Bondage of the Will

correspondence 5
the issue of women’s roles their chief criterion
for candidates . . . [and therefore]
women should not be given the power to
participate in call meetings.” This may be
the experience of Martin Noland, but has
not been mine. Women seem to be no
more or no less single-issue constituents
of call committees or voters’ assemblies
than men. Indeed, by Pastor Noland’s
criterion a host of men would also have
to be excluded.
My own personal experience as a
vacancy pastor and circuit counselor has
shown that men are more likely to use
Wnancial cost as the chief criterion for the
election and call of a pastor. Surely this is
no less objectionable than a woman’s concern
for the issues relating to a woman’s
role in the congregation and larger church.
It is men I had the most trouble with: men
who wanted to know which candidates
were baptized in the Holy Spirit, men
who wanted to know if any candidates
were headstrong pastors or the kind who
would listen to the advice of their elders,
men who insisted that any pastor who
was liturgical or who favored a weekly
eucharist be removed from the call list
because he was suspect as to his manhood,
men who insisted that candidates
over (or under) a certain age be automatically
removed from a call list because they
lacked experience or expected too much
money, men who insisted that a lowball
compensation package would be raised
and a commission package would be set
up to reward the pastor for Wnding more
members. The list goes on an on.
I believe Pastor Noland had the issue
right when he questioned the rights and
powers of voters’ assemblies in general.
How can it be allowed that the frequency
with which the sacrament of the altar is
oVered in the congregation is a matter of
majority vote in the voters’ assembly?
How can it be allowed that issues such as
the form and content of the divine service
be subject to the whims of a voters’
assembly instead of the divinely called
and ordained pastor? Clearly these issues
stand as the larger and more diYcult
problems facing our congregations today.
I fully encourage that this subject be fully
discussed, and I can think of no better
forum than Logia.
Larry A. Peters
Clarksville, Tennessee
Just not Getting It
�
In “Eating Cake or Having It” in
Logia 7, no. 3 (Holy Trinity 1997),
71–72, David Scaer engages in the exercise
of Wrst shooting his arrow and then
drawing the bull’s eye. This draws high
scores only from those who don’t know
where the real target is.
It is not true that a sound case for the
ordination of women requires the elimination
of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 and
1 Timothy 2:12, so the conclusion that
the 1 Corinthians passage is part of
Paul’s original text is hardly the triumph
that Scaer wishes it to be. Nor do proponents
of the ordination of women have
“to say that Paul was dead wrong,” as
Scaer would like them to. The passages
in question are parts of canonical Scripture,
whether or not Paul wrote them,
and of course they prohibit women
from speaking. But having said that, we
must then ask if these prohibitions are
to be understood as permanently binding,
or if they are limited to particular
situations in the life of the church.
That the latter possibility is quite real
can be seen from the way in which the
church has understood the command to
“abstain . . . from blood” in Acts 15:29.
This was by no means a minor matter: it
could be enjoined upon both Jews and
Gentiles because it was understood to be
rooted in God’s covenant with Noah,
which applied to all humanity (Genesis
9:4), and thus resembles arguments
against the ordination of women based
on “orders of creation.” Yet some Christians
today eat blutwurst and are not
threatened with excommunication.
Closer to the issue at hand is Paul’s
insistence that women should have their
heads covered in church, a demand he
bases in part on creation (1 Cor 12:2–16).
AC xxviii gives this as an example of an
ecclesiastical regulation that is made for
good order but that it is not sinful to
break without oVense to others. And in
fact, few churches today insist on the
veiling of women in public worship.
There are good reasons to believe that
the prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35
is not to be seen as binding in all situations.
As I have just noted, in chapter
eleven of the same letter Paul sets out
the regulation of proper head covering
for a woman “who prays or prophesies”
(1 Cor 11:5). There would be little point
in his lengthy argument here if he were
going to make an absolute prohibition
against such praying or prophesying
anyway. Furthermore, AC xxviii cites
the rule that speakers in the assembly
should be heard in order, from the same
section of chapter 14 as another rule
made for good order but not absolutely
necessary.
This note certainly does not settle the
question of the appropriateness of the
ordination of women. (I have given a
somewhat more detailed treatment of
this issue in Lutheran Forum 24, no. 6
[1990]). But it should be clear that it is
also not settled simply by pointing to
the “standard” verses in 1 Corinthians
and 1 Timothy. In addition to interpreting
these verses properly, it is important
to consider other biblical passages that
speak of the role of women among the
people of God.
George L. Murphy
St. Mark Lutheran Church
Tallmadege, Ohio
Between Rigorism and Laxity
�
I was surprised to read Vernon
Gerlach’s reply to my article regarding
J. A.O. Preus in Logia 5, no. 2, especially
so since there is no argument with me
except as to the term “rigorism” applied
to unionism.
The article was Wrst written as a personal
remembrance of one I termed a
“serious theologian who loved his Savior.”
It appeared in Faith Life. As Prof.
Gerlach must know, such a reminiscence,
even in the best publications, is
not an appropriate avenue for scholarly
documentation, especially not if the
account has to do with matters of public
knowledge, as mine did. It was Robert
Preus, although not always in agreement
with his brother, who, having read my
account, called it the best he had read
on the subject. He asked me to allow its
republication in Logia, and I said that
was all right with me.
The choir-participation argument at
Bethany College was, as I noted above, a
matter of public knowledge in the mid-