As has been noted before, the WELS stance on the headship principle extended from the home, church, and into society. Now this answer seems to say that there is the issue of honoring other Christian principles over and above the role of women in society. Therefore, the pastors that were booted out for questioning the WELS position on this issue should be allowed back into the synod.
****************************************************************
This WELS pastor puts this issue into the context of the separation of the two kingdoms:
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/10/11/faith/00lead.txt
Saturday, October 11, 2008
New WELS doctrinal perspective on the role of women in society
It seems that the WELS view on the role of women in society is in an ever-evolving issue:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
John,
You simply don't understand the WELS position. It hasn't changed one bit. In fact, that basic answer has already been presented on this very blog several times already. There hasn't been an "ever-evolving issue".
And no, the WELS pastors who were booted for disagreeing with WELS doctrine shouldn't be "allowed back in". They denied that the principle applied at all in society (and in the church). The WELS position, as it always has been and as it is explained in those answers, is that the principle very much does apply to society along side all other principles of God. All of these principles must be balanced. Different people may balance them differently.
Let me give you one example to help you understand this. God gives us the principle that we should help the poor. God also gives us the principle that we should be shrewd managers of our money. Let's say you come across a homeless man on the street asking for money. Do you give him some money or not? Person A feels the first principle outweighs the second and gives the person some money (even though it may be used to buy alcohol). Person B feels the second principle outweighs the second and doesn't give the person money (fearing that it might be wasted on alcohol).
So which person followed the principles of God? They both did! It's not our place to judge other Christians based on the way they weigh the various principles God has given us. We can't come up with some legalistic list of how every Christian must act in every situation in society.
That seems to be what you want here John--some legalistic list telling everyone how to apply the principle of head/helper in every situation in society.
Also, I know some people here disagree with the WELS position, but we've gone through all of that. I, for one, don't want to wade through all of that again. Perhaps this post could better be used simply to explain what exactly the WELS position is, since John, and others, don't seem to fully grasp it yet.
Mormons want statehood, but have some, er, problems.
Suddenly a new revelation is given, no more polygamy! What a coincidence!
A conservative, pro-life Republican woman is running for VP (because there are no other qualified men to do the job - according to WELS). WELS eases up on its "principle." What a coincidence! (Or is that hypocrisy...?)
11:09 - Anonymous
You are correct. I'm having difficulty wrapping my simple mind around the societal headship principle of the WELS. Your example is food for thought. But would the WELS ever say it is a sin to not give the homeless man money? The WELS has said it is a sin for a woman to be head of a man in society. Remember, I had a relative at the St. James meeting in which a member of the presidium said it is a sin. (no this church does not now have female pastors). Or is this just one of those fuzzy issues like the issue of it being ok for a woman to read scripture during the divine service as long as she doesn't do it in an authoritative manner.
So this is where I feel that the WELS (or certain theologians in the WELS) has backed down on this strong stance of the headship principle in society.
"Remember, I had a relative at the St. James meeting in which a member of the presidium said it is a sin."
First of all, one member of one district's praesidium does not establish universal WELS doctrine.
Second, this just shows you that different people will make different judgments on the issue. For some people it is a sin. For others it is not a sin.
This is exactly what Paul describes when talking about meat sacrificed to idols--for some Corinthians it was a sin; for others it wasn't.
But notice that Paul didn't make some universal law that all Corinthians had to follow in society. He simply laid out the principles involved and let individual Christians decide for themselves what was best.
In the case of the Corinthians, there were two "conflicting" principles in society: (A) We shouldn't do anything that will compromise our clear confession of the one, true God, and (B) False gods are really no gods at all, thus sacrifices made to them are meaningless.
Some Corinthians were conscience-bound to put priority on Principle A, some on Principle B. So who was right? They both were!
So the WELS position is only mirroring what Paul did for the Corinthians: present the principles involved and trust individual Christians to make God-pleasing decisions based on their own consciences. That's God-pleasing--even when different Christians make different decisions! The only non-God-pleasing thing would be for some synod or some teacher to bind consciences by providing some sort of canon law for everything we do in society.
Interesting post. So the WELS Q&A nows says that it is a matter of conscience, but the principle of headship does extend into society.
Yet a practicing pastor in the field says in a news article that it is there is a matter of distinction between the two kingdoms. I buy into Bartling's interpretation rather than the Q & A king.
Either Bartling doesn't understand the WELS position or his fuller explanation of it was edited out of the article or he was simply caught off guard by an interviewer and gave an incomplete answer.
