Concordia Bronxville Publishes Devotions including Female “Pastors”

Why does the Missouri Synod smell like the ELCA right now? Am I just an ungrateful person? After all, we have so many blessings in the Synod.

But sometimes there are things that are just so mind-numblingly absurd, the only sensible thing to do is to say, “Balderdash!”

Our Concordia in New York invited female “pastors” to contribute to an Advent Devotional that is downloadable on their homepage. (scroll to bottom)

First, there is a female “pastor” from the North American Lutheran Church, our new dialogue partner. How is it that we agree so well on the doctrine of Scripture with the NALC, when the Rev. Amy Schifrin is the President of their seminary?

Rev. Cari Pattison is not only a female “pastor”, but also a minister ordained in the PCUSA, which like the ELCA, is supportive of sodomy and abortion–not to mention being on the wrong side of all those Reformation era squabbles we used to have with the Reformed.

Though not a female pastor, there is also an ELCA pastor in the devotional as well, Rev. Paul Eggensteiner.

That’s it, that’s truly the entirety of this report.

I am not going to give any detailed analysis of this matter for it deserves none. If you are a pearl-clutcher who wishes to chastise me for nonexistent 8th Commandment violations, chastise the little guy in this story before wasting your breath on me.

In what universe is it acceptable for an institution of the Synod to publish a devotional booklet that has devotions written by female “pastors” and other false teachers?

Last time I checked the Missouri Synod was supposed to be against this stuff.

Why isn’t Concordia-Bronxville wearing any clothes? Am I the only one absolutely befuddled by this?


















About Pastor David Ramirez

Pastor Ramirez is the pastor of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Union Grove, WI. He is a 2008 graduate of Concordia Theological Seminary-Fort Wayne. In 2009, after staying another year at CTS as the Historical Theology Department’s graduate assistant, he was called to Zion Lutheran Church in Lincoln, IL and ordained into the office of the holy ministry. Some of his particular interests are the teaching of Bible History and youth work.


Concordia Bronxville Publishes Devotions including Female “Pastors” — 99 Comments

  1. @James Gibbs #49

    Luther’s writings against the Jews did nothing to spawn the Holocaust. That’s stupid slander. Nietzsche and Darwin spawned the Holocaust. Hitler hated Christianity, which Luther defended against the Jews, more than he hated Judaism. Hitler was a Darwinian racist. Luther was a partisan of Christ. Hitler was anti-Semitic. Luther was anti-Judaism. The difference is obvious except to those brainwashed by anti-Christian talking points.

  2. @Elizabeth Peters #52

    From Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies,” Part XI (see “”What shall we Christians do with…the Jews?…I shall give you my sincere advice: First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools…Second,…that their houses also be razed and destroyed…Third,…that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings…be taken from them. Fourth,…that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life…Fifth,…that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews…Sixth,…that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them…let us emulate the common sense of other nations [and] …eject them forever from the country.”

    If that isn’t anti-Semitism, what is?

    And, yes, many anti-Semites, including the Nazis, quoted this stuff approvingly. That doesn’t mean Luther by himself “caused” the Holocaust, but it did have an influence, as William Shirer said in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Even the mere fact of there being a historical debate over Luther’s influence on modern anti-Semitism means that a case can be made.

    Plus, we are not helping our evangelism efforts (especially among Jewish people) if we do not take a forthright stand of rejection of Luther’s anti-Semitic writings.

    I think the LCMS statement at is a good example for us to follow.

    Some defend Luther by saying his feelings were religiously, not racially, motivated. What difference does that make, even if true? If my non-Christian neighbor rejects the Gospel I try to share with him, does that give me the right to burn down his home or demand he be exiled? My sinful, anger-motivated words and actions do not please God!

    And, yes, I know our beliefs on religious freedom differ from those of Luther’s time. Thank God they do! It took millions dead in the Thirty Years’ War for the Germans to decide that religious toleration was the best policy. As Roger Williams said of religious freedom, “We must part with land and lives before we part with such a jewel.”

    Again, I thank God for Luther’s re-discovery of the pure Gospel. That contribution to the Church is impossible to over-praise! But–he was still a man, and a sinner–like all of us. We need not minimize his sins while we praise his many virtues as a Christian leader.

  3. @Rev. Robert Fischer #50

    First off, none of us is Jesus. He was the sinless Son of God, and he had a right to be angry and pass judgment NONE of us sinners has a right to or will be able to exercise in this life without sin.

    Secondly, all Pastor Dieterichs was saying was “Don’t always go in guns a-blazing!” He said “not simply” using the Chuck Norris approach, but trying more irenic methods first, was worth a try. He wasn’t saying a harsher approach was never justified. He just said try gentler methods first.

    Third, didn’t this same Jesus say calling your brother a fool made you liable to hellfire? So it seems to me that “going nuclear” first, last, and always isn’t the Christian way.

    Fourth, I doubt that Luther publishing scatalogical cartoons (mentioned in Roland Bainton’s Here I Stand) or calling the Pope “Antichrist” won over very many people. That stuff didn’t work in the 16th century, and it sure won’t work in the 21st.

  4. The commentary on the call / remarks about false teachers / women “pretending to be pastors” on this feed is both comical and heartbreaking. When it comes to whether or not one is fitting, according to Scripture, to be called into the Office of the Holy Ministry, I find this feed both interesting and appalling. The number of pastors on this page (both who are contributing to this comment feed and who contribute to this website) who think that they live their lives “above reproach” while demeaning people, disparaging others who think differently, and hiding behind their computers rather than actually holding a conversation with those with whom they disagree is embarrassing. Rather than contacting President Nunes or any of the theological faculty at Concordia and seeking a conversation to understand the thought process or even voice ones concern, the entire article and feed, much like this website, is dedicated to assumptions that hold only the weight of the foolishness of time it takes to waste on a computer rather than actually serving God’s people in ministry. I would not even have known about this because I normally don’t waste my time with such frivolity, but it was posted on social media and I found myself unable to ‘say nothing and let it be.’

