Lutherans and Women Ordination

[Renton405]

Why is it that Lutheran/Protestant churches allow women to be ordinated priests/pastors when it is clearly against scripture?? Is there anything that explains why women are allowed to be pastors in most lutheran churches??

[HypnoToad]

As to Lutheran, I believe it depends on the synod. I think the Wisconsin Synod (and perhaps others of the more conservative side) still wouldn't ordain a woman pastor. So, don't just lump them all together.

[Melethiel]

Actually, only the ELCA ordains women. The other Lutheran synods don't.

[Renton405]

do you consider the ELCA not to be a true church because of this unscriptual doctrine??

[Melethiel]

No more than I consider the Catholic or Baptist churches, which both have unscriptural doctrine, to be "untrue" churches. In error? Yes. A "true church"? That is argued. The Lutheran definition of "church" tends to be "Where the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered." Of course, the implications of this statement are highly argued within Lutheran circles.

[Renton405]

You talk like theres tons of different Lutheran circles..

How many circles/divisions has the Lutheran Church broken into because of these type of things??

[Melethiel]

In the USA, the three main groups are the WELS/ELS, LCMS, and ELCA. This is due more to the nature of immigration to the USA (compare to the situation with Orthodoxy), although doctrinal differences over issues such as women's ordination do play an important role in keeping the synods separated.

[ricker]

Why is it that Lutheran/Protestant churches allow women to be ordinated priests/pastors when it is clearly against scripture?? Is there anything that explains why women are allowed to be pastors in most lutheran churches??
I personally don't have a axe to grind, but you may see each side has its story.http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob/woman_pastor.htm

[cerette]

Why is it that Lutheran/Protestant churches allow women to be ordinated priests/pastors when it is clearly against scripture?? Is there anything that explains why women are allowed to be pastors in most lutheran churches??
"Lutheran"Churches that allow female pastors have left the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions (writings that give detailed explanations of the teachings of the Bible) and therefore it is questionable if they should even call themselves Lutheran.
But Lutheran churches that do in fact still hold to the Bible and the Confessions, do not have female pastors.

[BigNorsk]

You talk like theres tons of different Lutheran circles..

How many circles/divisions has the Lutheran Church broken into because of these type of things??

Lutheran synods in North America:


AALC - American Association of Lutheran Churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Lutheran_Churches)
ALCA - Apostolic Lutheran Church of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Lutheran_Church_of_America)
AFLC - Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Free_Lutheran_Congregations)
ALCC - Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Lutheran_Catholic_Church)
ARC - Alliance of Renewal Churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Renewal_Churches) (charismatic/pentecostal)
CALC - Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Association_of_Lutheran_Congregations&action=edit)
CLA- Conservative Lutheran Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_Lutheran_Association&action=edit)
CLBA - Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lutheran_Brethren_of_America)
CLC - Church of the Lutheran Confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lutheran_Confession)
CLC - Concordia Lutheran Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_Lutheran_Conference)
Eielsen Synod - Eielsen Synod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eielsen_Synod)
ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America)
ELCIC - Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_Canada)
ELCM - Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Conference_%26_Ministerium_of_North_America)
ELDoNA - Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Diocese_of_North_America)
ELF - Evangelical Lutheran Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelical_Lutheran_Federation&action=edit)
ELS - Evangelical Lutheran Synod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod)
EELK -Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church)
GCEPC-The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lutheran_Evangelical_Protestant_Church)
ILC - Illinois Lutheran Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illinois_Lutheran_Conference&action=edit)
ILF - International Lutheran Fellowship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lutheran_Fellowship)
LLC - Laestadian Lutheran Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laestadian_Lutheran_Church)
LELCA - Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America)
LCC - Lutheran Church - Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church_-_Canada)
LCCF - Lutheran Conference of Confessional Fellowship (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lutheran_Conference_of_Confessional_Fellowship&action=edit)
LCMC - Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Congregations_in_Mission_for_Christ)
LCMS - The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church_-_Missouri_Synod)
LMS-USA - The Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Ministerium_and_Synod_-_USA)
LCR - Lutheran Churches of the Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Churches_of_the_Reformation)
LCS - The Lutheran Confessional Synod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Confessional_Synod)
OLCC - Orthodox Lutheran Confessional Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Lutheran_Confessional_Conference)
Protestant Conference - Protes'tant Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protes%27tant_Conference)
WELS - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod)
WCLA - World Confessional Lutheran Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Confessional_Lutheran_Association&action=edit)Marv

Some very small groups are missed by that list. The general trend has been merger. There's a lot fewer than there used to be.

