recent action. Regardless of your decision where to turn, I want to encourage you to never shrink from carrying out your royal priestly ministry of proclaiming the Word of God to which you were ordained on the day of your baptism.

It mystifies me why so many children of the Reformation have so clericalized a task to which Christ called all his disciples?! What is it Martin Luther said? "More to be feared than a thousand Turks wielding scimitars is a single layman armed with the Word of God!"

Blessings always,
Fr. Bob

[GL]

GL, I'm glad you are confident of where lines have to be drawn in these disturbing times.

I am not at all confident as to where lines should be drawn, only that they must be drawn somewhere and, on this issue, I have indicated where I would draw them. Actually, before leaving the SBC and while being drawn to Lutheranism, I never considered the ELCA because I already considered it too far gone. That is, the ELCA had already crossed lines that I draw well before this summer. That said, it is one thing to decide against entering a denomination, it is another to decide to leave it. The latter is much more difficult than the former. And this is all I have to say on this topic.

[Scott Walker]

Cathy,
Former ELCA, now happily Orthodox here. I'll pray for you and your family as you wrestle with this. My first adult experience of Christian community was in an ELCA parish, and I'll always owe a debt to those good folks at St. John's. Still, the glory has departed. The last time I attended a service there, with my son during a visit to Arizona, Pastor Joe prayed to our "God, most motherly" before Holy Communion. Oh dear.

[Judy Warner]

We used to belong to an ELCA church. Although we were dissatisfied with many things, we stayed, mostly because it was our local church and we were attached to the people in it. About four years ago the pastor announced that the ELCA was beginning to discuss the issue of homosexuality. We left immediately, knowing that if a church thinks this subject is up for discussion it's already gone over the cliff. We didn't have a long history in the ELCA so it wasn't as difficult as it would be for most others. But there was no doubt in our minds. Fortunately I had already found a continuing Anglican church, and probably would have ended up going there anyway, but this announcement pushed us out then and there.

[Cathy Ammlung]

Judy wrote: "About four years ago the pastor announced that the ELCA was beginning to discuss the issue of homosexuality. We left immediately, knowing that if a church thinks this subject is up for discussion it's already gone over the cliff. We didn't have a long history in the ELCA so it wasn't as difficult as it would be for most others. But there was no doubt in our minds. "

Yup, I've seen that happen. We had - this was at a previous church - a couple with young children who joined our church. They went on the ELCA website and came across some statements concerning abortion, I believe; they were appalled. They checked out the LCMS website and said, we need to be in a church that supports our efforts to teach our children what God's Word and will are."

I know a Lutheran pastor who is, with his family, probably going to become Roman Catholic over the very same issue.

So is this where I do take that leap of faith?

Or is God going to have to push me off the danged cliff?

Cathy

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"We left immediately, knowing that if a church thinks this subject is up for discussion it's already gone over the cliff."

Yep.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Cathy,
Whether you leap or are pushed, just remember it's okay to scream while it's happening. :-)

[Judy Warner]

Cathy,

I have to tell you that one reason we didn't leave earlier is that the people in the church were like almost all Lutherans I've met -- really, really nice. It is a little rural church and most of the members are related, but they welcome outsiders and new people immediately feel as much a part of the church as those whose families had been in it for generations. Also, it is nice to go to a church in your community with your neighbors; now our church is several towns away and nobody there lives near us. These might not seem like important considerations to everybody, but I'm sure this kind of thing is a big part of why people stick out seemingly intolerable conditions.

[Bill R]

Cathy, I didn’t bring up the WO issue in my previous posts, so perhaps your comment was not directed toward me. However, while I won’t go into this issue, I do sympathize with you. My own lovely daughter (now 26) felt strongly called to seminary and the pastorate, despite the fact that our denomination and beliefs strongly oppose this. I did nothing, however, except to tell her in response to her questions of my opposition. She figured this out on her own and went into education instead. But she would still be my daughter and have my full love if she had chosen otherwise.