    That being said, before any of you (those who would willingly claim that you uphold the Office in such a masterful way that you have the ability to determine whether or not someone is “pretending”) waste more time being the LCMS internet version of Paul Blart-Mall Cop, you should spend more time in prayer, that God would use the devotions written and distributed by Concordia-New York to reach beyond the walls of any institution and remind the world that the church is the Body of Christ and that Jesus, by His death and resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit, gathers us in His truth. If any of you actually believe that you follow that truth perfectly or your works are greater than some “female pastor” based on the simple fact that you are a man who took courses at a Seminary (likely spent more time internet trolling that actually listening & learning), then you need to spend some time in prayer and taking a look in the mirror because your words and inability to caringly converse with those with whom you disagree is all the evidence needed to show how far away you are from living “above reproach” in your pastoral care.

    As our Lord said to you while on the Mount, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5).

    Before you decide to speak so boldly behind your screen, I’m hoping this post helps you to understand what it feels like to be spoken ABOUT rather that conversed WITH, even when you believe the words you speak are true. And a tip of the cap to whomever “Kristaps Luthzingis” is for his satirical and funny response to this article (see comment 15).

  5. @James Gibbs #53

    No, that isn’t anti-Semitism. It’s anti-wicked religion that sends people to hell. And misquotations of the Bible have also been used to support mass slaughter. It in no way means the words shouldn’t have been written.

  6. @Eli Pettitte #55

    Eli, few here are “hiding” behind computer screens. Most have used their real names. I also don’t see where anyone has said that they are above reproach. Furthermore, the standard set for the public ministry (men only) is Scriptural. Whether you agree with it or not is another matter.

    Regarding “actually holding a conversation with those with whom they disagree” that is done when there is a private disagreement. Regarding public statements and actions, Luther wrote in the Large Catechism on the Eighth Commandment:

    Where the sin is quite public… you may also publicly testify about him. For when a matter is public in the daylight, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying. It is like when we now rebuke the pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. Where the sin is public, the rebuke also must be public, that everyone may learn to guard against it.

  7. @Elizabeth Peters #56

    I agree that Jews who reject Christ are in danger of damnation. All people need Christ for salvation–period. We should share the Gospel with our Jewish neighbors.

    Having said that, do you really think that Jews who reject Christianity should be robbed of their homes and money, deprived of their freedom of religion, deprived of all police protection, and driven into exile from their homelands? That’s what Luther said the Germans of his time should’ve done!

    How am I misquoting him?

    Did he sometimes speak positively about Jewish people? Yes, he did. But the ugly things he said are no less real–he did, sadly, say those things. And they are indefensible.

    Share the Gospel–yes. Persecute them–no. The difference is pretty plain.

  8. @Rev. Robert Fischer #57

    Pastor Ramirez said “pearl clutchers” invoke the Eighth Commandment too often. Masters of vitriol, like too many on BJS, invoke this quote of Luther too often.

    Saying “public” false teaching or sin should be publicly rebuked is not the same as saying public rebuke should be the first resort! Again, what is so wrong with what Pastor Dieterichs suggested we do? Try a little gentleness first. Kind of like Jesus said–speak to your brother alone. How could it hurt to not “drop the hammer” immediately?

    Anything online or in print is by definition public. Again, should we always put the worst construction on everything and go in “guns a-blazing,” as so many people on social media seem to do? Sometimes destroying innocent lives or reputations in the process? Maybe the writer was unclear. Maybe they hit “Send,” and regretted it later. Maybe they meant something different from the face value of what we think they mean. At least, give them a chance to clarify or retract what seems to be error!

  9. @Rev. Fischer #57

    First of all, EVERYONE on here is hiding behind computer screens, including myself, which is why I even use a pseudonym, for in the grand scheme of things, this is not actually helping anyone by hiding amongst those whom you assume will mostly share the same opinions. I also use the word “hiding” because I highly doubt that many, if any, on here would actually sit in a room with President (Rev. Dr.) Nunes and/or the authors of these devotions and actually say what you are saying here AND THEN LISTEN to their response. You might speak, but listening with the openness to understand that some of your thoughts might actually be wrong would likely not occur.

    That being said, in taking the oath of ordination within the LCMS, Pastors understand the calling to be “above reproach” as outlined in 1 Timothy, so anyone who says that they are a pastor here assumes the calling as such. If you are saying that you are not above reproach, then why would you feel it is acceptable to take the oath of ordination? And, furthermore, how are you able to determine that you understand the qualifications as outlined in Scripture (as you made clear when you said “men only”) if you can’t even determine whether or not those on this feed are above reproach, as called for in Scripture?

    [As an aside, I am an LCMS pastor and agree that men are called into the Office, according to Scripture. I am simply not one who thinks that only those in the same office as mine can properly write a faithful devotion for public use.]

    And, since you decided to use the words of Luther to seemingly discredit (yes, I am making an assumption here, which is common for this website) the words of Jesus, let’s also use the example of Luther- if you’re going to publicly rebuke, then be public about it. Bring charges against President Nunes as called for according to LCMS polity or, even better, travel to New York and post your dispute upon the door of his office. THAT is a public rebuke. Writing on a comment feed that is read by very few and likely only those who happen have time for this type of frivolity (much like myself today) is not very public, very bold, or very impressive.

  10. @RK #60

    You obviously jump to conclusions.

    I never said Luther was wrong on the identify of the Antichrist. I merely observed that calling out the Pope as “Antichrist” in direct and insulting terms was not going to persuade anyone in Rome. Direct attack makes people defensive, regardless of the merits of the argument.

