tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post112117788636534719..comments2023-10-04T01:27:24.003-07:00Comments on Versus Populum: Theology in the ELCADwight P.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15849665963994688905noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-48664678715526781422009-08-03T09:58:27.344-07:002009-08-03T09:58:27.344-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-86113964436234347382009-06-26T09:45:29.783-07:002009-06-26T09:45:29.783-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-66011825650794487382009-06-25T01:09:48.627-07:002009-06-25T01:09:48.627-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-61440916877768220602009-05-02T21:59:00.000-07:002009-05-02T21:59:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-25132493635232953382009-05-02T21:23:00.000-07:002009-05-02T21:23:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-52372075245233720182008-05-23T11:27:00.000-07:002008-05-23T11:27:00.000-07:00I should say i am glad to see the fallout of the l...I should say i am glad to see the fallout of the liberal ways of the ELCA. When you call 'Missouri' the out of touch Lutherans remember we are still Lutheran because we hold to the Lutheran confessions. The walk-out might have happened years ago but they walked into your homes and church and now your foundations are no more. Rest in PeaceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1131265678331021802005-11-06T00:27:00.000-08:002005-11-06T00:27:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1130879348648602362005-11-01T13:09:00.000-08:002005-11-01T13:09:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1130592701907306912005-10-29T06:31:00.000-07:002005-10-29T06:31:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Sabrinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09124047607518161772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1130530721302889942005-10-28T13:18:00.000-07:002005-10-28T13:18:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1130409505888557892005-10-27T03:38:00.000-07:002005-10-27T03:38:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1130299153507084732005-10-25T20:59:00.000-07:002005-10-25T20:59:00.000-07:00You have good content on your blog keep up the goo...You have good content on your blog keep up the good workMr Krishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04404210240955149859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1123534858043305912005-08-08T14:00:00.000-07:002005-08-08T14:00:00.000-07:00Actually, Jim, I have been working offline on a wa...Actually, Jim, I have been working offline on a way of getting at the issues raised here, and I keep getting flummoxed. As to biblical support my assertions: You must know that we evangelical catholics don't have to prove everything from the Bible; we have the Great Tradition! (That's a joke, folks.)<BR/><BR/>The short answer that I give to the demand for support for my assertion that the Church's life is determined by God lies in an ecclesiology and pneumatology that believes that God acts through the Church to effect his will -- just as he acted through Jesus (hence, the more-than-metaphor "Body of Christ"). It is how I read St. Paul when he excoriates various Christian congregations (Corinth and Rome among them) for not listening to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and doing all kinds of dastardly business contrary to the Way of Christ. <BR/><BR/>For the Church to be the Church, it needs prophets and preachers -- admittedly, inter alia. Paul makes that point. And critical to that understanding is that the Gospel comes to us from the outside. (Have I said this already in this thread, or is that from another line?) <BR/><BR/>We do not speak the Gospel to ourselves; it comes as a word from the outside. That's why we cannot understand preaching as mutual conversation. The preacher is not just one "delegated," for the sake of good order, to speak for the Lord. He is one who stands over against the congregation bringing that Word from outside the congregation. (I'm leaving open the question of where the preacher hears the Word from the outside. Many, lamentably, seem not to hear anything from outside their own intellectual world. For most, I suspect, who are loyal and faithful servants of the word, the source of the external word resides in or results from the ordination rite of laying on of hands. I am trying to get a handle on what the Romans and, I think, Easterners, mean by the "special charism" of the presbyteral office. But I'm not there yet.)<BR/><BR/>In much of this, I feel the influence of Reinhard Huetter, who is the new editor of Pro Ecclesia (journal of the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology). In his book "Bound to Be Free: Evangelicsl CAtholic Engagements in Ecclesiology, Ethic, and Ecumenism," I understand him to be making some of these very points (although I have not read him to say anthing about ordination. (I heartily recommend the book. He writes very nicely -- and especially so for a theologian. I guess it helps that he is a German who writes English as a second -- or more -- language.)