But again, one pastor or DP does not determine anything about anything. We should deal with official doctrinal statements, not anecdotal evidence. Any church body or any group could be made to look ridiculous based only on anecdotal evidence.
Sounds like the WELS male takes on this position according to however it serves him best at the moment.
I find the statement posted above to be very accurate "What a coincidence! (Or is that hypocrisy...?)"
How often do our congregations and parochial schools let a woman do all the work of position within their organizations, yet they don't allow her the title? Or the pay? How convenient.
WELS, in it's Q&A, has previously said a woman should not hold position of authority over a man in the workplace. But now, it's okay to vote for Sarah Palin? Once again, how convenient.
"Either Bartling doesn't understand the WELS position or his fuller explanation of it was edited out of the article or he was simply caught off guard by an interviewer and gave an incomplete answer.
But again, one pastor or DP does not determine anything about anything. We should deal with official doctrinal statements, not anecdotal evidence. Any church body or any group could be made to look ridiculous based only on anecdotal evidence."
Ok this is ridiculous. One senior pastor doesn't determine anything about anything??. How about a large survey asking a large number of WELS pastors if they agree with Bartling's kingdom distinction or the WELS one principle over-riding another principle position.
It is my guess that most would choose the separation of the kingdoms. But the WELS is shifting its application with the current answer. Below is an answer from mr. WELS from awhile ago:
wels.net Q and A
"Response: The Bible reflects the belief that things are out of order when women take over the leadership of a society (Isaiah 3:12). We see many examples of distortions of the roles of men and women in our world today. In today's workplace many things occur which would not occur if our society was composed of people who knew and respected the principles which God established at creation. This raises a number of dilemmas for Christians, which are not easily resolved."
So a vote for Palin is voting for a system that is "out of order" according to the WELS.
This has always been subjective for the WELS. I remember being taught one thing at an ALHS and my sister was taught another at Luther Prep.
For me, we have the principle and I see a fairly clear distinction of what it looks like in marriage and the church. We apply the principle in these areas on a regular basis.
For women in society, I don't see the same statements being made in the Scriptures. I read Is. 3:12, but I have not looked at the full context. I will say that it does not appear that Deborah (the judge) was viewed as a shame upon the nation though.
Personally, I believe that if the church does not want women in leadership out in society, then they need to be willing to support the widows and all the single women. I find it ridiculous that a woman would live in poverty just so that she does not have "authority" over a man.
This matter is, in my opinion, a heart matter. I don't believe most women who are advancing in their careers is thinking about how they can "stick it to the men." They are simply trying to make a living.
Again, I believe the WELS overall belief is vague when it comes to society. Because the teaching is vague, it allows for a variance to be taught in the WELS.
We have to remember that the WELS (like any other denom) is a visible denomination that is imperfect. If we are looking for some perfect denomination here on earth, we simply won't find it. The visible church is constantly battling sin. The Holy Christian Church (the "invisible" church) is still one though and in the end, that is what my hope is in....not the WELS.
I don't know if that helps, but after being horribly disappointed by the WELS, it was looking at the bigger picture that soothed this troubled heart.
"How about a large survey asking a large number of WELS pastors if they agree with Bartling's kingdom distinction or the WELS one principle over-riding another principle position."
But here's the thing: those positions don't contradict each other. Pointing to the two kingdoms isn't necessarily wrong, it's just incomplete. In fact, the WELS positions acknowledge that the principle of head/helper might apply differently in the two kingdoms. In the kingdom of God, the application is easy because every person and every institution seeks to do God's will. In the kingdom of the world, that isn't the case--people and institutions ignore or despise God's will. Thus, principles will conflict. So, in essence, the principle-over-riding-principle position IS the two-kingdoms position, just stated more completely.
"So a vote for Palin is voting for a system that is "out of order" according to the WELS."
So it's your contention that our world is not out of order? Anytime we cast any vote in any earthly election we will be voting in an out of order system, or, in other words, voting for the lesser-of-evils. This entire world has been ruined by sin. God's perfect principles seem to clash in their applications in this world. This means that Christians will always be forced to make tough choices in this world. This also means that Christians must resist the temptation to seek out or decree specific applications for all Christians of all times.
I will give one more example for those who can't seem to grasp the concept:
You're driving alone down a dark highway at night. You see a car pulled over to the side with a flat tire.
There are different Christian principles at play. (A) A Christian will seek to help his neighbor. (B) A Christian will guard and defend his own safety and well-being.
One Christian prioritizes (A) and pulls over and helps. One Christian prioritizes (B) and keeps driving, calling for help at the next rest stop. Which Christian did God's will? Both! Which Christian sinned? Neither!
The same goes for this issue.
"One Christian prioritizes (A) and pulls over and helps. One Christian prioritizes (B) and keeps driving, calling for help at the next rest stop. Which Christian did God's will? Both! Which Christian sinned? Neither!"
So please be a little clearer with this as applied to Palin. WELS Christian A votes for Palin, WELS Christian B can't vote for Palin because of the submissive role of women that is taught by the WELS. Who is sinning? neither...? But doesn't Christian B believe that Christian A is sinning. So shouldn't Christian A not vote for Palin as it may cause offense to her neighbor Christian B???
Yet, I again go back to St. James in which they were told that it would be a sin for women to be in authority in society. So were the St. James pastors sinning by not applying this principle to society?
How do WELS pastors teach this principle to their members? In the WELS churches that I have belonged to the role of women in society is never addressed.
I don't think we can say either person is sinning. I do believe Christian freedom allows for variance on this issue.
I do not know what the issue was at St. James. I find that with a lot of blog, there is the idea that everyone knows what is going on in each individual church and that simply is not the case.
Because I don't know what happened at St. James, I cannot comment.
Again though-the issue of women in society is vague as far as the WELS is concerned.
I have heard a variety of beliefs depending on the pastor.
Anon from 5:58 p.m.
"So please be a little clearer with this as applied to Palin."
OK, let's apply this specifically to Palin.
There are many principles at play here. Let's simplify it and say there are two principles: (A) the principle of head/helper, and (B) the principle of protection of unborn life.
So Christian 1 decides, according to conscience, that principle A must take priority and doesn't vote for Palin. Christian 2 decides, according to conscience, that principle B must take priority and does vote for Palin.
Both have kept God's principles in mind and have acted according to conscience. Both have pleased God. Neither have sinned.
It might be tempting for Christian 1 to accuse Christian 2 of sin (and vice versa). But as Paul repeatedly admonished the Corinthians--different Christians may be conscience-bound to make different decisions about God's principles in society. Christian love demands that we put the best construction on such things and assume our fellow Christians have weighed the principles and come to another sanctified choice.
Now obviously in a perfect world, such choices wouldn't have to be made. But in a sinful world choices like these need to be made everyday.
"So were the St. James pastors sinning by not applying this principle to society?"
The problem with the St. James pastors was that they denied that the principle of head/helper applied to society at all. The WELS position is that the principle does indeed apply to society (but denies to make a canon law regarding how it must be applied in every circumstance). Thus, the St. James pastors disagreed with WELS doctrine and were rightly removed.
Pastor Mark Jeske wrote this in today's Time of Grace. While his topic is slightly different, it applies very much to our discussion.
>>>>
Good Husbands Model Integrity, by Mark Jeske
Is “compartmentalizing” good? It’s good if it means that guys sort all their tools and sports gear and keep everything in the proper bins and drawers. It’s horrible if it means that they think they live in different worlds that have nothing to do with each other. It’s horrible when a Christian man’s faith does not influence his business ethics. It’s horrible when a man professes loyalty to his wife at home and then plays with the females in his “other worlds.”
The Bible calls that game “double-mindedness” and condemns it. That man should not think that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does (James 1:8).
The antidote to compartmentalization of the mind is godly integrity. Integrity means that a man sees his whole life as connected, that it’s all one. Promises made in one world apply in the others. And you know what? This is how trust is built. Know what else? Wives really love and respond to men whom they can trust.
I hadn't realized just how much the WELS infuriated me until I happened upon this blog posting! I grew up WELS, learned all my lessons at WELS grade and high school, learned all the arguments, and could quote chapter and verse.
I've been away for quite a while. Went from from ELCA, to no church, and finally crossed the Tiber to Catholicism, where at least people can have a civilized discussion about ideas without being cast out into the darkness.
When I read discussions like this, it's so clear that people are just arguing about how they can cling to their long engrained prejudices and even mysogeny, while still hiding the absurdness of their positions in the real world. It's so much like the Pharisee who wants justify why everything he's done should be accepted as right before God, when in reality God just wants us to be kind and love one another. We all need to be more publican than pharisee. It's so obvious that there's nothing wrong with a woman reading scripture in a church service, or handing out bread or wine during church services, or teaching men, or chairing a committee or being president of a congregation.
Being right by the letter of the law doesn't justify anything. Jesus said to love one another and expected us to grow in our understanding of his love for us. I wish the WELS would stop just "evolving" their position on this and just realize their defending the absurd. If they stopped living in ancient or medieval times, perhaps they could manage to be relevant again.
Post a Comment