Likewise I did not impugn any false motive to your desire to stay, however temporarily, in ELCA. I myself was raised in the old ALC (now ELCA), and was a member of an ELCA church for some time after college, at least until I was made aware of ELCA’s position on abortion. Then I too fled. Obviously I didn’t have the same pastoral concerns you have, but I couldn’t stay at that point.

I join GL, James Altena, and the others in prayers for you and your family. It’s not my intention to push you into Orthodoxy (I’m not Orthodox, though I am orthodox), but my concern is to see you leave an heretical body.

[Clifford Simon]

This remark is for the MC regulars here, and is not intended to re-open any discussion on WO with Mrs. Ammlung. I will be filled with regret and shame if I cause that to happen.

In a situation like this, how can we make the best case for orthodoxy? My fear is that appealing to the bible may not cut it. For I must admit that the remarks of St. Paul on the subject never made it quite clear to *me*. (Not that I'm especially smart.) Paul makes it clear enough that there *is* an orthodox position on women's ordination, and what that position is; but out of short remarks that seem as much concerned with how a woman should dress, and how long her hair should be, and whether is was Adam or Eve who sinned first, I find it insurmountable to extract a sturdily-reasoned position on womens' ordination. In the end, it might be true that I was unduly focusing on the wrong elements. But I am offering my own confusion as an example that might help us understand what might be insurmountably confusing to other people.

The only resouce that ever made it clear to me was a short and very charitable essay by C. S. Lewis titled, "Priestesses in the Church?" It is available in the anthology titled "The Collected Works of C. S. Lewis" ed. Owen Barfield.

Mr. Lewis grounds his reasoning in what a priest should be. The priest (Mr. Lewis says) has two jobs: represent the people to God, and God to the people. The first can be done by a man or a woman, and in fact, women may even do it better. Not so with the second, for God is "He" in the scriptures, and it would be presumptuous to assume that an important mystery of God is not thus revealed. (This certainly makes it hard, nigh impossible, to be a priest. :-)

If only these sorts of things were more widely printed... In any case, I add my prayers for those who are struggling with their apostate churches.

[Fr Dave Poedel, STS]

I am reminded again today why so few of us Lutherans post on Touchstone Mere Comments (though we subscribe, financially support and pray for Touchstone).

Having the LCMS characterized as Prussian (I came FROM Rome to Evangelical Catholicism, despite being of 100% Polish lineage...yeah, the German stuff gets under my skin, but I have genetic boot-prints on my back....are they invading from the East or West this time?), Lutheranism in general not represented as having any ecclesial legitimacy, etc. I can deal with that, as I am accustomed to it on this Board.

The treatment of Pastor Ammlung on this thread, however, is mostly very disrespectful. I am a Lutheran presbyter of the LCMS, and we do not ordain women. I am also a professed member of the Society of the Holy Trinity along with Pastor (she is ordained and has a Divine Call) Ammlung. I know her to be a pastor of integrity and deep, orthodox faith...you folks do not know her at all, except by her risky sharing that she has done on this Board. Pastor Ammlung came here lamenting the actions of her part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All many of you could see was the combination of "Reverend" or "Pastor" and "Cathy". Shame!

Regardless of your view of WO, that is not the issue she came here to discuss, she came to share in the reality of what her Church body is doing and how she is dealing with it.

Next week, I will join Pastor Ammlung and around 225 other members of the Society of the Holy Trinity in our yearly General Retreat. I will join her and the rest of my sisters and brothers in praying for renewal in our vows of fidelity to our Lord and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as Called and Ordained servants of Word and Sacrament. We will make every human attempt to leave the foibles of our Churches (not ecclesial communities, thank you) behind and rest, discuss, pray, laugh, cry, sing, proclaim, participate in private Confession and Absolution, receive the Holy Eucharist and grow closer in our Divine Calling as Pastors.

[Bill R]

Clifford, I'd suggest looking at Dr. Hutchen's Touchstone writings in the archives here, such as "The Signified Man".

[David Gray]

>she is ordained and has a Divine Call

Scripture says she cannot have a divine call.

[Bill R]

“The treatment of Pastor Ammlung on this thread, however, is mostly very disrespectful. I am a Lutheran presbyter of the LCMS, and we do not ordain women. I am also a professed member of the Society of the Holy Trinity along with Pastor (she is ordained and has a Divine Call) Ammlung. I know her to be a pastor of integrity and deep, orthodox faith...you folks do not know her at all, except by her risky sharing that she has done on this Board.” - Fr. Dave Poedel

In what way have we been disrespectful? This is not an ad hominem attack on Cathy Ammlung; it is an attack on the ELCA. I quite believe she is a person of integrity, but she has already raised issues that for many of us call into question what you call a “deep, orthodox faith.”

But since the LCMS, your own church, does not recognize the call of women to be pastors, I must ask: do you? If not, in what sense can you refer to her “Divine Call”?

(By the way, there happen to be several Lutheran posters here. But apparently there are even more former Lutherans!)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Scripture says she cannot have a divine call.<<<

Actually, David, Scripture says she can have a lot of "divine calls"--just not that one. Not that, for a moment, I believe that ordained ministry is a divine charism, since ordination is an ecclesial action. And not that, for a moment, I happenj to think that the ELCA has valid divine orders.

[David Gray]

>Actually, David, Scripture says she can have a lot of "divine calls"--just not that one.

Absolutely.

[Bill R]

"Whether you leap or are pushed, just remember it's okay to scream while it's happening. :-)" -- Gene Godbold

That's my philosophy for blogging as well, Gene.

[labrialumn]

Fr Dave,
Since you cannot agree with our confessional documents, I'm a little confused about your having taken your confessional oath at installation to the presbyterate.

Cathy may well have a call from God to minister, but it is impossible for her to have a call from God to the Office of the Public Ministry. The Church is not competent to issue such a call, and God does not do so, whatever Korah and his followers claimed in the Rebellion in the wilderness.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"The treatment of Pastor Ammlung on this thread, however, is mostly very disrespectful."

It's unfortunate. I pray that Cathy Ammlung can have a love that covers a multitude of offenses.

I've had to grow in that type of love too. And I'm the better person for it. I rejoice in the Lord for all things.

Pax in Christ Pastors Dave and Cathy.

[Michael]

Fr. Poedel,

I have avoided posting on this thread for a time because I think what there is to be said in regards to homosexuality has been said very plainly--it is not up for discussion at all--and what has been said in regards to women's ordination has also been stated clearly enough. That said, however, I imagine my dear grandfather would be rolling in his grave were he to know that a gentleman professing to be a faithful presbyter of the Evangelical Lutheran Church would recognize Ms. Ammlung's ordination as persuant to a Divine call. You ought to prayerfully consider your position, or perhaps your wording.

Secondly, how few Lutherans do you think there are on this board? I can count on Labrialumn to post regularly, and so long as I am actually here, I do. That's two, and given the population of "regular" posters, I'd say that's a fairly representative sampling--even if we're all LCMS.

Ms. Ammlung,

Though I do not de fide recognize your role in the priesthood, I recognize de facto your position of leadership and loving ministry to the people of God within your parish and the church at large. Therefore, I do not envy your position, and my prayers are with you in this time of struggle, along with your family and the congregation which you serve. God bless you.

P.S.--

It is lovely being home. It is amazing how much I miss a blog site while in Mexico. You guys give me a dose of spiritual thought for the day and then some.

[DGP]

We will make every human attempt to leave the foibles of our Churches (not ecclesial communities, thank you) behind....

Since you brought up the matter of ecclesial communities: I might argue that the fantasy that one can or even should try to leave behind "the foibles" is precisely what makes one an ecclesial community rather than a Church.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Since you brought up the matter of ecclesial communities: I might argue that the fantasy that one can or even should try to leave behind "the foibles" is precisely what makes one an ecclesial community rather than a Church.<<<

Let he whose Church is without foibles cast the first aspersion. Or do I really have to do my Catholic samokritika gig, again?