<BR/><BR/>I acknowledge that Reinhard has converted to Roman Catholicism. (See Carl's letter.) But his books ("Bound" and "Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Pracice") were written when he was still firmly in the Lutheran camp, so I don't think they can be accused of establishing an apologia for his swim across the Tiber. <BR/><BR/>Inherent in this discussion, of course, is the recurrent theme of authority in the Church. When the Church abrogates her authority in the world (which is one of Carl's points; he thinks that that is what is going on in the ELCA), then secular culture rushes in to fill the void. It is that void that virtually forces some of our best theologians out. (And while I approach this as a parochial ELCA-Lutheran issue, it is by no means limited to Lutherans. This is the major issue facing the mainstream protestant denominations. And I know Roman Catholics who think that that's what's behind much of the internal strife within Catholicism.)<BR/><BR/>Give me a couple of days, and I'll try to have something substantive (relatively speaking -- with apologies to Benedict XVI).<BR/><BR/>Pax et bonum, all.<BR/>DDwight P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15849665963994688905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1123497790564630992005-08-08T03:43:00.000-07:002005-08-08T03:43:00.000-07:00" ... let a bunch of lay people" set what doctrine..." ... let a bunch of lay people" set what doctrine is.<BR/><BR/>Not that the author might have an elitist streak.<BR/><BR/>"An ordained (i.e., ordered) ministry is and has virtually always been recognized as essential to the life of the Church. It's the way the Church's Lord set things up."<BR/><BR/>Where is the scriptural authority for that statement?<BR/><BR/>You must be one busy-busy guy, Dwight. Long time, no hear.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16784102513870545675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1122961813474126442005-08-01T22:50:00.000-07:002005-08-01T22:50:00.000-07:00I have continued this discussion with Dwight via e...I have continued this discussion with Dwight via email. As a final point, I do not have a blog but do have a website: <A HREF="http://orthodoxlutheran.fws1.com/menu.html" REL="nofollow">The Orthodox Lutheran Web Page</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1122922401227877892005-08-01T11:53:00.000-07:002005-08-01T11:53:00.000-07:00One other thought, while there is something to com...One other thought, while there is something to commend the Orthodox approach of asking "What has the Church always taught about this?" it has the serious drawback, as I believe George Lindbeck observes in his book <I>The Nature of Doctrine</I>, of preventing the Church from ever addressing any new situations. It is precisely how to address a new situation that the Church is struggling with now.Andy Kaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01863052203418450397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1122909777866914782005-08-01T08:22:00.000-07:002005-08-01T08:22:00.000-07:00Dwight,You make some good points. I must admit, D...Dwight,<BR/><BR/>You make some good points. I must admit, Dr. Braaten's letter has caused me to consider deeply what my position on this question really is. His point that we can't just let a majority of lay representatives determine what the doctrine of the Church should be is a very good point. I can't in any way dispute it. That obviously gives me some problems with my approach to the sexuality questions. (I don't mean to make this all about the sexuality issues, but I don't see another way to make the question concrete enough to discuss.)<BR/><BR/>What I've come up with, for today at least, is that for me it isn't really a question of doctrine. It seems to me to be a clear case of doctrine getting in the way of the Gospel, and when that happens, doctrine must yield, at least in practice.<BR/><BR/>What I mean by this may not be clear because people who are on the opposite sides of these questions from me do not see the doctrine in any way obstructing the Gospel and they see those on my side as making a clear intrusion into something that is obviously in the realm of doctrine. To the extent that this last point is true, I think the people on "my" side are in error.<BR/><BR/>What I want to say is this, the way that gay and lesbians are actually treated in our Church is an obstruction to the Gospel. Some people (not all) hide behind "the traditional teaching of the Church" to justify their non-acceptance (rejection) of gay and lesbian Christians. This is a problem of practice, not of doctrine. Gay and lesbian Christians react to this by insisting (rightly) on full acceptance. This includes for them having the Church encourage their committed, loving relationships and full admittance into any activities going on in the Church. From there, right practice slips into the realm of doctrine.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I have absolutely no desire to change the doctrine of the Church. My only concern is to not allow the Church's doctrine to prevent me from obeying the command of Christ to love my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as he loves them.