    I’m simply saying that, for instance, issuing pamphlets depicting the Pope as being born from the anus of the Devil (as a cartoon in Luther’s 1545 booklet Against the Papacy in Rome, Instituted by the Devil, does–see is not the most effective form of persuasion.

    Also, our own Synod has, if I recall some CTCR statements accurately, said explicitly that “the historical form of the Antichrist may change.” In other words, today’s Pope may not be “the man of sin,” even if Luther was correct in his day.

  11. @James Gibbs #58

    I wonder if any of the people who can quote “On the Jews and their Lies” have ever investigated the lies Luther was referring to! He did not write that paper “out of the blue”; he was provoked. [He also didn’t say anything that others hadn’t said at the time.]
    I regret that he said it because it gave ammunition to many who know nothing else about him.

  12. @helen #65

    It doesn’t matter what Jewish people lied about or said that “provoked” Luther.

    If I “provoke” my Muslim neighbor with “lies,” that doesn’t justify him burning down my house, stealing all my money, persecuting me for my religion, keeping the cops from protecting me, or having me deported. All of which is EXACTLY what Luther said the German princes should do to the Jews!

    “He also didn’t say anything others hadn’t said at the time”–exactly. Luther was a man of his time, and, in his time, Jew-hatred was as common in Europe as breathing. None of which makes it right, even then.

    And Luther knew better. As Professor Wikipedia says in the article, “Martin Luther and antisemitism,” [in 1519, Luther wrote,] ‘Absurd theologians defend hatred for the Jews. What Jew would consent to enter our ranks when he sees the cruelty and enmity we wreak on them—that in our behavior towards them we less resemble Christians than beasts?’ In his 1523 essay That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, Luther condemned the inhuman treatment of the Jews and urged Christians to treat them kindly.” Why Luther changed his tune later, only God knows. But the reason doesn’t really matter–it was wrong, regardless of whether or not Luther was “provoked.”

    “…it gave ammunition to many who know nothing else about him.” Exactly. Modern anti-Semites quote Luther with glee, as did the actual Nazi Party of Hitler’s time. It also makes many hesitate to hear the pure Gospel Luther restored, all because of the unfortunate association of Jew-hatred with the name of Martin Luther. A tragedy, indeed!

  13. @helen #66

    Again, I began my comment (#61) by admitting that everyone is hiding, including me. I don’t use my name because I don’t feel the need to be searched endlessly by those who are interested in bringing down others by making assumptions without any first-hand knowledge of what is happening “on the ground” within each individual congregation, circuit, and district of our Synod.

    I find it rather interesting, however, that those who seem bothered by the pseudonym are only using first names, so I’m guessing that you all aren’t interested in being searched/assumed about, either.

  14. Somebody, do me a favor and list all the Scripture verses that attest to the ordination of women. Provide all the proof passages that you know of that prove women are to be ordained alongside of men based on the words of the apostles and prophets, or even the very words of Jesus.
    Convince this crowd that ordaining women has always been the norm using God’s word.

  15. @Mark #69

    I have believed in a male-only pastorate all my life, but the way some people go on and on about “the order of creation” in a way that comes across as belittling to women has bothered me in recent years. So, I have wondered about things.

    I don’t really hope to “convince this crowd” of anything, but here are a few questions I have long wondered about:

    1. If women can’t be pastors, why are there prophetesses (e.g., Huldah in 2 Kings and Anna in Luke 2)? It seems to me that being a prophet/prophetess is a “more exalted” position, so to speak, than being a pastor. So–if there is some inherent, ontologically-based reason why a woman can’t be a pastor, why did God have prophetesses?

    2. I have read one commentator say that prophetesses never prophesied in public. But what about Anna at the Presentation? Luke clearly says she spoke about the Christ Child to all who were waiting for God’s redemption–and this was in the temple! How does that fit? The same guy said Huldah was consulted “in her home.” But the text of 2 Kings does not say that.

    3. In 1 Corinthians, Paul tells the women who pray or “prophesy” in public to cover their heads (another subject unto itself!). This seems to clearly imply that women were speaking as part of however the Corinthians conducted their worship services. So how does that fit with an absolutist view of women remaining “silent” in church?

    4. Peter quoted Joel on the first Pentecost as saying, “Your sons and your daughters will prophesy.” Where is the distinction between the sexes there? Did the women on whom the “tongues of fire” descended keep demurely quiet, since it was a public place? How were they supposed to act on this occasion? How did they act?

    5. In a much-disputed verse in Romans, Paul seems to say “Junia” is “among the apostles.” Apparently, Chrysostom pretty clearly understood “Junia” to be a woman, as do the majority of NT scholars today, at least according to Prof. Wikipedia. If a woman can be an apostle, why not a pastor?

    6. I don’t know all the “ins and outs” of interpretation, but are all interpretations of Paul’s relevant verses (“I suffer not a woman…” and “Let the woman be silent…”) that would make these commands non-universal utterly without merit? Is it possible we have been mistaken in making these commandments for all times and places?

    7. Along the same lines, I can’t help but think about all the issues that past leaders of the LCMS (Walther, Pieper, etc.) stated were “forbidden by God” based on the very same Pauline passages used to oppose women’s ordination today: women voting in civic elections (the 19th Amendment), women being day-school teachers, women sitting in the same pew as men, not requiring women to wear hats in church, women voting in congregational Voters’ Assemblies, women serving on church boards…all of which are permitted today in the LCMS, and the sky has not fallen! If the fathers of our Synod over-read Paul on other issues, are we so sure we are not wrong this time?