[RegularGuy]

Why is it that Lutheran/Protestant churches allow women to be ordinated priests/pastors when it is clearly against scripture?? Is there anything that explains why women are allowed to be pastors in most lutheran churches??

It has already been pointed out that many Lutheran church bodies do not ordain women. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the largest of the Lutheran Bodies in the U.S. It does ordain women.

The ELCA subscribes to the Scriptures as the "source and norm" of its doctrine. The ordination of women is not a matter of doctrine.

As Ricker pointed out, not every reader of the Bible finds women's ordination to be "clearly against scripture." There is as much scriptural warrant for the ordination of women as there is against it. There are examples of women in leadership roles in both Testaments of the Bible. The ELCA, (or more properly, the church bodies that merged to form the ELCA) has chosen to ordain women, and, I believe that it has been blessed by the gifts that women bring to the ministry.

Though he is by no means the final authority in these matters, Martin Luther himself allowed, at least theoretically, that women could serve as ordained pastors if necessity should arise. Luther, though, did not think that women would make good preachers, because of the quality of their voices.

[gtmyers]

http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob/woman_pastor.htm

The link above should take you take a webpage by the baptists that are in support of women pastors. The guy gives good reasons why they should be able to. He tells of a culture back in new testament times where women were basically owned by their men and were basically slaves. If you were to look at this in the bible where it says that men should be pastors/elders/deacons and then keep in mind how women were treated when you read it, it was the culture back then. Now just for a moment compare that to the slavery in the old south. The christians back then in the old south used the bible in support slavery. And of course we know that is wrong today. See the parallel? Why be against women pastors today in this culture?
The guy in this article brings out some other good reasons as well.

[AngelusSax]

"Lutheran"Churches that allow female pastors have left the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions (writings that give detailed explanations of the teachings of the Bible) and therefore it is questionable if they should even call themselves Lutheran.
But Lutheran churches that do in fact still hold to the Bible and the Confessions, do not have female pastors.

I guess Priscilla was always silent and never led men. I guess Deborah was the same way. Miriam too, though she was a prophetess. And when the prophet Joel said that sons and daughters would prophesy, I guess he meant only sons after all.

Now the point of that is this:
We in the ELCA hold that we have not left the Bible. We are in disagreement with the other synods as to what we should be doing to fully realize the vision of the reformers, yes. But that doesn't mean we just don't believe the Bible, or have left it. It means we interpet it differently.

You may quote some passages where Paul says women should shut up and never speak, others will quote the same Paul lifting women up into leadership roles (Phoebe comes to mind). And there's also the possibility of a translational problem, i.e. that when Paul was supposedly telling women to be quiet, he was quoting from a previous letter written to him, and then rebutting it later (In essence, like what we see and do on here).

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43514427&postcount=3

I realize that's another of my posts, but I just don't feel like writing the same explanation again, using the citations of before, when this link will suffice.

What some see as "against Scripture" in ordaining women, the ELCA and others who ordain women see as "not telling half of God's army to be silent, thus not holding back the Kingdom of God for the sake of male pride."

It really is all in how one looks at it, interpets it, and then acts on it. I for one believe it to be more unScriptural to not ordain women, and I also believe that the passages which seem prohibitive against it are at odds with not only the overall message of the Gospels, but even the overall message of the very same human authors who seemingly prohibited women ministers, women speaking in public, or even women seeking to publicly learn.

Of course, this too may fall into the category of "if for you something is sin, then it is sin, and if for you something is not sinful, then it is not sin," such as food dedicated to idols is (since those who know the idols are false and therefore nothing could truly be dedicated to them in the first place are allowed to eat the food, since they do so giving thanks to the true God and not the idol).

Here is my firmest belief on the subject of women in leadership roles:
When the church tells women to sit in the back, be quiet, and at most lead a Sunday School class (assuming there's no men in the class), the devil laughs, for he knows that God's Kingdom is still only being allowed to creep along, when otherwise it might well be overtaking the very gates of hell by now.

[cerette]

I guess Priscilla was always silent and never led men. I guess Deborah was the same way. Miriam too, though she was a prophetess. And when the prophet Joel said that sons and daughters would prophesy, I guess he meant only sons after all.

Now the point of that is this:
We in the ELCA hold that we have not left the Bible. We are in disagreement with the other synods as to what we should be doing to fully realize the vision of the reformers, yes. But that doesn't mean we just don't believe the Bible, or have left it. It means we interpet it differently.

You may quote some passages where Paul says women should shut up and never speak, others will quote the same Paul lifting women up into leadership roles (Phoebe comes to mind). And there's also the possibility of a translational problem, i.e. that when Paul was supposedly telling women to be quiet, he was quoting from a previous letter written to him, and then rebutting it later (In essence, like what we see and do on here).

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43514427&postcount=3

I realize that's another of my posts, but I just don't feel like writing the same explanation again, using the citations of before, when this link will suffice.

What some see as "against Scripture" in ordaining women, the ELCA and others who ordain women see as "not telling half of God's army to be silent, thus not holding back the Kingdom of God for the sake of male pride."

It really is all in how one looks at it, interpets it, and then acts on it. I for one believe it to be more unScriptural to not ordain women, and I also believe that the passages which seem prohibitive against it are at odds with not only the overall message of the Gospels, but even the overall message of the very same human authors who seemingly prohibited women ministers, women speaking in public, or even women seeking to publicly learn.

Of course, this too may fall into the category of "if for you something is sin, then it is sin, and if for you something is not sinful, then it is not sin," such as food dedicated to idols is (since those who know the idols are false and therefore nothing could truly be dedicated to them in the first place are allowed to eat the food, since they do so giving thanks to the true God and not the idol).

Here is my firmest belief on the subject of women in leadership roles:
When the church tells women to sit in the back, be quiet, and at most lead a Sunday School class (assuming there's no men in the class), the devil laughs, for he knows that God's Kingdom is still only being allowed to creep along, when otherwise it might well be overtaking the very gates of hell by now.
Miriam & Deborah were in the Old Testament. We do not know if God had given them the knowledge that Paul gives in the NT yet.

Priscilla talked to Apollo -but that does not make her a teacher. I as a woman can talk to men too, but that doesn't make me a teacher.

The prophet Joel thing-- women can be prophets, but they may not be in authority over men.

[AngelusSax]

The prophet Joel thing-- women can be prophets, but they may not be in authority over men.

Once we are in Christ, there is no male nor female distinction. The Holy Spirit pours out His gifts on whom He will, and imposing a patriarchal culture on top of that, superceding the Holy Spirit, is never helpful.

Women can have authority over men, in a sense, though ultimately all authority is God's. God doesn't tell women to sit in the back of the church and be quiet, and neither should we. We should never halt or impede the advancement of the Kingdom of God for the sake of male pride based on misinterpretations and very possible mistranslations (even if only in punctuation, though punctuation including quotes can highly affect the meaning of anything).

Here's something to ponder: If a woman having authority over a man is absolutely wrong in the eyes of God, it's a sin. If it's a sin, it's a sin in the Old and the New Testaments. If it's a sin, then God lifting Deborah up to have both political and spiritual authority over an entire nation of people would be... yep, sin.

Junia, a female, was referred to as an apostle, I believe (maybe deaconess in some translations). And Priscilla did more than talk to Apollo, she instructed him.

And one more thing: If a woman prophesies but it has no authority over a man solely because of gender, then it is not prophesying.

Women can be ordained, and God calls many. This does not mean that a woman should rush the pulpit and claim pastorship because it's "her right", for that would be to usurp authority, which Paul did speak against. But he spoke against that, as well as false teachings, of men as well, even saying there were 2 men (not women), he handed over to Satan.

Paul did call for quiet learning, yes. And in his day, for a woman to learn was against the culture. Women had been, to that point, denied the opportunity to even learn. If Paul calls on someone to learn, what good would it do to then shut up about what was learned and never preach or teach just because a man happened to be present?

No, the Gospel is to be spread throughout the world. And we need to stop telling half of the army to just stay in the back, be meek and be quiet, because good girls don't teach.

When we tell people that, Satan laughs over his victory in the moment.

[cerette]

Once we are in Christ, there is no male nor female distinction. The Holy Spirit pours out His gifts on whom He will, and imposing a patriarchal culture on top of that, superceding the Holy Spirit, is never helpful.