Because I'm an equal opportunity critic. I can do Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews and Muslims, it's all the same to me. Nobody's faith is without, as you so quaintly put it, "foibles".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"Whether you leap or are pushed, just remember it's okay to scream while it's happening. :-)" -- Gene Godbold<<<

Also remember--"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the stop."

[James A. Altena]

I deny that I said anything uncivil, and thank those who came to my defense here.

Perhaps JRM would explain why it is uncivil for me simply to point out that women’s ordination (hereafter WO) is contrary to some 1,900 years of universal Christian practice and reading of the Scriptures (the Tradition) – an incontrovertible fact – but not uncivil for him in his numerous posts on global warming and Intelligent Design to accuse those he disagrees with of being ignorant or dishonest.

Yaknyeti, since I would have said nothing different if Cathy Ammlung had been a man, I accept your proffered retraction in advance.

Of course, the charge of “incivility” against me rests upon circular reasoning and the question-begging assumption that no-one can civilly question the genuineness of Cathy Ammlung’s purported calling to the ordained ministry. It is also notable that the “incivility” charge always runs only one way. It is somehow uncivil for defenders of the Tradition to question the supposed call of a woman to the ordained ministry, but not uncivil for the proponents of it to have questioned 1,900 years of Church teaching and practice.

The “incivility” accusation demonstrates in a nutshell why it is virtually impossible to have a substantive debate with proponents of WO over that issue. Rather than actually address the theological issues I raised, they immediately resort instead to ad hominem argument.

The central point remains that WO rests upon a denial and rejection of the universal practice and teaching of the Church, even after the divisions of the Great Schism and the Reformation. That can only occur when subjective individual judgment is exalted over the Church, and stands in judgment of the latter and declares it to be wrong.

In particular response to Cathy herself, I note the following:

1) If my post is read carefully I made no imputations about her personal motives. What I did do was to describe the objective dynamic underlying the entire argument and movement for women’s ordination, whether a particular participant in that is conscious of it or not. Lack of awareness or overt intent does not constitute absence of the underlying reality.

2) It is Cathy who introduced the topic of WO in the first place, only to then add: “(And no I'm not going to be drawn further into a discussion on this right now....)”. In other words: “I get to talk about it, but no one who disagrees with me can talk about it.” A rather transparent ploy.

3) Cathy’s account of her eventual move toward ordination does nothing but push the argument one turtle further down. The ELCA (like the TEC) was already in denial of and contradiction to Scripture and Tradition when it purported to ordain its first woman pastor. If it were an orthodox ecclesial body, the question of so doing would not even be seriously arising within it.

Finally, it bears pointing out that civility is a secular concept, and charity a Christian one. As usual, the demand here from the supporters of WO is that the Christian concept be subordinated to the secular one. That is exactly how WO got its foot in the door in the first place -- by subordinating Scriptural teaching on differentiated gifts and callings to a secular notion of social egalitarianism.

During the time I spent in TEC (The Episcopal Church) in a previous parish in another city, any time those of us in the parish who were committed to orthodoxy suggested taking some concrete stand (such as refusing to allow the local episcopal heresiarch to pay a parish visitation), the go-along get-along majority would invariably say, "Why can't you just be nice?" The “civility" complaint here is just a variant of that – the Rodney King imperative of “Can’t we all just get along?” that demands the sacrifice of truth as the price of getting along. (Notably, neither “nice” nor “civility” is found even once in either the OT or NT.) But then, Jesus was doubtless being most uncivil, and not at all nice, when he scourged the money-changers out of the Temple and called the Pharisees and scribes hypocrites. “Can’t we all just get along?”

Finally, I find it interesting that those accusing me of “incivility” have not gone after Dr. Hutchens instead for statements on this issue far more pointed than any I have made here. But then, not being a Touchstone editor, I’m a much easier and more convenient target.

As some here know, I have personal matters that will likely prevent me from returning to MC for a few days,and so will likely not be able to participate further in this debate. Have at it!