    8. It seems to me that a lot of what drives fear of women pastors is the idea that we would inevitably open the floodgates of heresy. The slippery slope. But isn’t there a group of Lutheran churches who left the ELCA over the gay issue, without re-banning women pastors? Aren’t there some fairly conservative Protestant denominations (Assemblies of God? Free Will Baptists?) that accept female clergy without going “soft” on every other issue? Is the slope truly slippery, always and without exception?

    9. A lot of what drives opposition to women’s ordination is this whole idea of the sexes being “equal, but with different roles given by God.” That sounds good, but sometimes I wonder how that plays out in practice. If all the power and all the authority in a church is exercised by men, how exactly are women equal? (Synodical convention delegates, who regularly vote to maintain the male-only clergy, are 95% male.) If the response is “in God’s eyes, and in their salvation,” that’s great–but you could’ve said the exact same thing to a Christian slave of the 1st century who questioned slavery!

    10. Also–why does the vast majority of the discussion of “roles” focus on the women–what they can and cannot do? Other than childbirth, what exactly are the God-given roles of women that a man is forbidden to fill? It sometimes seems that the whole “role” discussion can sound pretty much like “putting women in their place.”

    11. You could make a pretty good case from Scripture (Walther did–see the following: that the Bible approves of slavery. But don’t most people today simply look at those passages as “dealing with people where they are,” and focusing believers’ attention on furthering the Kingdom, while bypassing the morality of slavery for the time being? In other words, God didn’t try to deal with slavery back then (other than mitigating its horrors), even though time passed and people figured out from conscience and the general tenor of Scripture that we shouldn’t make property out of our neighbors. Maybe the same is true of women’s ordination. Maybe God knew complete equality of the sexes wouldn’t “fly” in the 1st century, so he let the issue ride, trusting that we would figure out the equal dignity of the sexes on our own. Is this too crazy of a thought?

    Anyway–food for thought from one guy with question on his mind.

  16. As a woman using my real name, I do not believe women hold positions of authority as well as men. I was a church treasurer for four years, was told I did a good job, probably did, but I have noticed as more women hold executive positions it seemed less men became involved. We need men, especially younger men to stay in the church and care about the family’s church life. My two cents after 40 adult years in the church. And when women do men’s work they have to adopt masculine traits. I would not be a member of a church with a female pastor. Women are very important in Christan works, and if dad doesn’t take the kids, mom should, but I find families where fathers to go church are ones that have a higher chance of children continuing as adults. A pastor of the LCMS that blogs here under a made up name is a curiosity to me.

  17. @Becky Welton #71

    Ms. Welton, thanks for using your real, full name. Me, too! 🙂

    My wife would agree with you–she has stated to me and to our (now adult) daughter in the past that she prefers working for a male boss in the business world. Not sure I agree with her, but that doesn’t make me right and her wrong! Especially not just because I’m a man! 🙂

    My mother was an admirer of Eleanor Roosevelt (and voted Democratic most of her life), and was very active in the League of Women Voters for years, but she also quit that organization when they endorsed abortion rights. She once told me something very similar to what you said: she opposed woman suffrage in Voters’ Assemblies because “None of the men would ever do anything again!”

    Now, did that actually happen in my boyhood congregation when they allowed woman suffrage? I don’t think so–or, if it did, it was only partially so. But then, it’s hard to tell when you no longer live at home or visit your boyhood church very often.

    I also wonder about the connection between paternal involvement in church and the children remaining faithful. I’ve seen figures quoted about the correlation, but then, “Correlation does not equal causation.” I’ve also grown skeptical of statistics that seem “too good to be true.” Anecdotes are hard to draw conclusions from, and there are anecdotes on all sides of this issue. My own Dad was as strong a Lutheran Christian father as I can imagine, yet two of us five kids are unchurched currently, and one us converted to Roman Catholicism. I tried personally to be very involved in our daughter’s religious upbringing and not just “leave it to Mom,” but I’m sure there are other men out there who did the same and now have unchurched adult children. Everyone needs to do whatever they can–every little bit helps. Certainly, prayer is important! But–there are no guarantees in child-rearing, the much-abused Prov. 22:6 notwithstanding.

    I also wonder about the “men giving way to women” idea. If a woman takes advantage of opportunities (in any area of life), and men are deterred from involvement thereby, how is that the fault of the women? Should women hold back and “let men win,” as would-be brides used to do in 1950’s sitcoms? Maybe we should teach men to be unafraid of equality with women! This article was thought-provoking to me (I don’t agree with everything in it, btw): I think the lady who wrote it made some good points on this topic.

    I also agree with you that posting anonymously…to call people out for posting anonymously…is “a curiosity.”

    Anyway, thanks for your contribution to the discussion–I think it was worth a lot more than “two cents”! 🙂

  18. @Rev. Joel T Dieterichs #40

    Watching a pastor use the word ‘libtard’ is very concerning. You are using a word that is based off of retard- a term that you surely know is offensive. You are also implying that those who do not agree with you are cognitively inferior to you. With one Hannity-esque word you have proclaimed derision for people with intellectual disabilities and their families, and you have equated having differing values with cognitive deficits. Frankly, if you were a neighborhood child, I’d make sure my kids had nothing to do with you. You shame your office far more than any devotion writing woman has.

  19. James Gibbs,
    I work in a male dominated sector of the economy; construction. And there is a definite difference in how men and women work together. They tend to be rough and tough and blunt, but I will say they treat me better than the men in the same position. For example, they watch their language and I’ve had a few angry builders who swore at me, call and apologize later. Men don’t do that to each other it seems. Most of the women I know would rather work for a male boss. After a day of complaining about co workers, my sister asked where these women come from, and I told her they are us, we are those women. If most women think women are hard to work with and for, then we have to be those women.

