Ordain Women Now Bans Some Particpants

In a previous post I noted the creation of a new Facebook page dedicated to the promotion of the ordination of women in the LCMS.  A few days later I posted again on the reactions to this site.  Since then I have simply dropped in from time to time to read the many posts for and against.  At present the administrators of the OWN Facebook page have begun to ban certain participants from posting.  I would encourage you to go to the site and review for yourself the dialogue and discussion, but with certain posts removed I suspect the script is rather disjointed and hard to follow. 

The administrators are certainly within their rights to ban whoever they wish.  Even on a blog like this I have the same rights and powers.  However, watching this play out over the last couple of months has brought a few observations from the Seelsorger:
  • A topic such as ordaining women does not lend itself to dispassionate discussion, despite the fact that the administrators indicate a desire for civil and respectful discourse (as they define it).  The administrators of the OWN site have indicated by the very title of their site that they are interested in but one outcome: the eventual ordination of women in the LCMS.  The imperative in the name speaks volumes of their intent.  How can one begin a 'dialog' when the premise is a demand?
  • The call for an open and balanced dialogue in the Synod on this topic is fraught with all kinds of difficulties.  First of all, do we determine doctrine by dialogue and discussion with no regard to the previous history of the Synod?  Can we ignore that for well over 100 years our fathers in the faith rejected this based on a careful study of God's Word?  Some will be willing to do so.  They point to the fact that the Synod changed its stance on such issues as women's suffrage and insurance.  If they changed on this, they argue, what is to say they are not wrong on WO?  However, such argumentation is flawed.  We do not argue our point by pointing out previous mistakes.  We argue it based on a careful study of the sources, biblical and confessional, and then form our conclusions.  To date the original argument on this issue is still sound to which several scholars have testified, past and present.  
  • As Dr. Gard pointed out elsewhere, this issue has been decided and only a minority seem to keep the call for change alive.  I have no doubt that there are both men and women in the Synod today who want to see the LCMS ordain women.  The question is do these people represent a growing group as claimed; a group significant enough in size and influence to indicate a shift in the rank-and-file thinking of the denomination?  My sense is that it does not.  
  • The administrators of OWN have banned those they identified as rude and disrespectful, and yet I can't help but thinking that even the definition of this is in question.  Take my previous post regarding whether this site is 'McCarthy-like."  One person decided that since I disagreed with Dr. Becker and felt his views to be contrary to the way we 'believe, teach and confess' as a Synod, I was on some sort of unfair witch hunt for heretics. If I disagree with those who promote WO and believe that their views are contrary to scripture and God's will, am I rude for saying so?  We live in a time when disagreeing is defined as rude.  We are called to avoid conflict at all costs.  Admittedly, how one disagrees can be labeled as rude.  Yet the act of calling one to repentance is not rude in and of itself.  I fear that the administrators of OWN are a bit confused on this.  They want a discussion in which all views are embraced as equally valid.  Yet when truth is at stake, such an approach is simply not possible.  
As I stated, the administrators of OWN can do as they please.  It's their site, thus, their rules.  However, by banning their detractors they will only create an artificial atmosphere of pleasant head nodding, but no real dialoging, as they desired.  

Comments

said…
Ah, Donald, you've come up against the intolerance of the "tolerant"...the illiberalism if the "liberals". Ironic, eh?
February 1, 2012 at 8:38:00 PM PST
Donald V. Engebretson said…
Ironic indeed. Open and free dialogue is only possible among the indifferent or unaware :)
February 2, 2012 at 6:57:00 AM PST
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Firefighter's Cross

Image
[Note: A similar article to this will be shared with my department at their next meeting. During this Lenten season when we are meditating on the significance and meaning of the Passion of our Lord and the Cross at Golgotha, it seemed like one way to offer a witness to the department that captured their interest and yet was not too heavy.] [Editorial Note: In response to a recent comment on this article I have made some changes to the original version of this article especially in regard to references to the so-called St. Florian's Cross. For any confusion the previous unreferenced information may have caused I apologize. I hope that the changes are satisfactory.] THE STORY OF THE MALTESE CROSS In many ways the familiar symbol to the right requires no explanation. It is the universal insignia of firefighting nationwide. Yet the precise origins of this symbol are less clear. The most popular explanation proposes its beginning in the far distant past of medieval Crusaders fi...
Read more

Historical Roots of the Warham Guild Hood

Image
In doing just a little checking on the internet, it's interesting to see how the Warham Guild hood, which I have as part of my STM degree attire, is actually a throwback to the Medieval hood. One article notes "the work of the Warham Guild in its imaginative renderings of medieval hoods" (reference is from here ). Again, here is my hood: The Medieval hood, which was originally a very practical outer garment to cover a person's head and shoulders, protecting both from the elements, bears striking resemblance to this revived form: This hood was also a part of the garb of monks in that era. The Medieval hood, in some cases, also had what is known as a "liripipe," a long tail hanging from the back of a hood. You can see the modern stylized version of this on my own hood. From an article on "Academic hood development" we read that "By 1463 the favourite dress of doctors was the hood with round bell-shaped cape, and the lir...
Read more

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Image
According to a recent documentary, for all the talk about academic freedom in the world of the large American university system, it would seem that it extends only as far as the system defines it - especially with regards to the subject of origins and science. Noted speechwriter Ben Stein stars as host of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dr. Angus Menuge, professor of philosophy at CUW, highlights the film in an article included in the Concordia University - Wisconsin magazine Concordian , including some seemingly revealing details about the expulsion of talented scientists who apparently were ‘expelled‘ from their positions for mentioning the theory of Intelligent Design: “In the current climate, even when academicians have a relevant doctorate and a track-record of peer-reviewed publication, their careers suffer if they argue that the scientific evidence points to an intelligent source involved in the creation of the world. In 1992, Dean Kenyon, a biology professor at ...
Read more