Full Text for Regin Prenter on The Ordination of Women (Text)

THE SPRINGFIELDER March 1970 Volume 33, Number 4 Regin Prenter on The Ordination of Women ..\ !.L>;I~III-C /5001: J~)~I-~PII- h? PROFESSOR PETER BRUXXER L ni\-crsit!. of Hcidclherg ].'rlitc,r's .\'otc.: Tfle follo\ving book revieti of Kegin Prt.nter's Die Ol-liirrntio~r Art- F-r1711erz zu deirz iiherlieferten Pfarrarrlt der 1,u- tJreli.sr*llcr, j~I in the Theologische Literaturzeittitlg Vol. 95, So. 4, C.ols. 304ff. ('April, 1969), and it appears in The Spring- fielder ii-itll thch c.\pri.ss consent of that journaI's editor, Professor Dr. 1:rllht So~ljn~crlath of [,r.ip~ig. 1-he translation was prepared by vicar \\'ilhc.lm Tor-gerson. The Syri~rgfielder considers it both a pleas- ure ancl ,lrl Ilonur to bring t\\o promincnt Lutheran \.oices, Professors Rcgirl P~CIIIC'I. ;111d 1'etc.r Urunner, to such a \,it31 issue in American I,uthcrani>m ;1s thc ordinr~tion of n-omen. Professor Prenter is the author of ('rciltio:~ itrzd Rctierrtl?tio~: (Fortress Press, 1967) and Syiritzts C'I-CN~OI- < \luhlcnbcrg Prcss, 195 3). The more exact biblio- (~raphicitl ~natc~rial \i ill ilitrrest those readers in obtaining Professor h I'rcnter's hook 011 the ordination of women. Die Orditratiotr der Frnrtetz xi 12el~r iiherlieferte~r Pfarramt der I,zrtherischetr Kirclte. (Berlin-Hnmhurg: 1-utherisches VcrIagsl~aus, 1967. 18 p. Sr. 28 "Luthertt~m", Ed. \\'. Zi~~inicrnmr~, F. l.au, H. Schlvter, J. Pfeiffer. D;\l 3.20; Ht: ,-4;\litdL'S I>OCJ1:4TICIAX has had an influence far be- T roncl thr borclvrr of Denmark and Europe through his ecurneni- cal c&-tncctiolis. IJtt-n though this pamphlet consists of only one iiddre~s, it contains one of the most important contributions to the qucstion of i\ hcthcr it is canonicall!. (kirche?rrechtlich) legitimate to allou- \vorncn to bc ordained to the public Office of the Ministry in tfic E\.angclical Lutheran Church. Prenter answers this question negativelv. His reasons \\ill be summarized here in thesis form. Ob- \iously my surnm:lrr in tllrsis form cannot perfectl!. represent the i~uthor's \\hole trail; of thought from which I have written my ar- tick. \\'hoe\.cr ivishus to delve Inore deeply into the theses of the author must, of course, read the pamphlet. I. Evangelical church or canon la\\ (e17ange2isches Kirchen- rrrhtj must bc based on the Holv Scriptures and on the confession of the Church. Other~rise it \Auld be "legalized injustice mas- querading ns canon fan." trnnskicrtes irckenzinrecht). In view of the fact that I Corinthians 14: 34 is the decisive text, the exegetical question must receive sonic prioritv. Just to what extent the inter- preted teat has legal-canonical autllorit) is a many sided dogmatic problem. 2. Any legaIistic biblicisn~ is un-Biblical and un-Lutheran. Hoa~\~er, thC conimands iStiftrlnpsgehote) given in connection with the institution of the Gospel, demanding simple obedience, must not be identified with what we have called the "La\\.". The salvation event (Heilsgeschehen) in Jesus Christ, to which the Gospel \\.it- nesses, will become Gospel for us on]!- insofar as it is bestowed on us through II'ord and Sacrament. The application of the Gospel through the Means of Grace denlands obedience to the comn~and~ of God in Jesus Christ connected with thc institution of the Gospel. The application of how this salvation is bcsto\ved upon us is dc- termined not by our personal discretion brlt b!, the comrn*~ c n d. s con- nected with the institution of the Gospel. 3. All the Apostle's commands in I Corinthians 1 1 (the eucha- ristic tradition) through 15 (the preaching tradition) have to d~ with the true preservation of the Gospel, which is passed on in the 140rd1s Supper and preaching. The Apostle's advicc i~n~t direction i5 based not only on the insight of reason, but in connection \vith thc command for women "to be silent," he specificaI1y appeals to il corn- mand of the Lord. In view of I Corinthians 12 : 28, it becomes clr:ar that here we are dealing with a command given when thc service of Gospel proclamation was first being instituted. Apostles, ~>rophcts and teachers are, as bearers of an Office of Gospel Proclamation. male servants. This command shares in the saine historical con- tingency to which the external form of thc illcans of Grace is sub- ject. 4. The Augsburg Confession (CA) does not teach that onl\. the institution of the Means of Grace is divine ancl that the function of the Means of Grace is left to the discretion and decision of thc Christian community (Gemeinde). Rather the Augsburg Confession teaches that the content of the apostolic mission, \vhich is the Gospel. and the office, instituted for the Gospel's application as outlined in EA XXVIII, are both instituted izrre di~7i~ro and fall under Christ's command. This is in accordance with the New Testa~n~nt statement that apostles, prophets and teachers are appointed by God, even though it is the Christian community which does the calling of it3 teachers and shepherds. By calling them, the Christian con~rnunit!- does not assign the office, but rather, in God's name, she enlists hu- man beings to serve in that office which has been entrusted to her and was instituted by rnandatunz Christi. Those thus calicd to serve stand in their office as representatives of Christ (a representation according to Luke 10: I6 in CA XXVIII) over against the Christian community. This office cannot be derived from the universal priest- hood of all believers by circumventing the marldatum Christi. 