Of the making of ELCA social statements, there is no end. . . at least that is how the proverb goes. So it is with no surprise now that the #metoo movement has become the cause du jour, it would not take long before the ELCA would have something to say on women and justice. The truth is, however, that this has been in the works for about 9 years although the draft shows signs of having adopted and incorporated the latest thinking on the topic.Some highlights. . . Patriarchy has now been confirmed as the eighth of the seven deadly sins. At least according to the ELCA's draft social statement on women and justice (perhaps a more appropriate title to be named at a later date). One commentator counted more than 130 pejorative uses of the term patriarch, patriarchy, or patriarchal in this document. So I guess that means that a number of hymns and a few Scriptural texts will have to be redone to reflect the new found fact that patriarchy is by nature sinful and unclean. My suspicion is that they mean something else but cover it all up with a useful shorthand term like patriarchy and I further suspect that matriarchy or matriarchal would technically mean something rather similar but would not be judged a sinful term by the authors of this draft.
Misogyny is apparently the common sin of all who disagree with this document and probably an issue inherent in any Christian author prior to this enlightened era. Never mind that misogyny really means hatred of women and should not apply to people who simply believe in a distinction of roles for the sexes. In the same way, complementarity also comes under indictment as a bad term freighted with injustice. Accordingly, the authors of this draft believe that roles should not be assigned by sex or gender and that they are, in reality, negotiable and interchangeable. Well, some of them, anyway. By the way, reproductive issues are singled out as one area in which women have been oppressed and, of course, believe that abortion is not always wrong or ordinarily wrong since ethics are judged by situation and no behaviors are essentially sinful (except the exceptions listed above).
But at the root of this is the accusation that the Church has been a willing co-conspirator with the forces of injustice and has violated the rights of women repeatedly in pursuit of patriarchal judgments designed to subject women (even using "ill-gotten power and authority" to suppress their pursuit of justice). Typically, the call is made for more inclusive language, for egalitarian rules for everything from compensation to pregnancy and lactation leave, for more women in visible and functional roles of leadership, and for the unfairness of women's role as both caregiver and provider in the home.
Curiously, the draft seems willing to venture rather close to heresy in challenging everything from the shape and confession of the Holy Trinity to the discounting of the "maleness" of Jesus. But that seems to be a small price to pay in the order of things designed to transcend Scripture and tradition with a new definition of humanity without the man in it. Predictable? Yes. Faithful? I would suggest that was probably not part of the original mandate. Read it for yourself at the ELCA website -- if you want to. . .
27 comments:
There is no doubt in my mind that the ELCA as an institution is apostate and in embracing the theology of feminism it has embraced a new god/goddess.
The ELCA has nuanced their approval of homosexual behavior
with the caveat......"as long as they are in a committed
relationship." For the ELCA gay marriage is the best way
for homosexuals to engage in sodomy and have their blessing.
It's hard to remember back when the ELCA was first formed and the combined jealousy/begrudging admiration many in the LCMS felt at the time. What a cool name! 5 million members! The third largest Protestant church body in the U.S.! All those wealthy, historic congregations in the East and Midwest! St. Olaf and Valpo and Gettysburg! All the heavyweight theologians were joining: Neuhaus, Marty, etc! They're a member of the LWF, with 70 million other Lutherans! What power! Maybe I'll join an ELCA church one day...
The only difference most of us saw at the time was women pastors. Global Lutheranism embraces women pastors. Were we so sure it's not just a cultural thing, like head coverings?
Well, now we know. There is no jealousy or admiration anymore. I once read an interview with a German who said the reason East Germans didn't flock to church in the years after the Berlin Wall fell was because the church didn't stand for anything. "I might as well join Greenpeace." Contrast this with Catholic Poland. There is an old saying that goes, "Young Calvinist, old Unitarian." We could modify that to say, "Young ELCA, old Unitarian."
Only global Lufauxranism embraces pastorettes. Lutherans don't.
Maybe we should have been less certain about head coverings.
Maybe we should have been less certain about clothing woven with different fabrics.
The former of course being an apostolic teaching of the NT, and the latter ceremonial law of the OT.
You can explain it away, and possibly correctly so. However, when we teach our children about the inerrancy and perspicuity of the Holy Scriptures, and then throw away such things from the New Testament as merely outdated cultural things, how many of them will proceed to do the same with passages like 1 Timothy 2:12?
With the slime of sin coating the fallen world, beware the slippery slope down to the path of destruction.
Anonymous on August 21, 2018 at 1:45 PM,
What parts of the "Excursus on Headcovering: Principle and Custom" (pp. 28-30) in the LCMS-CTCR September 1985, report, "Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice," or this LCMS FAQ, "Head Covering," which quotes from a Concordia Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Concordia Publishing House, 2000, pgs. 362-63), are in error, according to your opinion?
Trust Strickert to equate the Levitical Ceremonial Law with guidance in the Epistles.
David Gray at 2:30 PM,
What parts of the "Excursus on Headcovering: Principle and Custom" (pp. 28-30) in the LCMS-CTCR September 1985, report, "
Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice," or this LCMS FAQ, Head Covering, which quotes from a Concordia Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Concordia Publishing House, 2000, pgs. 362-63), are in error, according to your opinion?
Thank you for the links. Can you find anything pre-1985?
I am not attempting to point out any errors in those, as I know those who wrote them are much wiser and learned than I.
My point is that casting aside a tradition based on a clear admonition from inspired Scripture, that survived in Christianity up into the last century, including in the Lutheran Church, may have unforseen consequences, regardless of the validity of the exegetical justification of abandoning the practice.
Luther did mention the practice, by the way. I'm sure you've seen these before, but may not have noticed the fairer sex:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Martin_Luther_Preaching_to_Faithful_%281561%29.jpg
http://lutheranreformation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Cranach-Wittenberg-Altarpiece.jpg
Strickert, read it again.
I've seen the painting by Lucas Cranach, in which women (and men) wore the styles of clothing of their day.
However I've seen nothing in the Book of Concord of 1580 that specifically deals with a doctrine of head covering.
Gray, be specific.
Again, are there some parts of the linked references I provided earlier that are in error?
Anything except the inspired Word of God may contain error.
David Gray: "Anything except the inspired Word of God may contain error."
While the linked documents I provided earlier may contain error, are there some parts that, in your opinion do contain error?
BTW, while the Book of Concord of 1580 is capable of containing doctrinal error, do you agree that it is a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God, or do you agree with the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions only insofar as it it agrees with the inerrant and infallible Word of God?
Again Strickert, you can't read.
Again Gray, be specific.
My point is more that this is a "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are beneficial" issue.
What does it confess about us if we easily cast aside a 2000 year old tradition (that is based on a clear line of Scripture) because our culture changed?
To those non-expert exegetes, or those who do not go searching through commentaries and the depths of websites, it appears no different than the confession of those who have cast aside the doctrine of the Order of Creation because our culture changed.
"Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church"
The change was not due to a "casting aside" of doctrine, because there was no doctrine of head covering.
It was in the 40s, during WWII that women's hats got smaller (perhaps to conserve materials for the troops). After the war, in the 50s and 60s, a lot of industries experienced technological changes. These included not only the manufacture of automobiles (the styles of which annually changed significantly), but also in fashions and particularly in women's hairstyles, which were best seen without hats. President Kennedy was photographed without a hat, and that, some claim, eliminated the tradition of men wearing hats. It probably took a generation or two to complete the change.
I did not say a doctrine of head covering was cast aside, I said that tradition was cast aside. Was this done conscientiously because the doctrine was never there? Or did we conform to the culture at large by abandoning the tradition?
The second paragraph is interesting, but not relevant to the conduct of a Christian in the Divine Service.
I think it is time the ELCA renames itself to: Every Loon [for] Collective Action and drop the pretense of being Lutheran which is to drop the pretense of being Christian. Is there no end to their depravity?
It's not just the apostate XXXA, but also how the fifth-column leftist media propagandizes (or minimizes) XXXA depravity.
For example the Northern Public Radio, a leftist sewer of Northern Illinois University, brags in its news headline, "Salem Lutheran Church [Sycamore] Welcomes First Openly Gay Pastor To Northern Illinois Synod."
OTOH, the MidWeekNews in Dekalb sedately headlines, "Salem Lutheran Church installs new pastor," while letting the reader go halfway down the article before a single sentence states, "He and his husband, Wesley, a large animal veterinarian, live in DeKalb."
Anyone reading this thread should understand that "Carl Vehse" aka "Fake News" Vehse has no standing, place or qualification for any comment he makes.
He is a nearly 80 year old man who wants to think that anything Luther reached its zenith in the era in which his father attended a LCMS seminary in the 1930s or so.
Just watch how quickly he responds to this post. Minutes? Hours?
He is pathetic figure.
Oh, and by the way, for those who do not know LCMS history, this "heroic" Carl Vehse turned tailed and ran back to Germany when the going got rough in America. "Carl Vehse" was a coward, in the end, who put his own personal convenience above principle. Kind of like Richard Srickert, the guy who skulks about around on the Internet.
Hey, Anonymous on August 24, 2018 at 7:39 PM, thanks for letting me live rent-free in your head! It's really spacious!!
Maybe we could hold a conference in there on the 1838-1841 history of the Missouri Saxons, and invite some seminary revisionist historians to attend. What say? Huh!? There's even space in your balcony to sell copies of Die Stephan'sche Auswanderung nach Amerika.
Now, now, Anonymous on August 24, 2018 at 7:41 PM, you're just repeating the deranged rantings from a lunatic publisher in St. Louis, who was never was able to comprehend what Forster wrote in his book or never bothered to read an October, 1838, letter from a London law firm to Drs. Vehse and Marbach. And there was no principle that prevented Dr. Vehse or Gotthold Guenther or numerous other Missouri Saxons from returning to Germany. Even C.F.W. Walther, in a May 4, 1840, letter to his brother admitted that "our emigration was premature." Martin Stephan's son also returned to Germany in 1841.
Now you see, Anonymous, why the rent-free space in your head could be used for a conference to correct the fairy tales/FakeNews babbled by LCMS officials about the Missouri Saxons.
Post a Comment