|
|
|
|
On Pr. Arnold Voigt's "...because it is a woman...," - by David Berger
Prof. David Berger addresses "several themes and tactics in Pr. Voigt's paper, which takes its title from a phrase in the 1985 CTCR document, 'Women in the Church.'"
On “... because it is a woman ...,” by Pastor Arnold Voigt
http://www.day-star.net/journal/3-3-voigt.htm
A subsequent document by Pastor Arnold Voigt, also distributed to the Saint Louis faculty by Robert Schmidt, focuses more on perceived shortcomings in CTCR documents than on matters scriptural. Without delving into details related to the CTCR’s sporadic work, not to mention inconsistent LCMS convention actions, on issues related to male and female in the image of God, it is necessary to comment on several themes and tactics in Pr. Voigt’s paper, which takes its title from a phrase in the 1985 CTCR document, “Women in the Church.”
Some brothers and sisters in the LCMS have difficulty perceiving, much less accepting, any distinctions in sex roles beyond the physical (a man can’t nurse a baby), whether these are based on direct scriptural teaching, e.g., I Tim. 2, on scriptural tradition (or natural law), e.g., restricting military combat roles to men, or on historic church practice, without assuming that such distinctions are reflections of superiority or inferiority. Pr. Voigt quotes Rebecca Groothuis (Priscilla Papers, Spring 2000): “If you cannot help but be what you are, and if inferiority in function follows from what you are, then you are inferior in your essential being.” That is, if I can’t be what I want to be, I’m inferior. If ever a sentiment reflected our age, surely this is one. Regarding our sexual identity, Pr. Voigt also several times uses the expression “accident of birth.” He probably doesn’t intend to suggest that God rolls the dice with each instance of conception, but the expression surely gives that impression. It doesn’t help to make his case. Regardless, biblical distinctions between the sexes, properly understood, do not imply superiority, inferiority, or hierarchy – code-words used to demonize male/female distinctions in the order of creation. Rather, they describe God-pleasing relationships.
It is tempting to adopt the cultural mandate and beg (and thereby “settle”) the question. Pr. Voigt assures us that “The general characteristics of a group – female sexuality – should not be the determinative factor for what an individual is capable of doing or where she is capable of serving.” “Capable” is, of course, not the issue here. Many a woman can fire a rifle in combat as capably as a man, but that doesn’t mean she should be a combat soldier. Would Pr. Voigt go just a little farther and state that sexuality should not be a determinative factor in what an individual does or where he or she serves? Doesn’t that settle it? Nothing more need be said.
One must also watch how language is used.
1. For sexual egalitarians, “gender” is generally preferred to “sex” or “sexual” for distinctions related to sex roles. In general, when one wants to diminish differences between the sexes, the linguistic term “gender” is preferred, implying, as it does, that sex role distinctions are as arbitrary as the apparent randomness of gender in German definite articles. Pr. Voigt seems to be aware of the difference and occasionally refers to distinctions of sex or sexuality; but more often than not we encounter statements such as, “One’s identity is always more than one’s gender and the implications of gender” and, “To deny a person’s Spirit-given gifts in the name of gender is to ‘quench the Spirit’.”
2. Pr. Voigt is concerned that “[o]rder of creation theology minimizes the gifts of the Spirit.” Why not say that the order of creation minimizes the gifts of the Spirit, or that order of creation theology minimizes gifts of the Spirit theology. Subtleties in language have an effect. Is not “theology” merely a human construct? In any case, the claim begs the question and introduces a false dichotomy between God’s order and God’s gifts (see also reference to Rom. 12 below).
3. Pr. Voigt sees in Scripture “many [emphasis added] biblical examples of women who have served faithfully in teaching and leadership positions in the early church.” “Many” is a subjective adjective. One does find, to be sure, a number of references (cf. Romans 16) to women “workers” in the early church. While one recognizes the important teaching role of, e.g., Timothy’s mother and grandmother, who taught him the Scriptures as a child, who would undertake to compose a list of the “many” women in “leadership positions” in the early church?
Pr. Voigt would have us see an illustration or a model of sexual equality in the Athanasian Creed’s description of the Trinity, to wit: “‘no [person of the Godhead] is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal.’ That is the nature of God. And if male and female are created in the image of God, then they, though different – as are Father, Son, and Spirit –, are even in their different genders [sic] such that ‘no one is before or after, greater or less than the other’ in any dimension.” True enough regarding the equality of the Godhead, but did the Son beget the Father? Did the Father become incarnate? Does the Son proceed from the Holy Spirit? If the image of God means anything in relation to the distinction of the sexes, it is that male and female are of equal worth as redeemed creatures of God, but, as in the Godhead, their distinct roles are not to be confounded.
Finally, in his referring to and quoting Romans 12: 1-8, Pr. Voigt seems not to notice the clear teaching of a key passage (v. 4): “For as one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function [emphasis mine], so we, who are many, are one body in Christ...” It is significant that Paul here uses the physical, the human body, as an image of the church. As an arm differs from a leg, we might say, so does a man differ from a woman. But we can’t do without either, or surely would not want to. The ensuing list of different “gifts” of the Spirit serves only to emphasize distinctions in functions among the members of the body. There is no reference to superiority, inferiority, or hierarchy, but rather to complementarity.
As noted in the response to Pr. Wyneken (above), there really is little more to be said or written than has already been said and written. It is, on the other hand, relevant to observe that church bodies that have succumbed to the spirit of the modern age and adopted the practice of ordaining women can hardly be said to be orthodox church bodies. The practice, by its very nature, reflects a lower view of Scripture and is usually attended by other lapses in doctrine and practice.
Lutherans surely agree that the right understanding of the Gospel is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. That centrality, however, does not diminish Scriptural teachings related to order in the church and in the Christian life, demoting them to the category of time- or culture-bound traditions not intended for future enlightened generations such as ours. On the matter at hand, suffice it to say that women in the public ministry remains a modern innovation which, because it lacks scriptural basis, has had both a deleterious effect on unity in the church and, at least in the case of Lutherans and Episcopalians, a more than coincidental correlation with other sexual confusions in the public ministry of those church bodies. In the ELCA, as already in the ECUSA, we may well expect that homosexuals in “committed relationships” will be permitted to serve as pastors. The parallel in circumstances, in understanding of Scripture, and in church practice is neither far-fetched nor accidental. From such error, O Lord, preserve us.
DOB
September 2007
Written By: host
Date Posted: 10/3/2007
Number of Views: 2308
Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|