5. Only under the presupposition, falsely taken from the Scriptures and the Confessions, that the Wee of the Ministry is only functional can it be held that ordination is merelv a matter of order in the Church about which the Christian community can free- ly decide. Then it is possible to agree to the, ordination of women to the Office of the %!inistry. It must be recognized that according to the witness of the New Testament the ofice as described in Ilcg~n PYCII~L'T on The Ordination of Women - - - 2 5 - -- - XXVIlI has as its basis that mnndatum Christi upon which also the apostolatc is foundcd. I-atcr the teaching or pastoral office has its origin in the apostolatc. \\'ith this the ordination of women becomes extraordinaril!- problt.matical. The ordination of women destrovs the external sign cc-~nenctetl with the apostolicity of the pastor's &ice. Accortling to the Scriptures and the Confessions there is to be "in the Christian cojii~iiunity an ofice of leadership which makes the continuity with thc original apostles, in the administration of the %leans of Grace, in the execution of the mandate of Christ, visible by the fact that it is entrusted only to men." 6. If this external sign, analogous to the established con- tingency of the external form of the XIeans of Grace, is set aside by the orclinntion of \vonien, then any sense of appreciation for the historical natrlre of reiclation is weakened. Seglect of the historical aspects of the Gospel and neglect of the established contingencv which is conncctecl \vith the outward form of the Gospel's transrnis- sion, will even tuall!. obscure the true Gospel. 7. The ordinatio~l of \vonlen to the Office of the 3linistry preycnts the rene\vnl of the utterly necessary service of the woman in the Church. The fact that \vc have lost the services of the woman in recou,nirt.cl Church offices is a problem; but the introduction of the ortlaining of \\omen has niade n genuine solution to this prob fern quite iiiipossiblt~. l'renter is \.cry much aware of the fact that he has not dis- cussed all of the issues that descr\.e consideration in connection with the problem herc raised. For him, too, it is quite obvious that be- tween man ant1 \\.oman, as regards their status c,orawr Deo and their membership in thtx Bmi~ of Christ, there is no difference. An evan- ge!ical doctrine of the Office of the 3linistry cannot throw into ques- tion the funda~nvntal and concrete practical signiticance of either Genesis I : 27 or Galatians 3: 28. In addition to this the author makes it quite t'lcar that he is vcr!. niuch concerned about i-t legiti- mate arriltlgcrncnt of \voman's spiritual service in the Church. Fur- thermore, it must be beyond dispute that the social and legal stand- ing of the ivoman 111 the realm of the political comnlunity (polis! was destined to undergo a change since the apostolic period and this change happened partlv because of the influence of the Gospel. The dogmatic position of the author in no wav contradicts the "equal- rights-status" of the \\-oman in the realm of the legal and social order. But surely the Church of God is unanimous on this point: The norms for ordering the Office of the hlinistry point up peculiarities which principles ant1 regulations in the realm of the plitical community do not share. Therefore Prenter in his discussion limits himself to ecclesiastical considerations, eliminating political ones. Already the title of his work points to that problem. The point of Prenter's \\:hole discussion is not whether women should be entrustcd with certain spiritual services in the Church of God. The author says that they do! Rather the point is ~vhether ~vomen are to be granted ordination "to the recei\,ctf t'a5tor;ll Office. of tllc I.~,. theran Church." \\'e are concerned fundanicntiiil\ \\i ti) thc prr,pcl. understanding of that office of \vhic]l C;\ s\\:{ i I spc.;~h5. 1f it is admitted that the charge which constit~itcs thj5 offi~,~, i I,a5c.tI 0,) the rrtandatzrnz Christi, then \I-e are faced \\-ith this prc\>ui 11s c~~l~sti~~ : Is not the fact that God, accorctinq to the apostolic \\ itncss. 11,~~ in His ekklesia appointed on]!; nlcn td be "apastlcz. propl~cth :rnd tcarll- ers" part of the divinely established contingenci of thc Office of the Means of Grace which we ma!- not call into cl~icsstion? It is \\ell known generally that this qucstion toilai. is ;rns\\.tbrcd tliEcrc.ntl\ than Prenter's. '4s an exainple of th~ present prc\alc.rit opinic,n sui- gesting the ordination of women is thc in\cstigation hi Ilsc. Ijcl-ti- lett ti (cf. the discussion in Theologisc.hr 1 iterrrtrlrrcit it rig 92, col. 869 ff.), according to which, for instiincc. tlic co~iii "to bc silent" in I Corinth~ans 14 prrsupposcs t hc "en\ ironnicnt;lll\. cnndi- tioncd realities of the recipients of thc letter". hiit not tlw imtitu- tion bv Christ. The reflections of Rcgin Prcntcr deiir~itcl\ call into cjuestion such a current opinion. It cilnnot bc iloiibtccl that I'i~~ll'c for his 'command-to-be-silent' \vss based on thc. iruthor.it\ ot the Lord Himself. It is quite t.\,icicnt that in thc. con\ic.tion of thc. Lutheran Confessions this office, thc content of \vhich i5 hc't forth in CA XXVIII, is based on the mandate of Christ and thus in its very nature is supposed to stand in continuit! with the npostolatc. The fact that E\~angelical Luthcran Churches, on tht. basis uf church canons, ordain woken to the Office of pastor wrc cpisc.o)rlis as it i\ outlined in CA XXVlIl is therefore anwthing hut an crc/ial~1roro~r. At the very least can credit H. ~rcntrr-'~ ivot-l, nit11 sho\\ir~p this ilu- portant point verv clearly. But if \\re are here not dealing with ;In ar/irr)~hororr, just t1lc.n what are we dealing with?