“legitimate responses” …… recant or resign.

In the latest edition of the Lutheran Theological Journal (LTJ) (6 papers by the CTICR on women's ordination) Pastor Semmler writes an introductory note in which he says "There are three legitimate responses to the presupposition that Scripture permits the ordination of women: agree, disagree, undecided."

I am unsure of what this means; if it is simply that people will reach one of these conclusions, it seems to be stating the obvious and is really unnecessary.

"Legitimate responses" (conclusions?) must surely be those that coincide with the intent that the Author of Holy Writ has by endowing us with revelation on the topic.

It is an axiom for our understanding of Scripture that God doesn't (can not) contradict himself. That is, he can not be saying two contradictory (let alone mutually exclusive!) things that are both legitimate if legitimacy is granted on the basis of faithfulness to his word. If one is faithful the other is not, if one is legitimate the other can not be.

To hold that two contradictory propositions are both faithful "responses" on the basis of God's word is nonsense. It ultimately declares that God is confused, or at least that he didn't clearly reveal his intent although he knows those to whom he is making his revelation and what he wants to reveal. Such slurs against God’s character or ability would immediately be recognised as blasphemy when made so baldly, but not easily recognized as such when done in a way which urges us to grant legitimacy to both truth and error. Isn’t that why syncretism, also, is such an offence to God - "What has light to do with darkness"…" be not unequally yoked" etc?

As for being undecided, that may be so for an individual at a given point in time while studying the issue. But one is not able to remain undecided indefinitely with the implication that God hasn’t revealed enough to be certain. (See Luther’s brilliant (colourful and humorous!) demolition of Erasmus’ position that the Scripture is unclear in “The Bondage of the Will”.)

When the church declares a position it obviously does so because it believes it to be legitimate (i.e. authentically and faithfully derived from scripture). Scripture compels it to the position it holds. It necessarily also declares the contrary position is illegitimate, even if it doesn’t do so formally - as in the “we reject and condemn” sections of CA, Formula etc. If it switches from one position to the other then it must recant the former and beg God’s forgiveness for its unfaithfulness in the past.

Now the problem for us as pastors is how to keep a good conscience and behave honourably when the church either retains or alters its present position after the next synod. In the event of retaining its present position, how can pastors who agree with the proposition that Scripture permits the ordination of women continue to remain with peaceful consciences in a church that “rejects and condemns” their position as unscriptural? They could not be expected to uphold and promote the church’s public teaching – something they are sworn to do. It would be somewhat akin to a pastor who rejects infant baptism trying to continue serving as an LCA pastor - untenable. Unless the congregation that they serve decides to withdraw from the LCA, it seems to me that they are left only two choices that allow them to retain personal integrity: recant or resign. Of course the same is true from the other side of this matter if the LCA should adopt the other position. This is a cause of considerable anxiety for me and other pastors I know.

Encouraging people to hold contrary views to that of the public teaching of the church by granting the label of legitimacy to all views is fraught with danger for the genuine unity of our church. The label of legitimacy is not the same as the substance of legitimacy.

We need more clarity about what Pastor Semmler means for the LCA by "There are three legitimate responses to the presupposition that Scripture permits the ordination of women: agree, disagree, undecided."

Pastor Avito da Costa

10/6/05