    I heard a minister say (years ago on Issues, I think) that men work shoulder to shoulder to get the job done; to complete the mission. In that regard, it makes me think of Christ on the cross, and one of his last words was “it is finished”, meaning his mission. Generally, men understand this, women feel sorry for Jesus. The minister said women are concerned with relationships. I think what he said makes a lot of sense. Eve was a helpmate, to help Adam. The minister said that books written by men for men are about a mission, to get something done, and the women in the story help them achieve that. Women tend to write about relationships.

    The conversation between Arianna Huffington and Sadhguru on the topic of “Can Women Leaders Make the World more Peaceful?” was interesting. Arianna thinks so, but the Sadhguru noted that when women enter the workforce, they adopt masculine traits, and that is a loss, because it doesn’t really suit them. Here is the link if you are interested:

    I don’t want to compete with my husband. I don’t want to mother him either. He does the things he is good at, and I do the same. It allows him to care for me and take pride in it, and I do the same for him. My sister spent her marriage trying to compensate for everything her husband didn’t want to do, like pay bills, shovel the walk, work, homeschool, etc. In the end, he blamed her for doing a lousy job.

    I have a book on Luther and Women, and although he makes many condensending remarks, he loved and admired his wife. According to this book, and from Wiki: Luther had named her his sole heir in his last will. His will could not be executed because it did not conform with Saxon law.[23] Another interesting aspect that is really, really unpc, is that (from memory) he believed women the weaker sex when it came to fighting the devil. It was Eve that disobeyed, and Adam was blamed, and then he blamed God for giving her to him. I think that has some humor in it.
    In a funny contemporary cultural example of the same principle, there is an episode of the Big Bang Theory where Bernadett and Penny hurt Amy’s feelings, and Sheldon tells Leonard and Howard to get their women in line. It cost Sheldon time cuddling to make Amy feel better, and he tells the boys he is a man of science, not someone’s snuggle bunny, so they need to get their women in line.

    Men should provide good counsel to their wives, and vice versa. But I am not equal as a pure mathematical sense, but I do have equal value as a human being. My strengths and weaknesses are made complimentary by my husband, but we both stumble at times.

  20. @Eli Pettitte #68

    So, you’re saying that we should talk to our brother face to face, but you’re not revealing yours or your name? You say stop “hiding” behind our screens, but you’re using a Pseudonym? You’re upset that Rev. David Ramirez pointed out wolves in sheep’s clothing to the Church, but you’re not upset about a Lutheran college publishing a devotional for Christians written by women “pastors” and false teachers? You say that Rev. David Ramirez should have talked to Rev. Nunes privately, but you didn’t contact Rev. David Ramirez privately; rather, you commented on his post publicly and spoke to others about what he wrote? Instead of rebuking those who released this devotional, you rebuke the one who warned us of it.

    Do you realize what you’re doing? Do you understand how hypocritical you’re acting? Do you understand how you’re only causing division and discord? Rev. David Ramirez pointed out divisions that alreay exists; you created even more.

    You should be embarrassed, whoever you are.

  21. @Pastor Rojas+ #74

    Interesting take on my posts, yet fascinating that such a claim would be made by a contributor to a website that thrives on the stirring up of controversy, division, and discord under the cloak of seeking confessional unity. Perhaps if many who contribute would actually seek to understand the brothers and sisters that they often disparage, then the supposed unity that is sought might actually have a better chance at existing.

    That being said, I made it clear that I’m simply following the standard set on this page, which I explained at the end of my first post (#55). My use of a pseudonym was also explained in another post (#68). The irony and hypocrisy is not lost on me, but completely intentional in order to show the level of hypocrisy that exists within this website and its contributors – a group that claims to seek unity, yet has believed themselves to be “holy” (in exactly what that word means – set apart) in their claims of confessional understanding without truly seeking to understand others or how the confession that said others make might actually be completely in-line with those of this group, while being from a completely different perspective.

    All of that now explained, I am writing here because this IS the source of the dispute, so I’m bringing it to the arena in which it was introduced to me, the echo chamber of those whom are more interested in championing the ideas of one another rather than seeking understanding, in both directions, of those with whom they disagree. Rather than complain to people who will easily agree with me, I find it important (when having the time) to step beyond my comfort zone. Believe me, wasting time arguing over frivolity on comment feeds is not my place of comfort, but I am glad to do so for the sake of a fantastic institution and on behalf of the devotions written by men and women who care enough to write them. Of course, I would love to know the heresy that was proclaimed within the actual texts of the devotions that were written.

    Perhaps, if everyone used a pseudonym, the devotional would not have been an issue at all…

  22. The LCMS was having problems in Walter Maier Sr’s day as he spoke about the Communists in the universities and colleges. Just like what happened to Germany in the 20s. That’s been our biggest problem for the Church and society. Think Hollywood. Think constant challenges to the Christian faith by Rich Devils who go to the SCOTUS and win. Think evil media or as many call it–MSM. Think porn. Think 55 million aborted babies. Think Federal Reserve Jewish Bankers. Think Seminex in the 1970s. The NWO is real today. I highly recommend some good reads if you really want to begin to understand who is behind all these wicked ways today—THE CRIME OF OUR AGE—1948, Dr Ludwig A Fritsch…Lutheran Theologian. And then this contemporary LCMS worship! Think Hospice which kills. Yet I see LCMS Pastors supporting Hospice! I’ve seen a lot in my day of 50 plus years. The only way out of this is many Dr Luther’s who don’t act sissified with political correctness but go boldly with truths and challenge the corrupt system! I only see that from a handful of Pastors. You know what else is extremely troubling? I know some good Baptist Pastors who speak out boldly. And while we as Lutherans will always disagree on the Sacraments, I respect a couple of Them for preaching truth about our culture and who is behind the wickedness AND these two Pastors talk to me and regular folks. Most Lutheran Pastors won’t give me the time of day. I’ve heard that from MANY Lutherans. Arrogance!? Aloof? I don’t know but you sure are t gaining membership. The LCMS lost membership again last year. A half a dozen New Synods or Diaceses have formed to date. Dr Luther would not be happy today. He’d be calling out the Judaizers today! And he’d be agreeing with me. Unless people stop watching that disgusting Television of propaganda and start digging for themselves I expect many more losses in Church membership and of course LOTS MORE ELCAs. It’s too much today about that almighty dollar.