Women can have authority over men, in a sense, though ultimately all authority is God's. God doesn't tell women to sit in the back of the church and be quiet, and neither should we. We should never halt or impede the advancement of the Kingdom of God for the sake of male pride based on misinterpretations and very possible mistranslations (even if only in punctuation, though punctuation including quotes can highly affect the meaning of anything).

Here's something to ponder: If a woman having authority over a man is absolutely wrong in the eyes of God, it's a sin. If it's a sin, it's a sin in the Old and the New Testaments. If it's a sin, then God lifting Deborah up to have both political and spiritual authority over an entire nation of people would be... yep, sin.

Junia, a female, was referred to as an apostle, I believe (maybe deaconess in some translations). And Priscilla did more than talk to Apollo, she instructed him.

And one more thing: If a woman prophesies but it has no authority over a man solely because of gender, then it is not prophesying.

Women can be ordained, and God calls many. This does not mean that a woman should rush the pulpit and claim pastorship because it's "her right", for that would be to usurp authority, which Paul did speak against. But he spoke against that, as well as false teachings, of men as well, even saying there were 2 men (not women), he handed over to Satan.

Paul did call for quiet learning, yes. And in his day, for a woman to learn was against the culture. Women had been, to that point, denied the opportunity to even learn. If Paul calls on someone to learn, what good would it do to then shut up about what was learned and never preach or teach just because a man happened to be present?

No, the Gospel is to be spread throughout the world. And we need to stop telling half of the army to just stay in the back, be meek and be quiet, because good girls don't teach.

When we tell people that, Satan laughs over his victory in the moment.
Let me start by replying to this one sentence:

"No, the Gospel is to be spread throughout the world. And we need to stop telling half of the army to just stay in the back, be meek and be quiet, because good girls don't teach."

Nobody should tell women to shut up and not spread the gospel. We all have to witness about our faith. That, however, is not the same as being in authority over men in the church.

[cerette]

Once we are in Christ, there is no male nor female distinction. The Holy Spirit pours out His gifts on whom He will, and imposing a patriarchal culture on top of that, superceding the Holy Spirit, is never helpful.

Women can have authority over men, in a sense, though ultimately all authority is God's. God doesn't tell women to sit in the back of the church and be quiet, and neither should we. We should never halt or impede the advancement of the Kingdom of God for the sake of male pride based on misinterpretations and very possible mistranslations (even if only in punctuation, though punctuation including quotes can highly affect the meaning of anything).

Here's something to ponder: If a woman having authority over a man is absolutely wrong in the eyes of God, it's a sin. If it's a sin, it's a sin in the Old and the New Testaments. If it's a sin, then God lifting Deborah up to have both political and spiritual authority over an entire nation of people would be... yep, sin.

Junia, a female, was referred to as an apostle, I believe (maybe deaconess in some translations). And Priscilla did more than talk to Apollo, she instructed him.

And one more thing: If a woman prophesies but it has no authority over a man solely because of gender, then it is not prophesying.

Women can be ordained, and God calls many. This does not mean that a woman should rush the pulpit and claim pastorship because it's "her right", for that would be to usurp authority, which Paul did speak against. But he spoke against that, as well as false teachings, of men as well, even saying there were 2 men (not women), he handed over to Satan.

Paul did call for quiet learning, yes. And in his day, for a woman to learn was against the culture. Women had been, to that point, denied the opportunity to even learn. If Paul calls on someone to learn, what good would it do to then shut up about what was learned and never preach or teach just because a man happened to be present?

No, the Gospel is to be spread throughout the world. And we need to stop telling half of the army to just stay in the back, be meek and be quiet, because good girls don't teach.

When we tell people that, Satan laughs over his victory in the moment.
You wrote: And one more thing: If a woman prophesies but it has no authority over a man solely because of gender, then it is not prophesying.

I never said a woman's prophesying would not be 'real' just cuz she prophesies to a man. It is just that women should not be pastors, not be in authority over men in the church and in marriage. This does not mean that women because of their gender would by nature be crappy pastors or leaders, it is just that God has taught us we have different roles in the church and in marriage.

[Brennin]

I am not a Lutheran but there is scriptural support for female deacons (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=69785720). I do not know if the Lutheran Church has deacons, though.

[AngelusSax]

I never said a woman's prophesying would not be 'real' just cuz she prophesies to a man. It is just that women should not be pastors, not be in authority over men in the church and in marriage. This does not mean that women because of their gender would by nature be crappy pastors or leaders, it is just that God has taught us we have different roles in the church and in marriage.