<BR/><BR/>If that means the Church must exist for a time in a state such that its doctrine does not properly explain its practice, so be it. I'm sure we'll eventually figure it out. In this regard, I would offer as precedent the Church's having offered worship to Christ before the doctrine of the Trinity was finally worked out. They knew it was the right thing to do even if they couldn't completely explain why.Andy Kaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01863052203418450397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1122051126423324202005-07-22T09:52:00.000-07:002005-07-22T09:52:00.000-07:00My friends, I regret that a frantic schedule has p...My friends, I regret that a frantic schedule has prevented my staying involved in this really excellent discussion.<BR/><BR/>Darel, I think that you nearly got me with the quote in the Lutheran Confessions. But I think there are two levels to the "in persona Xi" stuff. Augustana (or "CA", as my friend Bjoern insists on calling it -- such a good German, he)does not address the second of the understandings. (I'd check with Melancthon, though; he wrote the blessed thing!)<BR/><BR/>The CA point, as I understand it, is to affirm the catholic, non-Donatist understanding of ministry as something that exists more than for the sake of convenience. It isn't a cult of personality that is at work in liturgy; it is the Gospel -- which does not depend on the particular character or characteristics of the presbyter. The authority of the pastor is not his/her personal charism or magnetism; it is the authority of Christ himself, conferred by the Holy Spirit, mediated by the Church and her ordered ministers. Ordination confers no special "ontological" change or character or stigma; it invests the ordinand with the authoriy of Christ himself. Just as the disciples were given authority to bind and loose, so pastors today (in apostolic succession -- i.e., as successors to the apostles) are en-Spirited with the same authority. When they proclaim Gospel, it's True.<BR/><BR/>That is different from saying that by acting "in loco Xi," the priest re-does the sacrifice that Jesus made. And that understanding is, I think, at work in much of Roman Catholic theology of ordination. (I have no idea how Orthodox understand ordination: Their system of married and not married, of get married on time or be forever celebate, or married presbyters and celibate bishops, of protopresbyters and hieromonks is way too complicated for me to have gotten a handle on yet.) Inherent to this theology is a different kind of authority, it seems to me, from what the CA confesses (and requires).<BR/><BR/>I have never before been accused of having a low doctrine of the Ordered/Ordained Ministry of the Church. I dispute such a charge. But I do acknowledge that I don't fall easily into "high church" misunderstandings of the nature of that ministry.<BR/><BR/>An ordained (i.e., ordered) ministry is and has virtually always been recognized as essential to the life of the Church. It's the way the Church's Lord set things up. It's the way the Church operated in her earliest life. Whether it "could" be different, I don't know (or care); that it is this way, I do know (and care). God has chosen to keep the Church kosher by sending his Spirit onto certain men and women whose loyalties can no longer be split, but who must breathe out what has been breathed into them. (That is true, at least in principle and doctrine. Practice is entirely another thing.) I don't think it's a low regard for the ministry -- or for ordination -- to see it this way.<BR/><BR/>But the mass is not a repristination of Calvary -- at least by Lutheran lights (and I read by those lights -- my comments on The Thinklings notwithstanding). And it is in that sense that I dispute the "in loco Xi" designation for the pastoral office.<BR/><BR/>I think that that misunderstanding allows for a lot of nonsense about the need for a male-gendered clergy. It simply doesn't hold up. <BR/><BR/>Melancthon (and how long I've wanted to talk to you, face-to-face), I don't think I agree with your assessment. We who support the ordered, spirit-filled ministry of women (without in any way denigrating the Spirit-filled ministry of laypeople) can look to long traditions of service and influence by women in the earliest church. In this case, there is <BR/><BR/>There is simply no similar record with respect to same-sex activity. (There is, of course, no real discussion of "homosexuality," because no such concept really existed before the 19th century, at the earliest. And that fact may be terrifically important, but I don't know quite how to integrate it, frankly). While Arland Hultgren, at Luther Sem (and a really sincere, orthodox, and pastoral scholar), has demonstrated that the Biblical record is not clear enough to give a definitive "yes" or "no" prooftext to the issues related to homosexuality, there is nothing to counter the weight of the scriptural record and early church teaching.<BR/><BR/>Interpreting scripture must be undertaken in a careful, nuanced way. So, too, relationship to secular or civic culture must be analyzed carefully. The experience (and here I risk causing even great offense, though I don't mean to) of the Volkskirche in Nazi Germany should alert us to the ease with which the ship of faith can be sunk thanks to the siren call of cultural influences and "hermeneutics."