Tag Archives: hermeneutics

Toward understanding the LC-MS

Under the leadership of Pr Semmler, the LCA has snuggled closer to LCMS, but records of this evolution, to our knowledge, will not be found in committee minutes or official policy.

Should be we be strengthening ties with with LCMS, or should we take another route? Bill Weiblen, a pastor, chaplain, professor and president of Wartburg Theological College, Iowa, attempts to answer these questions for the ALC in 1980, some 8 years before the ELCA officially came into existence on January 1, 1988.  He writes on the differences between the ALC  and the ELCA. The American Lutheran Church (ALC) was one of three church that united to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).  A brief timeline and flowchart of both churches is listed at the end of this post.

The post is lengthy and possibly imposing.  May I suggest you read the conclusion at the end of the quoted article.  To whet your appetite the following is an extract from that paragraph, “It is the mark of totalitarianism in both religion and politics to insist on monolithic understanding to suppress dissent.”

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


How can people have such different interpretations of Scripture? What is it that has us seeing things through different lenses?

The following is an excerpt from Facing the Proof Text Method by Henry Neufeld.  The article is a useful introduction to the use of how small pieces of text are used in an attempt to have the reader believe exactly what the speaker would have you believe.

I suggest that the use of proof-texts is a manifestation of laziness and the desire to get something for nothing.People do not wish to spend the time firmly grounding their understanding in what various Bible writers actually teach. They would much rather have a short list of texts that support precisely what they have decided to believe anyhow. Thus, the use of proof-texts tends toward hypocrisy. To the uninformed, the purveyor of proof-texts can appear to be wonderfully informed and a deep scholar of the Bible. In fact, the result of reliance on proof-texts is a moral certainty and overbearing arrogance that is not supported by one’s study or learning.

But first let me define what I mean by proof-texting. By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances.

Read the full article here.

At the risk of using my own proof-texting, I have included the following excerpt from Pr Greg Lockwood’s rebuttal of women’s ordination,which is an interesting appeal to common sense to read the ‘specific text’ (proof-text).

8.  If we want to settle a doctrinal issue, we go to the specific texts that deal with the issue. This is only common sense.  If we want to know how to change the wheel on our car, we don’t open the manual to the pages dealing with the electrical system.  We cannot just appeal to “the Gospel” while ignoring its clear statements on a woman’s role in the church.

Feedback and suggestions are welcome.

If you found this post useful, consider sharing and subscribing to this blog for free.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 19, 2010 in Hermeneutics


Tags: ,

How to assess the opposing interests in the W.O. debate

Have you ever felt uneasy when politicians are being interviewed, listening to them ignore the questions and skirt around the issues?  When journalists persist, they often simply say the same thing again and again using different words? Phillip Adams of Late Night Live on Radio National loves to point out the BS that politicians eternally speak to the electorate.  That’s what comes when individuals are obliged to toe the party line.

In contrast, we have the independents who call a spade a spade.  You know exactly what they think and where they stand. It seems to me that the honest, straight-talking manner of  the independent  Nick Xenophon was the reason the electorate voted him into the Australian Senate in the penultimate elections four years ago.  The topical current group of Federal independents also exude an honesty and clarity of thought that is refreshing in the context of the adversarial two-party political system in Australia.

Concerning women’s ordination, where is the truth? Are the arguments equally weighted? Who speaks with more credibility?  I propose the astounding, preposterous notion that only one side in this LCA debate is straight-talking, consistent and calls a spade a spade.    The argument is simple. It has been announced that there is:

“… no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”.

I’m just not interested in the Conservative notion that this does not really apply to women’s ordination.  Such a response is the language of politics.  It is obfuscation. Yes, there are contradicting notions in the Bible, but it was written by humans, albeit inspired by God.  Should we expect perfect works from sinners?  Barbara Moulton, from the Wesleyan Church in Canada, who speaks cogently when considering the call that she has experienced from her early Salvation Army days, explains it like this:

Years from now my children might find letters I wrote to my husband when we were courting. There were things that I wrote to him concerning our faith, our love and our future together which are timeless. They will be edified in reading it. But there are many things I wrote which will have little application because they were written to him at that time and for a specific reason.

Now I know that the Epistles are far grander than my old love letters. I know that God has inspired Paul. But they are still letters. Surely we can discern what is meant to apply for all time and what was written to address specific situations.

Scripture cannot be read for a literal translation. Hermeneutics is no easy discipline but there are many contextual factors contributing to a text that may not apply today.  For example, on the surface, 1 Timothy 2:12 would seem to be clear in prohibiting women’s ordination.

2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 2:12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

Barbara Moulton again:

What was in Paul’s mind as he wrote to the pastor at Ephesus? We can take some of his words in isolation and assume that they are the only truth. Here Paul says that he doesn’t allow a woman to teach. But the facts are that he did. He commended them for their teaching in other passages, called them “coworkers (Rom 16:3), and allowed other men to receive instruction from women (Acts 18:26). That suggests that there is more to what Paul is saying than isolated verses read through our own cultural set of lenses.

Paul, despite 1 Timothy 2:12, allowed women to teach and to share their wisdom.

To further take from Barbara’s simple article, she asks if God would say,

I shall pour out my spirit on a woman and she shall prophesy but be silent?  Contrast with Joel 2.28

I shall tell women to proclaim the message of my resurrection but be silent?  Contrast with Matthew 28:5

I shall tell Priscilla who instructed my servant Apollos to be silent?  Contrast with Acts 18:24

I shall tell Philip’s daughters to prophesy but be silent?  Contrast with Acts 21:8

Again and again we have examples from the New Testament where women were prophesying, speaking up, teaching and leading.

Enough twisting of the text! Enough denying the hermeneutical tools that Biblical scholars have brought us in recent generations!  Enough clinging to the maxims of Conservatism, which suggest that ways of old have inherent value simply because they have been handed down to us!   God is alive and walks amongst us, revealing a new creation and a new revelation of God’s presence on Earth.   What is there to fear?

I worked in a church where the minister told me that he would never tell his congregation that scholars think there were three different authors of Isaiah.  He considered that such Biblical research would threaten the faith of his people.  Fear is alive and well in many shapes and forms, not least amongst God’s people.  If we are true to this Jesus, however, who we witness to as our saviour, and who announced the in-dwelling of God’s Spirit, we are called to face our fear and be open to how God is revealing God’s self to us this day.

Long before the life of Jesus we are given a vision of the work of the Spirit in womanhood (and manhood).

Joel 2.28 “After this, I will pour my Spirit on everyone. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams. Your young men will see visions. 2.29 In those days I will pour my Spirit on servants, on both men and women. 2.30 I will work miracles in the sky and on the earth: blood, fire, and clouds of smoke. [cf. Acts 2:17 ff.]

“Your sons and daughters will prophesy!” Scripture is abundantly clear!  Enough of the qualifying clauses!  Enough revisionism.  The Holy Spirit is clearly and unarguably alive in women so that they might prophesy. The debate is over!

So, how to assess the opposing interests in the women’s ordination debate in the LCA?  Look around  you.  Do justice and walk humbly with your God. On your trip you are bound to see the gifts of women rain blessings on all.

Feedback and suggestions are welcome.

If you found this post useful, consider subscribing to this blog for free.


Posted by on September 29, 2010 in politics, theology


Tags: , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: