Discipleship Lutheran Church

06/24/2026

06/22/2026

A Response to Two Common Objections in the Women's Ordination Debate
After posting my recent thoughts on women's ordination, a friend raised two objections that deserve a thoughtful response.

The first was: "You are simply deciding which passages are clear and which are unclear."
At one level, every Christian does this. The question is not whether we distinguish between clear and difficult passages, but how we do so.

One clarification is important. When Christians speak of a passage being "clear," we do not mean that it must contain the exact modern question and answer in a single sentence. Scripture nowhere says, "Women cannot be pastors," just as it nowhere says, "Infants should be baptized" or "The Trinity consists of three persons in one divine essence." Yet Christians rightly derive those teachings from passages that directly address the subject.

A passage is clear when it directly speaks to the issue under discussion and its meaning is plain in its context. In the case of the pastoral office, passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are clear because they explicitly discuss church order, teaching authority, and qualifications for pastoral oversight. They address the very subject under debate. Simple application is all that is required.

By contrast, passages about Deborah, Phoebe, Priscilla, Philip's daughters, or Junia do not directly discuss qualifications for the pastoral office. To move from those texts to the conclusion that women may serve as pastors requires several interpretive and logical steps. One must first establish what role each woman held, then establish that the role is equivalent to the pastoral office, then establish that what is described is intended as a normative pattern for the Church. Those additional steps do not automatically make the interpretation wrong, but they do make it less direct.

The question, therefore, is not whether one side has verses and the other does not. Both sides appeal to Scripture. The question is which passages are actually speaking directly to the issue and which passages require further inferences. Historically, Christians have interpreted the less direct passages in light of the more direct passages, not the reverse.

The second objection was: "You are reading those passages through patriarchal church history."
But that claim raises another question: Did the Church teach a male pastorate because it was patriarchal, or was the Church's understanding shaped by what it believed Scripture taught?

The early Church did not simply adopt every cultural assumption around it. It rejected pagan practices, sexual immorality, easy divorce, infanticide, and many other customs of the surrounding world. The Church often stood against the culture rather than conforming to it.

More importantly, even if one believes the Church was influenced by patriarchy, that does not prove the Church's interpretation was wrong. Explaining where a belief came from is not the same thing as proving the belief false. The real question remains: What do the texts actually teach?

Those advocating women's ordination often argue that nearly two thousand years of Christians misunderstood these passages and that the correct interpretation emerged only recently. That is a very large claim. It may be asserted, but it must also be demonstrated from Scripture itself.

I am not arguing that church history is infallible, nor that we should believe something simply because it is old. But when Christians across centuries, languages, nations, and denominations arrived at essentially the same understanding of these passages, that consensus deserves serious consideration, not casual dismissal.

In the end, neither emotional appeals, personal experiences, accusations of patriarchy, nor modern cultural assumptions can settle the question. The Church must continually return to the same standard she has always had:
Not, "What do I prefer?"
Not, "What feels fair?"
Not, "What does the culture expect?"
But rather: "What has God actually said?"

06/19/2026

Thoughts on the Women's Ordination Debate (Summary)

After reading many recent posts about women's ordination, I have noticed a recurring pattern.

First, the clearest passages are treated as though they are unclear, while the least clear passages are treated as though they settle the matter beyond dispute.

Passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11–14, 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:5–6, and 1 Corinthians 11:3 are repeatedly explained away through appeals to culture, context, or disputed interpretations. Yet passages such as Galatians 3:28, Deborah, Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla, Pentecost, and the daughters of Philip are presented as obvious proof that women may occupy the pastoral office, even though none of those passages explicitly teach that.

Historically, Christians interpreted Scripture in the opposite direction: clear passages governed the interpretation of unclear passages, not vice versa.

Second, many arguments for women's ordination rely on recurring logical errors: category confusion (equating prophecy, teaching, evangelism, or civil leadership with the pastoral office), arguments from personal experience ("I know a woman pastor who is gifted"), arguments from fruit ("God blessed it, therefore it must be right"), arguments from emotion ("this feels unfair"), and arguments from modern cultural assumptions about equality and authority.

None of those actually answer the biblical question: What has God instituted for the pastoral office?

Third, the historical evidence is significant. For nearly two thousand years, Christians across East and West understood the pastoral office to be reserved for qualified men. The widespread ordination of women is largely a twentieth-century development that appeared first in liberal Protestant bodies and then gradually spread into other denominations. Whether one agrees with that development or not, it cannot honestly be presented as the historic Christian position.

Finally, the deepest issue is authority. Many modern arguments begin with: "I know God called me," "I have peace about it," or "I see fruit." But Scripture directs us to a different question: not "What do I feel called to do?" but "What has God actually said?"

Jesus Himself repeatedly submitted His will to the Father's will. Christians have historically tested every claimed calling against Scripture rather than treating personal conviction as self-authenticating.