<BR/><BR/>The resources at hand cannot be limied to "scripture alone," as the Church has demonstrated time and again. We must look to the early Church teachers -- Fathers and Desert Mothers and Fathers, among them. <BR/><BR/>Frederica Mathewes-Green (an agnostic-turned Anglican-turned Orthodx) claims that there are no problems in Orthodoxy similar to the ones plaguing American protestant denominations because the Orthodox all agree to answer new questions with the question, "What has the Church always taught about this?" Well, while I think that she identifies the correct question, I think that interpreting the "past" to guide the present is more complicated than she suggests.<BR/><BR/>I wonder, finally, whether it's time for you, Darel, to begin a blog (assuming that you don't already have one -- and if you do, 'fess up and share the address). You seem to have a lot to say. Put it out there.Dwight P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15849665963994688905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1121977871008777082005-07-21T13:31:00.000-07:002005-07-21T13:31:00.000-07:00Dwight,I am sorry to see you haven't had a chance ...Dwight,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry to see you haven't had a chance to respond yet regarding the Office of the Ministry. You said<BR/><BR/><I>The "pastor" does not "act Jesus" in the mass (or anywhere else); s/he does not portray Jesus at the Last Supper during the anaphora of the mass; s/he does not re-offer the sacrifice of the Cross.</I><BR/><BR/>In response I offer Ap. VII/VIII:<BR/><BR/>"on account of the call of the Church, <B>[pastors] represent the person of Christ</B>, and do not represent their own persons, as Christ testifies, Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me. [Thus even Judas was sent to preach.] When they offer the Word of God, when they offer the Sacraments, they offer them in the stead and place of Christ."<BR/><BR/>Our Lutheran Confessions clearly state that the pastor does indeed "act Jesus".<BR/><BR/>It would be nice if we could start a new thread on this issue -- whether the ELCA has long been a "liberal protestant" church.<BR/><BR/>DarelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1121914389698804682005-07-20T19:53:00.000-07:002005-07-20T19:53:00.000-07:00Marvelous discussion going on, Dwight. I forwarded...Marvelous discussion going on, Dwight. I forwarded the letter on to a friend of mine from the Seminary I work at. He is going on to internship. His response to me is too good not to paste in here. He is one of those bright lights that gives one hope for clear thinking in the church. I forward his response to me here:<BR/>_________________<BR/>I think the letter from Carl Braaten is symptomatic of a bigger problem; namely, that the ELCA still doesn't know what it is. Lutherans ought not to fall into the trap of becoming Liberal Protestants/Calvinists. They are distinctly different. But, is this any surprise? How many students at LSTC, not to mention Luther Seminary, could tell you the difference between consubstantiation and symbolic presence? Or how many Lutheran seminary students would rather build "a city on a hill" than dicuss the theologia crucis? The point is, this "confessional crisis" shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - but, I don't think that's why these people leave. Yes, we have lost some significant minds to other churches, but Braaten insinuates that because this has happened, somehow Lutheranism is falling behind. It makes for a nice scrabble game, but doesn't work when it comes to Churches. We're not in a competition with the Catholics about who can have the most smart people in their ranks - whoever has the most wins. Perhaps Jaroslav Pelikan genuinely does feel a deeper spirituality in the Orthodox Church than in the Lutheran one, but that is not because Lutherans can't articulate their own confession; as if because the ELCA doesn't know what it is, these people leave. The grass is always greener on the other side, and it is important to remember that every Church - Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox - they all have problems. The state of the Church, regardless of its messiness, does not effect or change what the Church is in theory. The Church is only ever realized in a perfect state in heaven; the Church earthly must struggle through and do the best she can. There will always be gimpy pastors, and gimpy congregations, and gimpy bishops; there will always be bitchy ladies in Church who long for some golden age that never existed. The good news is that there have always been these things, and the Church catholic has done remarkably well considering the level of human stupidity that seems to reign supreme; proving in the end, that God is driving the car, not us.Daniel S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16715299196044819068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1121800016599761042005-07-19T12:06:00.000-07:002005-07-19T12:06:00.000-07:00Dwight,In your discussion above on ordination, I w...Dwight,<BR/><BR/>In your discussion above on ordination, I wonder what your view is on AC XIV. Why must we have ordained pastors instead of laymen leading the service, distributing the sacraments, etc.? If the pastor does not "act Jesus" as you say, what is he doing? And why can't just anybody do it?