[William Tighe]

I wish James all the best in his forthcoming "withdrawal" and wish to make it clear here that I fully endorse, and agree with, everything that he has written on this thread, my only regret being that I did not write it myself. I agree, in particularly, in every respect with what he wrote here:

"Finally, it bears pointing out that civility is a secular concept, and charity a Christian one. As usual, the demand here from the supporters of WO is that the Christian concept be subordinated to the secular one. That is exactly how WO got its foot in the door in the first place -- by subordinating Scriptural teaching on differentiated gifts and callings to a secular notion of social egalitarianism."

[David Gray]

>I wish James all the best in his forthcoming "withdrawal" and wish to make it clear here that I fully endorse, and agree with, everything that he has written on this thread, my only regret being that I did not write it myself. I agree, in particularly, in every respect with what he wrote here:

Absolutely.

[Juli]

Scripture says she cannot have a divine call.

What a very telling comment.

[DJL]

"I must ask why wouldn't orthodox Lutherans in the ELCA bolt to the LCMS, WELS or other conservative Lutheran denomination?"

As a (then) ELCA pastor, when I inquired about moving to the LCMS, it was clear that I was not wanted, or at least my transition would be highly problematic. I was told, "well, you could repeat all three years of seminary and a year of internship." This to a pastor 44 years old with a family of five to provide for! I got the sense that anyone who was not raised LCMS would continually be suspect no matter how much evidence of orthodox faith, practice, and teaching.

Perhaps for lay people the transition wouldn't be so difficult. I know I'm not going to find out.

[Matthias]

Regarding civility and this thread I found one of last night's readings for Vespers of the Dormition of the Theotokos apropos:

Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Proverbs 9:8

[peter speckhard]

I once supervised a vicar who was raised Orthodox, fell away in his teenage years, became a born again Christian in what he now terms a cult, and converted to Lutheranism while attending an LCMS college. Even on his vicarage he had big questions of ecclesiology and the running bet was how long it would be before he became Catholic. But he is still Lutheran. He had the same complaint-- that the Lake Wobegonish aspect of LCMS Lutheranism, in which everyone knows each other and outsides are auslander forever, made for a real stumbling-block to him. But it is not so easily done away with, much as I might wish it were. In a way it is sort of like the girl who pines after the married man-- if he rejects her she is mad, but is he didn't he wouldn't be the faithful man she found so attractive. Remember that the official folks in the LCMS probably don't know a colloquy applicant from another synod from Adam. If it were easy for clergy of other denominations to become clergy in the LCMS, it would not be long before there was no reason for clergy of other denominations to seek membership in the LCMS. If you think the LCMS proclaims the truth, you are morally obligated to join whether you can make a living as a pastor therein or not. And if you're not sure if the LCMS proclaims the truth, then you merely illustrate why they would insist on going through the whole shmeer again. I'm not trying to be harsh or flippant, but only to point out that the rigidity that seems so repulsive is also the thing that makes it so attractive. I have a friend who was an ELCA (he calls it the "***A" because he believes the first three letters are misnomers) pastor who left that church for reasons of conscience and applied to become an LCMS pastor and was turned down because hiw wife remains an ELCA pastor. He would be a great addition to our clergy roster. But he accepted the "verdict" so to speak, and now serves as a deacon in the LCMS, filling a pastoral vacancy. Not ideal, but he wouldn't look back to the ELCA on a bet.

[JRM]

"Finally, I find it interesting that those accusing me of “incivility” have not gone after Dr. Hutchens instead for statements on this issue far more pointed than any I have made here. But then, not being a Touchstone editor, I’m a much easier and more convenient target."

One target at a time, please. Mr. Hutchens did not designate himself our civility monitor
Nevertheless, you only just beat me to it. I consider the title of the post to be offensive in a very non-Christian way. I apologize on behalf of an unnamed fellow Catholic)

However, I belive it was Mr. Altena who made a point about Mere Comments being a place where Christians can get together and discuss matters in common while recognizing but agreeing "to disagree" and to "fence off" doctrinal and denominational differences.