  23. @Mark Ashwill #76

    Mr. Ashwill, you need to get help. Seriously.

    “Federal Reserve Jewish Bankers”? The “NWO” (“New World Order”)? “Judaizers”?

    Please–for the sake of your soul–take a good, long rest from the Internet and stop feeding your mind with anti-Semitic paranoia!

    Btw, if anyone is curious (I was), you can find a copy of Ludwig A. Fritsch’s The Crime of Our Age at Read it–if you can stomach it. I first heard about this book when reading the text of Herman Otten’s infamous 1989 speech to the Holocaust-denying “think-tank,” the Institute for Historical Review. Mr. Otten seemed to think the book was good (!), too.

    This book contains some of the usual “greatest hits” in the extreme-right-wing litany of nonsense: Nazi Germany never wanted to conquer the world, FDR was controlled by the Jews, Germany was the “bulwark of the white race,” Hitler just wanted Europe to be united, FDR lied us into war because he was a Communist sympathizer, we fought the wrong people in WWII, blah, blah, blah. What vile garbage!

    As Dana Andrews said to Harold Russell in The Best Years of Our Lives, “You hear about guys like that…but you never think you’ll run into one.”

    Mr. Ashwill, think about it: you went in ONE sentence from praising Fritsch’s book to deriding “contemporary LCMS worship.” Okaaaay…so Nazi sympathizers don’t bother you, but guitars in church do? Brother, you need to get a grip!

  24. @Richard Lewer #35

    What makes you think that Nunes wants to “get Bronxville straightened out”? I’m not that confident about Nunes.

    Bronxville is where my Seminex-sympathizing pastor went to teach in ’74. I don’t think he was the only one there.

  25. @James Gibbs #45

    There are women who are claiming to have a call to the church. They ran, even though they were not sent. There can be no benefit had in reading this.

  26. I removed a comment and put Mr Ashwill under automatic moderation. His comments will not appear here unless a moderator approves them. Perhaps he will stop his angry rants against unrelated things across many different articles. Either that or we won’t be hearing from him again.

  27. @James Gibbs #70

    James, thank you for your honest and heartfelt concerns for the role of women in the Church and for the compelling case you make for the ordination of women. I was raised by a fiercely independent Christian mother who grew up resisting the otherwise insurmountable patriarchal influences of Mormonism in the western US. She also had a bit of an attitude about Lutheranism as well when it came to subordinating women in the Church. And as you might guess, her favorite Apostle was not St. Paul. Having helped my wife raise two independent, single Christian daughters, 31 and 28, (to further establish my “street cred” in this matter) I must express my hesitation to jump on the bandwagon with you.
    First, what do we know about the office of prophetess? Did God institute it by His command and give it His blessing? Or rather could it be an office established by man like, say, the office of DCE or the office of Deaconess? Where is the assurance that the office of prophetess has God’s approbation? The fact that it can be found in Scripture may not be enough when it is understood that slavery and polygamy were also a part of the landscape even among God’s people, Israel. Try as we might, reconciling God’s winking at these violations of His clear commands (Acts 17:30) has proven elusive and puzzled generations.
    I heard you mentioned losing patience with the doctrine of the order of creation and that you have grown weary of the church using it to justify a patriarchal advantage over women. There is no doubt men have abused their vocations as husband and head of the household. Some, like Mormon men, have lorded it over their wives and claimed the authority of Scripture in doing so. But that doesn’t preclude a pure doctrine taken from Scripture that comes off to many as an inconvenient truth in 1 Timothy 2:9-14. As it happens, not ordaining women in the Christian Church has the dual purpose of not only teaching the doctrine of the order of creation but also the doctrine of original sin.
    The verses you provided prove there were women who were called prophetesses. Prophetesses, like Anna, dedicated their lives to reading the Scriptures, prayer, and fasting. Some even declared, “Thus says the LORD,” and kings relied on their words. Still, you find it necessary to provide “a much-disputed verse in Romans” along with quotes from Church Fathers when there are concrete pronouncements and declarations from Scripture for our immediate use that should clear up any unclear or disputed passages. We allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and we are loath to build doctrine on isolated passages that seem to contradict other clearer passages.
    Like so many of us, I’m guessing you are the product of your political and cultural sympathies. The Feminist movement, at least First-wave feminism, is seen by many as a salutary development in our society and was a long time coming to the left hand kingdom. However, Feminism in the Church is unnecessary and a dangerous development, not even taking into account the “slippery slope” laws of cultural chaos. I think God cuts off any retreat to ordaining women when he declares Overseers and Deacons each be the husband of one wife, notwithstanding the title given to Phoebe in Romans 16:1.
    Finally, the issue of ordaining women in the LCMS is a relatively new development and has inserted itself in the fellowship of believers trying to live their lives as Confessional Lutherans. Proponents say it has always been there, we just didn’t see it, whereas Confessional Lutherans who have been put on the defensive disagree with what has been prohibited in Scripture in the strongest possible terms.
    So, if your convictions impel you to believe women should be ordained in the orthodox, catholic Church, it becomes a matter of the conscience and you should gravitate to faith traditions that believe as you do. My concern is that those who believe as strongly as you do seem to want to make this change in the one place where it will not be universally accepted and even cause the consternation of many and a stumbling block to faith. It becomes a matter of an informed conscience and I personally believe the conservative Reformation is “settled science” and I don’t believe that we are going to uncover or unleash new doctrines that have been hidden or repressed for the millennia and that includes women clergy.
    PS: Giving full disclosure of one’s ID on the Internet is not so much hiding behind anonymity as it is making a conscious decision about maintaining a measure of privacy in a very public forum, i.e., world wide web. I leave it up to the individual’s discretion to disclose their personal ID, contact information, etc. and don’t question character if they decide to remain anonymous. In the end, our identities on a blog are inconsequential to our ideas.