The issue is not whether women are gifted, valuable, intelligent, faithful, or used by God. The issue is whether the Church has authority to alter what the apostles handed down concerning the pastoral office.

As St. Paul writes: "For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you" (1 Cor. 11:19). Controversies are painful, but they reveal whether we will follow the spirit of the age, our own preferences, or the Word of God.

The goal of the Christian life is not self-assertion but faithful obedience. In the end, every Christian should desire to hear not the approval of the culture, nor even our own approval, but the Lord's approval: "Well done, good and faithful servant."

06/18/2026

Thoughts on the Women's Ordination Debate (Part 4)

In Part 1, I addressed the theological problem of making clear passages unclear and unclear passages decisive.
In Part 2, I addressed several recurring logical errors that often appear in modern arguments for women's ordination.
In Part 3, I addressed the historical issue that women's ordination is a rather recent development, since for nearly two thousand years, Christians across East and West understood the pastoral office to be entrusted to qualified men.

Now I want to address one argument, in various forms, that appears repeatedly in discussions about women's ordination:
"I know God called me."
"I received a prophetic word."
"I have seen fruit."
"I have peace about it."
"I know what God told me."

Often the conversation ends there, as if personal certainty settles the matter.
But this raises a larger question that reaches far beyond the current debate:
How do we know God's will?

That question is at the heart of the issue.
Modern Christianity often speaks as though the highest authority is personal conviction. "If I feel called, then I must be called." "If I feel led, then I must be led." "If I have peace about something, then God must approve it."

But Scripture consistently points us in a different direction.
The biblical question is never, "What do I feel called to do?"
The biblical question is, "What has God actually said?"

Jesus Himself is our example.
No one ever knew the Father's will more perfectly than the Son of God.
Yet Jesus repeatedly emphasized His submission to the Father:
"I do nothing of Myself." (John 8:28)
"I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38)
"I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me." (John 5:30)

The Son's concern was not self-expression but obedience.
Not personal fulfillment but faithfulness.
Not pursuing His own path but walking in the will of His Father.
How much more should that be true for us?

Unlike Christ, we do not possess perfect knowledge of God's will. We cannot look directly into the mind of God. We do not receive infallible revelation. We are fallen, finite, and capable of self-deception.
That is precisely why God has given us His Word.
The Holy Spirit certainly leads God's people. But He does so through the Scriptures He inspired. The Spirit does not lead us away from the Word. The Spirit leads us through the Word.

For that reason, Christians have historically tested every claimed calling against Scripture.
A person may sincerely believe God has called them. A person may feel profound conviction. A person may even experience remarkable success.
Yet sincerity, conviction, and success are not infallible guides. Many sincere Christians have been sincerely mistaken.

This is why the Church has never treated personal calling as self-authenticating.
The question has always been: Does this calling align with what God has revealed?
A man may feel called to preach. That does not automatically make him a pastor.
A person may feel called to administer the Sacraments. That does not automatically authorize him to do so.
A woman may sincerely believe she is called to the pastoral office. The sincerity of that belief is not the issue. The issue is whether Scripture authorizes what is being claimed.

In our age of radical individualism, we often speak as though the highest spiritual virtue is following our personal sense of calling.
Historically, Christians understood things differently.
The highest virtue is not self-assertion. It is obedience.
Not, "God called me, therefore I will do it."
But rather: "Lord, what would You have me do?"

And once He has spoken, faith receives His Word, even when it challenges our desires, our assumptions, our ambitions, and even our deeply held convictions.
The goal of the Christian life is not to convince God to bless our plans.
It is to submit ourselves to His.
That was true for the apostles.
It was true for the saints throughout history.
It was true for our Lord Himself.
And it remains true for us today.

That commitment to God's Word over personal conviction is especially important in times of controversy and division.
St. Paul writes: "For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you" (1 Corinthians 11:19, NKJV).
Divisions in the Church are never a cause for celebration. They are sad reminders of our sin and weakness. Yet Paul also teaches that God can use such controversies to reveal who remains faithful to the apostolic doctrine and who is willing to set it aside.

The current divide over women's ordination is one such controversy.
The issue is not whether women are gifted, valuable, or used by God.
The issue is whether the Church will continue to teach and practice what the apostles handed down concerning the pastoral office.

In every age, difficult questions arise that force Christians to choose between the pressure of the moment and the clear teaching of Scripture.
Such moments test not merely our convictions but our willingness to submit to God's Word even when it is unpopular.
The divisions themselves are grievous. Yet they also reveal where churches and church bodies stand with respect to apostolic teaching. As Paul says, "that those who are approved may be recognized among you."

Rather than seeking our own approval, the approval of our peers, or the approval of the culture, we should all desire to hear the Lord's approval on the Last Day: "Well done, good and faithful servant." Faithfulness is not measured by whether we followed our own convictions, but by whether we followed His Word.