Fair enough. Good points in my opinion.

So why does Mr. Altena himself invoke Adolf Hitler when somebody raises the issue of women's ordination?

Women are ordained in the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Methodist Church, a number of Baptist groups (I recognize a different concept of ordination in many denominations), Lutheran denominations, the Old Catholic Church, and I'm sure many other denominations I left out.

My own (RC) does not ordain women, but does have women as parish administrators--when no priest is assigned. The woman is responsible for the servce, pastoral ministry and delivering the homily. The limitations: She can't perform most sacraments, say Mass or consecrate the Host (but can preside at Communion. In short, such women are "pastors" in nearly every sense of the word.

Ther Greek Orthodox apparently are considering the office of deaconess.

Sure, women's ordination is a matter of disagreement. But so are a number of even more doctrinally significant issues deemed off limits for attack.

That's a whole lot of people who don't agree with Mr. Altena. Do they all have the morals of Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler?

Do you even consider them worthy of claiming the name "Christian?"

If so, are they good enough Christians to break bread here at Mere Comments?

Now, we had a very thoughtful post expressing from Cathy expressing her anguish about the potential for leaving her denomination over homosexuality, an issue plaguing many denominations one way or another.

In return? Her use of the word "our" is parsed into holding huge theological baggage that she clearly never intended. The rest of her post was equally parsed in an unchristian witchhunt for secret diabolocal meanings she never intended.

Now, there is nothing wrong with voicing strong theological objections to women's ordination. There is scripture on the subject. It's also fair to hold that women's ordination was the first stop on the "handbasket line to global warming."

But, strange as it may seem, some of us are struggling with the very questions that Cathy raised; How much do we put up wth before we choose to leave a denomination? I'd very much like to hear her out on that subject instead of having the thread hijacked by the civility patrol.

Another good reason for the mere Christian fence is the blazing unawareness of irony as reflected in this sort of language:

"Also, a proper ministry is in God's Church. Christ promised that His Church would be indefectable -- but that promise does not extend to each and every visible ecclesial body that claims to manifest it (the fallacy of division). And when any such body clearly turns against God's word in brazen disobedience, then (as my friend Bill R. has noted) there is a moral obligation to leave that body forthwith."

Are you Catholic? Well, if not, you are in one of those eclesiastical bodies that has turned against God's word in brazen disobedience.

The people who came up with the language "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" did not mean the same thing you apparently do. They did not consider eccleisatical communities to be Catholic.

But I don't bring that up everytime a non-Catholic/non Orthodox person posts. It's a conversation stopper, as Mr. Altena's righteous lecture was.

The point to be made is: Don't reargue the reformation. If that applies to us all equally, that's fine. If only some of us are going to observe the custom, well, stand by for more heat and less light.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What a very telling comment.<<<

As is yours, Juli. David at least has a track record of intellectually challenging and occasionally insightful posting. Et tu?

[DGP]

Let he whose Church is without foibles cast the first aspersion. Nobody's faith is without, as you so quaintly put it, "foibles".

If this was meant as a response to me, then I think you misunderstood me. Badly.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My own (RC) does not ordain women, but does have women as parish administrators--when no priest is assigned. The woman is responsible for the servce, pastoral ministry and delivering the homily. The limitations: She can't perform most sacraments, say Mass or consecrate the Host (but can preside at Communion. In short, such women are "pastors" in nearly every sense of the word.<<<

Wherein the problem. And no, she is not a "pastor" in every sense of the word. But words are infinitely malleable to you, aren't they?

>>>Ther Greek Orthodox apparently are considering the office of deaconess.<<<

If you had bothered to read any of my many posts on the subject, or (horror!) to read one of the several excellent books on the subject, then you would realize that deaconesses in no way are equivalent to pastors (for all that they are ordained by Cheirotoneia in the same manner as deacons), nor do they have a liturgical function, but rather fill a ministry of service particularly focused on the women and children of the community.