  28. @Pastor Rojas+ #85

    How fitting for this to be posted, especially in light of my previous assertion (#76). The way that you have phrased this question speaks directly to the desire for controversy and discord that exists within this group under the guise of unity. I, however, will not feed into it. Therefore, I will answer this as clearly and concisely as I am able:

    Firstly, I never try to explain what the Holy Spirit “means,” for I find that to be an unfaithful practice. Rather, I trust that the Holy Spirit works through me to bring forth that which God desires. Through prayer, I trust the work of the Spirit over and above my own in every way. That being said, this question seems to desire an argument over the ordination of women, but that will not occur. I know the vows that I took at my own ordination, including confessing the Book of Concord as being a faithful exposition of Scripture and I faithfully uphold that vow as I am able, by God’s grace. The only argument that I have is with the incredibly narrow view that you seem to take, seeking to silence women completely, while I seek to champion the role of women in every possible way that is faithful in accordance with Scripture and then our doctrine (i.e. the writing of devotional material).

    Since, however, you bring your inquiry to me, seemingly in the form of a “proof text” style of questioning, I would first have many questions before I were even able to answer, such as:

    – Doesn’t context need to be considered within our interpretation of Scripture? Do we not uphold the idea that “Scripture interprets Scripture”? If so, how do you explain the context surrounding this passage in 1 Timothy? How do we then consider other parts of Scripture, specifically in the writings of Paul? For example, as 1 Timothy 3 outlines the duties of the overseer (Pastor), how do you view said duties in light of Ephesians 5? If the husband is to treat his wife as Christ treats the church, how is the mistreatment of women within the church not viewed as oppressive and sinful? And, if we move even broader in Scripture, how do we explain the different ways that God uses women: The woman at the well? The woman who touched the cloak of Jesus, seeking healing? The use, BY GOD, of women to be the first to receive the revelation of His promises by being the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection? Should women have remained silent about this also? Should they have acted as if Jesus had not risen until a man exclaimed it? Would that be an appropriate expression of the joy that exists at the revelation of God’s promises, the fulfillment of hope?

    – Of course, one must also question the societal practices of the time of the early church and their understanding of the role of women, which means that we must then reconsider our entire view on the role of women in every possible way. If doing so, are we then recreating an idea that creates an oppressive society, one that we would deem unfaithful and legalistic, leaning towards fundamentalism in order to avoid anti-nomianism rather than seeking the Scripturally-described healthy balance between Law & Gospel?

    – Logistically, in light of 1 Timothy 2:12, at what point does a boy become a man? Is it 13 years old? Does this mean that women are not allowed to teach Sunday School? Bible Study for teens? Does this mean that an adult woman is no longer allowed to exercise authority over a 14 year old boy? Or, do we assume that the United States definition of manhood (18) is acceptable? Does this mean that women cannot lead a Bible Study for college age students? Does this also mean that we begin to consider the upholding of societal values to inform our interpretation and understanding of Scripture, which creates an entirely different conversation that muddles and confuses the distinct line between the truth of God and the subsequent “truth” of man, which is too often apart from God?

    – Those questions being discussed, does this also apply to everyday living? If we are using this as a “proof text” with no context involved, does this mean that women are no longer allowed to be teachers at the secondary or collegiate level? Does this mean that women are not allowed to reprimand their adolescent male children in their homes? How do we address the raising of children? Do we then need to reconsider labor laws as being unfaithful because young men should begin working and upholding the responsibilities of men, since they are no longer subject to the authority of their mothers?

    The list is seemingly endless of all the different questions that could be asked unless one takes a completely narrow and limited view of the text. This, of course, is Scripturally irresponsible, which is why I refuse to do so. I am not interested in pushing my own agenda, but instead desire to be faithful to to God’s Word. With that, I will not continue to broach this topic because it completely changes the original conversation, which is often what occurs on these comment streams.

    Instead, it is important to return to the original issue, which is the hypocrisy of this group in their desire to champion the ideas of one another within a self-created echo chamber rather than actually speaking AND LISTENING to those with whom they disagree, remaining loving and open to thoughts other than one’s own. The tenor of this group is to demean others while speaking in a condescending manner, which is altogether destructive. Even more, there is a lacking boldness (or responsibility/accountability) in the need to address those with whom the issue lies (President Nunes, Concordia-New York, etc.). Because of this, it is important that those who disagree with you all – and the emotionally-charged, yet often altogether Scripturally-lacking ideas that are often posed here – come to meet in your arena. Rather than being distracted and finding issues that then cause for the talking-past of each other because of perspectival differences, the issues that occur here must be directly addressed, pseudonym and all.

    Also, a thanks to Mark (#84) for understanding the measuring of privacy. I could not have said the following any better: “In the end, our identities on a blog are inconsequential to our ideas.”

  29. @Eli Pettitte #86

    You use a lot of words to deny the clarity of Scripture.

    How’s this? What does “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12) mean? It means this: I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. The end.

  30. @Pastor Rojas+ #87

    I don’t appreciate false accusation, so I would rather not spend anymore time responding, save for this:

    “How’s this?” Poor, to use as few words as possible.

    Praying for your ministry, for your family, and for you, brother. His Spirit guide your heart to be open to His will over and above your own – the same I pray for myself. Peace be with you.