<BR/><BR/>My suspicion is that your low view of ordination is part and parcel of your opinions regarding the "democratization" of ordination by incorporating women.<BR/><BR/>DarelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1121793832273311202005-07-19T10:23:00.000-07:002005-07-19T10:23:00.000-07:00Dwight,Your arguments in favor of women's ordinati...Dwight,<BR/><BR/>Your arguments in favor of women's ordination are very good, and I believe they are right. But surely you're aware that people make the same sorts of arguments in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality.<BR/><BR/>If we were to take the same hermenuetical rules that are commonly employed in the argument that homosexuality is a sin and apply them to women's ordination, your argument would never stand.<BR/><BR/>Darel's comments regarding the timing of progressive movements in the Lutheran churches are certainly something we should wrestle with. But I suggest that there is a distinction to be made between the Church being guided by the culture and the Church merely being awakened by a culture that has noticed something the Church hasn't.Andy Kaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01863052203418450397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1121789816408776002005-07-19T09:16:00.000-07:002005-07-19T09:16:00.000-07:00Dwight,Thank you for your considerate and consider...Dwight,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your considerate and considered response. Let me reply in turn.<BR/><BR/>The theology behind male-only ordination is secondary to the clear teachings of Scripture (1 Cor. 14; 1 Tim. 2; 1 Tim. 3) and the practice of the Church catholic from apostolic times. Consider infant baptism. The Church had good Scriptural cause to baptize infants and has the practice of the Church catholic from apostolic times to support the practice as well. <I>Why</I> we do so had to be worked out over time, but <I>that</I> we did so <I>and</I> that it was right and Godly so to do was always the case.<BR/><BR/>Those who are pressing for the normalization of homosexuality would contend that they, too, have as you say "looked at Scripture very carefully, along with quite serious -- though with not hearly enough exposition-- of the history of the issue." So how do we decide? How do we choose?<BR/><BR/>It is no coincidence that the ALC and LCA began blessing second/third/etc. marriages when divorce began to be normalized in American society. We began ordaining women when the womens' movement began pressing "equal rights". We are close to blessing gay "marriages" just at the same time that homosexuality, too, is becoming normalized in our surrounding culture. This is the very definition of <I>Kulturprotestantismus</I> which Dr. Braaten warns against!!<BR/><BR/>We Lutherans haven't been taking Scripture or our Lutheran Confessions seriously for many decades. Those people whom Dr. Braaten is lamenting today are the same ones pushing "liberal Protestantism" for years and years. Why the outrage <I>now</I>? Why the talk of schism <I>now</I>?<BR/><BR/>I think people involved in Solid Rock and WorldAlone are right, but for the wrong reasons. I fear that they oppose the normalization of homosexuality <I>not</I> because they are faithful to Scripture and to the central argument of the Augsburg Confession that <B>"nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic"</B>. I fear they oppose the normalization of homosexuality only because they are bigots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1121786256791242032005-07-19T08:17:00.000-07:002005-07-19T08:17:00.000-07:00On the issue of "gender equality," I suspect -- an...On the issue of "gender equality," I suspect -- and that's the operative word, "suspect" -- that Carl would say a couple of things. And here I'm going to say it my way, with the express understanding that I have no idea how Carl would actually respond.<BR/><BR/>First, the issue of "equality" is not a biblical notion. The scriptures do not speak of men and women's equality; the scriptures actually assert that in Christ "equality" is a meaningless term. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, ... ." So the imposition of a politcally charged, cultural term -- such as "equality" -- is foreign to the analysis. It is, in fact, unhelpful because of other attitudes it may carry -- e.g., that ordination is somehow a "right" of males that should be extended to females. In fact, no such "right" exisits in the Church's teaching. <BR/><BR/>This is an ecclesiological consideration: For it suggests -- indeed, insists -- that we must break our secular notions and considerations on the Church's gospel. And that's what Chip nicely described as the issue at stake in Carl's letter.