In this regard, they are far more limited than the dubious female "parish administrators" that some highly misguided Roman Catholic bishops have permitted, and which in fact reinforce the entire problem of attracting men to positions of leadership within the Catholic Church (because, face it, once you get past the ordained clergy, the Church is run by and for women, no men allowed). No Orthodox woman can preside at a service, though any layman, male or female, can lead a "typica" service of the Hours (in which all the priestly blessings are omitted, so it is mainly a service of "readings" and "psalmody"). Under no circumstances can a woman in the Orthodox Church lead a communion service, or distribute the Eucharist (the one exception being those Greek Orthodox deaconesses serving cloistered communities of nuns--the main reason that the office was restored in the 20th century).

So, get a clue.

>>>How much do we put up wth before we choose to leave a denomination?<<<

Depends on the strength of you stomach and your tolerance for nonsense.

>>>The people who came up with the language "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" did not mean the same thing you apparently do.<<<

But I am not sure you know, either.

>>>They did not consider eccleisatical communities to be Catholic.<<<

They would be right, even if for the wrong reasons. Being a true Church means meeting certain objective criteria, criteria that are rooted in the long history of the Church, even if sometimes obscured by sectarian polemics. As I have long said in a different context, one cannot be a little bit Church, any more than one can be a little bit pregnant. Meet the objective criteria of Church, and you are Church. Fail to meet it, you might still be a Christian community, but not a true Church.

>>>The point to be made is: Don't reargue the reformation. If that applies to us all equally, that's fine. If only some of us are going to observe the custom, well, stand by for more heat and less light.<<<

Is that were you were going? Took you long enough to get there, albeit the non-sequiturs and digressions probably have some of us stuck back at the last fork in the road. Nonetheless, aren't you the last person to be throwing stones of this sort?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If this was meant as a response to me, then I think you misunderstood me. Badly.<<<

I understood you perfectly. You meant to imply that doctrinal error and digression are the inevitable result of separation from the Catholic Church(TM) through communion with the Bishop of Rome. Lacking a center, the ecclesial communities are bound to be riven by division and false doctrine.

However, the history of the Catholic Church, including the Church of Rome, is preleat with examples of division and doctrinal error, occasionally originating from the Throne of Peter. No particular Church, no particular bishop, no one person or group of persons, is or ever has been infallible or indefectible in doctrine. Truth has emerged, over centuries, through a painful process of trial and error, because God is unknowable in his essence, and man's comprehension of his Creator is at best partial, approximate and analogic. Our expressions of doctrine are pale reflections of the Truth they are meant to illuminate, and so it is inevitable that, in trying to put that Truth into words, we should constantly fall short of the mark.

The difference, then, between the true Churches and the ecclesial communities is adherence to those expressions of Truth which, embodied in the Holy Tradition, have born the test of time and reflect the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles to their successors to the present day, despite all errors and detours along the way.

[David Gray]

>What a very telling comment.

Perhaps but if one has read the Scriptures it is hardly surprising.

[David Gray]

>Women are ordained in the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Methodist Church, a number of Baptist groups (I recognize a different concept of ordination in many denominations), Lutheran denominations, the Old Catholic Church, and I'm sure many other denominations I left out.

No church that ordains women is being faithful to the Reformation and what it taught. On this issues they have replaced being faithful to God's voice with being faithful to the voice of the spirit of the age. Some Presbyterians churches ordain women. Others are faithful in that regard. Some Lutheran churches ordain women. Others are faithful in that regard. Very few Baptists ordain women so most are faithful in that regard. And pretty much without exception when a church is faithless on an issue as obvious as this they have gutted their ability to stand fast elsewhere. So we get ponderings over sodomy and renaming the Trinity as well as other forms of rebellion. It is bizarre to see someone who is Roman Catholic defending this particular form of rebellion against God.

[David Gray]

Please correct second sentence: "On these issues"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> It is bizarre to see someone who is Roman Catholic defending this particular form of rebellion against God.<<<

Not really. All Roman Catholic means in most cases is someone had an Irish or Hispanic grandma.