Well, in marriage, neither person should be in authority in the traditional sense. We are called to mutual submission (Paul deals much more in how men are to treat women as their equals, loving them even as their own bodies, rather than the pervading custom of treating the wives as mere property--or worse).

And as far as being a pastor goes, no pastor has authority except that which God gives, and all authority is ultimately God's in the end anyway. God can and does call women to be pastors, and they should not turn away from it because of a tradition of man which uses a misinterpretation of Scripture as its sole defense, aside from outright chauvinism.

Paul lifted up many women in his day for leadership roles in the various churches, all of which had men. And after re-reading the way the "be silent" passages are worded, I am convinced he is doing what he did elsewhere in the same letters: Quoting what was written to him first, then rebutting it. He is saying "what, did God's Word come from you men? Or did it go only to you men?" He is saying, via rhetorical question, "if a woman has the gift of teaching from the Holy Spirit, don't deny her."

The only qualm he had with women in authority were women who were the know-it-all types who were using their newfound freedom to constantly speak up in a rude, interrupting way, usurping (taking by force) authority, simply because they could in their freedom of Christ. But that message applies to all, not just women.

Paul spends a lot of time telling women how to publicly prophesy (also known as teaching, since the Church at that time taught what either had or would happen, as we should today of course), and lifting them up, and then supposedly tells them to either a)not have authority over a man, or b)be silent. The second is a supposed command, and it would render even testimony invalid as it would break the silence rule. So women can apparently publicly prophesy by miming? In today's church, can they sing in a choir? Can they speak of what God has done for them? Can they pray along with the corporate confession and forgiveness? If so, then we aren't holding to the command for women to be silent, since it is shameful for a woman to speak in public.

I pray that one day we quit misusing Scripture to hold back half of God's army, half of His will.

In 1 Corinthians, verse 36 makes absolutely no sense if Paul himself penned the preceding 2 verses. But if he was quoting what was written to them (so as to provide the basis for his response in verse 36), then it makes more sense.

Paul quotes them, "Women must not speak in public, for it is shameful. She must not have authority over a man, but she should subject herself, as the law also says."


Paul replies: What? Was it from you that the Word of God first went out? Or was it to you only?

The first message of the fulfillment of the Gospel was to women. Women told men, who did not believe them, largely because in that culture, men were taught to never trust women's testimony on the basis of their gender alone. Jesus of course then showed the disciples that yes, women can be trusted, and that His being there to prove their testimony was proof they could be trusted. The incarnation happened absent a man's input or approval. Mary didn't say "Wait, Joseph rules over me, I must submit to what he wants." That's because there is no God-Law that says she must, and she knew that in order to answer God's call to her, it was SHE and she alone who must answer.

We need courageous women who will answer God's call, wherever that call may lead. If it leads to the back of the church, that's fine. If it leads to the mission fields, that's fine.

And if it leads to the pulpit, that's fine too. When God calls women to pastor, He does not contradict His Word. His Word empowers women. Our misinterpretation of His word does not. It relegates them to second class citizenry, which has no place in the Kingdom of God. It never has and never will.

[cerette]

I am not a Lutheran but there is scriptural support for female deacons (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=69785720). I do not know if the Lutheran Church has deacons, though.
Yes we have deacons, even female ones :)

[cerette]

In reply to Angelus "The incarnation happened absent a man's input or approval. Mary didn't say "Wait, Joseph rules over me, I must submit to what he wants." That's because there is no God-Law that says she must, and she knew that in order to answer God's call to her, it was SHE and she alone who must answer."

You are right. There is no God-given law that says that women need to do what men say. (I never claimed that to be the case either.) However, God has given men and women different roles in the church and in marriage. This does not mean that women do everything men say simply because they say it. Women, and men as well!, need to do as God says. We cannot follow manmade rules over God's rules. About marriage: The husband is to love his wife like Christ loves the church and gave his life for it. And the wife is to submit to her husband. If both live up to these roles, a Christian marriage is a wonderful thing. (Of course we all sin and fall short, but we need to do our best to act the way God has told us to.) A Christian husband is not on some sort of power trip over his wife. His leadership is a responsibility, not a power tool.

Of course Mary did not tell God that she had to ask what Joseph wanted, and then do what he happened to want her to do. She did what God said to her through the angel. That did in no way go against her being Joseph's helper and Joseph being her 'head'.