<BR/><BR/>Now second, Carl has never expressed any concern or disapproval of the ordination of women. Indeed, he has trained many for precisely that service. You cannot, I think, teach in an ELCA seminary if you oppose women's ordination. But to assert that is not really to compromise the arguments that several of us have been advancing. <BR/><BR/>Carl would (I hope) and I do deny that the decision to ordain women was a deviation from Church teaching. (It, surely, represented a substantive departure from Church practice and discipline over virtually all the life of the Church, but as I try to explain, it was not really a violation or denial of the teaching of Scripture.)<BR/><BR/>I would point to the quite serious study of the issue by predecessor bodies of the ELCA, the LCA and the ALC (ah, the glories of Lutheran alphabet soup): Those studies looked at Scripture very carefully, along with quite serious -- though with not hearly enough exposition-- of the history of the issue. And both groups concluded that the Scriptures do not, at minimum, foreclose ordaining women. And given that it is not forbidden, it is a prudential matter for the Church's decisionmaking (i.e., for the structure of its life in time) whether to admit women to the ordered ministry. Also given that there is no reason to doubt women's talent and ability to fulfill the office of ministry (i.e., preaching and presiding at the sacraments), it seemed good "to the Holy Spirit and to us" to change the earlier practice and to accept eagerly and joyfully the service of women in orders. <BR/><BR/>The issue, you see, then, was not the "right" of anyone to ordination. It was discernment of what the Tradition of the Church had been and how that Tradition was to be treated -- incarnated, if you like -- faithfully today. And that's why very few of us who stand in sympathy with Carl's letter would turn back the clock to a males-only presbyterate.<BR/><BR/>It seems -- and here I feel that my lack of erudition will result in my talking about something that will unintentionally insult my Roman Catholic (and perhaps Eastern Orthodox) brethren and friends -- that Rome and the East actually are misperceiving the tradition and the Great Tradition by refusing orders to women. The argument about some sort of "in loco Christi" ontology of the "priesthood" misperceives the nature of presbyteral ministry and the importance of the "priesthood of all believers" (the latter of which we Lutherans so treasure -- even if we misunderstand it). The "pastor" does not "act Jesus" in the mass (or anywhere else); s/he does not portray Jesus at the Last Supper during the anaphora of the mass; s/he does not re-offer the sacrifice of the Cross. And it is irrelevant, frankly, that the Twelve comprised only men. The Twelve also comprised only Jews, and no one says that only Jewish men may be ordained. Chromosomes do not insinutate themselves into the doctrine of the Holy Ministry. And I think "protestants" are right to press that point.<BR/><BR/>(I am not so arrogant as to assume that Carl would have anything to do with these last paragraphs.)<BR/><BR/>What is so frustrating about this discussion -- I don't mean just on this blog, but rather throughout the Church -- is that it's like art: It is difficult to articulate a concrete aesthetic; what I consider art, many (most) would not. Yet judgments about art can't be purely a matter of "what I like" or what sells. Aesthetics becomes a very rarified discourse, as a consequence. <BR/><BR/>Well, so also it's hard to get a handle on a good discussion of authority in the Church, because much of the lingo we (who use it) use is something that we kind of understand and sense, but don't really have a hard and fast way of nailing down. Note: I don't like the use of "code" to discuss this problem. "Code" suggests some sinister or deliberately clandestine meaning that is withheld from the uninitiated. I acknowledge that theology is a kind of special language, but I think that every organization has its "terms of art," as we call them in law, which members use among themselves. Theological language can be hard and can be technical, but sometimes it is easier to use it in discussion theology than the language from some other culture. And I also think that if we are discussing churchly issues, we ought to use a language that has a long heritage of use in the Church (even though I am a good enough debater to insist on some definitions of problematic terms -- like "liberal protestantism").<BR/><BR/>Complicating the problem, as we've seen, is the difficulty of agreeing on what the "canons" are -- i.e., what are the foundation and the worldview that support and frame what we say.<BR/><BR/>But I think I'm getting in too deep. I AM NOT A PHILOSOPHER. Let the people say "Amen." <BR/><BR/>By the way, folks, I think this sets a record for the number of comments to a post on my blog. Thank you. Keep it coming. I'm slowing learning a lot from y'all. (See, Troy, I really do use "Y'all.")Dwight P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15849665963994688905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914939.post-1121720096705291522005-07-18T13:54:00.000-07:002005-07-18T13:54:00.000-07:00Completely off topic...I just wish LTSG was an LCM...Completely off topic...I just wish LTSG was an LCMS seminary. *Sigh* You guys wouldn't mind selling it to us, would you? Do you really need 2 seminaries in Pennsylvania?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com