  31. @Eli Pettitte #88

    I haven’t falsely accused you. Your post shows that you deny the perspecuity of Holy Scripture. You make unclear what God has made clear. You darken what God has made bright. Let the Word speak for itself—Let God speak for Himself. Don’t put your reason or context or education above Scripture. Lutherans believe in Scripture alone. Holy Scripture is clear—1 Timothy 2:12 is clear.

  32. @Rose #90
    I am not sure when, where, or by whom I was taught that to come to these kinds of conclusions is fanaticism, enthusiasm, or superstition. But you know, there is just no doubt about it, I was lied to. The First Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods. What does this mean?–Answer. We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things.

  33. @Eli Pettitte #55

    Thank you ,Thank you and Thank you!
    These pastors who think they are above reproach are cultish in their thinking. I have struggled with my Lutheran faith ever since a “confessional” pastor entered and took over my belief system (I admit, I allowed this) and the lcms church I attend. This pastor would say”blessed and holy be his name” every time he mentioned Martin Luther! I called our district president. He completely agreed with me we are never to glorify a sinful man (or any human) above the Lord. However, nothing has been done to address this issue! Now I see a confessional pastor state in his newsletter to paraphrase, one must continue to attend a faithful Lutheran church and receive the sacraments in order to remain a Lutheran) in parentheses a Christian!!! I have talked with the district president, who, at first agreed with me this is a false gospel. He followed up by saying if you read the statement in context of his article it is acceptable! I told him there is a very fine line .. I believed him only because of his title, however, I am questioning my Lutheran faith again. I pray one day a pastor has enough guts to confront this pastorin the mean time, I am stuck in my own Lutheran purgatory…

  34. As to giving Luther any praise I would suggest our Lutheran Confessions to which every congregation and Pastor and DP says they will adhere to as a rule for ministry. This is what the preface to the Formula of Concord says:

    When, by the special grace and mercy of the Almighty, the doctrine concerning the chief articles of our Christian religion (which under the Papacy had been horribly obscured by human teachings and ordinances) had been explained and purified again from [in accordance with the direction and analogy of] God’s Word by Dr. Luther, of blessed and holy memory, and the papistic errors, abuses, and idolatries had been rebuked; [2] and this pure reformation was nevertheless regarded by its opponents as [introducing] a new doctrine and was violently (though without foundation) charged with being entirely contrary to God’s Word and the Christian ordinances, and, in addition, was loaded with [almost endless] unsupportable calumnies and accusations,

  35. @Pastor Joshua Scheer #93

    So… because some sinful humans stated he was blessed and holy.. you are to do the same????????? I have been a cradle Lcms Lutheran. My Lutheran family looked at me in total and complete disbelief when I told them. Are you in oath to a human, society club or Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior?? Any person who was looking for a church and eventually, God willing, become a child of God would run !!!! I can’t believe this is happening.

  36. @Pastor Joshua Scheer #94

    @Pastor Joshua Scheer #93

    So… because some sinful humans stated he was blessed and holy.. you are to do the same????????? I have been a cradle Lcms Lutheran. My Lutheran family looked at me in total and complete disbelief when I told them. Are you in oath to a human, society club or Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior?? Any person who was looking for a church and eventually, God willing, become a child of God would run !!!! I can’t believe this is happening.I did speak with my pastor in regard to the false statement regarding the correlation between the sacraments and salvation. Would you like to speak with him? I also called the presidents office.
    I have the response from them in an email. I would be more than honored to sit down with everyone involved. By the way, this pastor who’s newsletter I am referring to is not under my Pastors authority. Why is it ok to call false doctrine about other teachers before confronting them? Why is Chris Roseborough and others allowed to slam others without showing any grace, or love to a fellow believer or even an unbeliever? Why doesn’t he pray for these people instead of using the same monty python song?

  37. @Denise Shallcross #95

    Denise, read it again “Dr. Luther, of blessed and holy memory”. This is not ascribing to Luther holiness (although because he believed he was indeed holy – just like when St. Paul refers to the Christians in his epistles as holy). Blessed and holy memory is saying something of gratitude for what God did through him. He was a blessing to many (still is). The New Testament is full of examples of calling someone holy and blessed. Your problem lies then with the Word of God if you think it is wrong to refer to a Christian as blessed and holy.

    Yes, the Book of Concord was written by sinful men. We say that the Confessions could have erred, but upon examination by the Scriptures they did not err. (Scripture could not err and then of course does not – that’s a distinction we make as well).

    It doesn’t matter how long you have been a Lutheran.

    Could your family have looked on in disbelief because you reported the situation with little charity (as your comments have been done here)?

    I have taken an oath before God actually to uphold Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions (as has every ordained Lutheran pastor has). Implied in every pastors membership in the LCMS is also a membership in a human organization.

    If Jesus is Lord and Savior, you won’t have any problem with the Lutheran Confessions because they do not err in matters of the faith. They say what Jesus says, just like good hymns and so forth do.

  38. @Denise Shallcross #96

    To your additional material in the comment. I would suggest going to see your pastor again and taking with him through it. It sounds like there is anger in your heart which I would warn you violates the Fifth Commandment. It’s destructive to your faith. Your pastor I am sure will gladly be of help to you in that respect.

    Would I like to speak with him? No thanks. It really just sounds like you should.

    I don’t know a whole lot about Chris Rosebrough, but why didn’t you just pray for him rather than bring him up? You are doing the very thing that you accuse others of doing. You want to measure him by that stick, you better be able to measure yourself by it.

    Pastors are given to publicly rebuke false teaching and false teachers. That’s a part of our job. I know, in the LCMS there is no shortage of confusion about pastors and laity. It comes from a misunderstanding about what God wants for His Church.

  39. Thankyou for allowing me to subscribe and post.
    I am sorry I was angry . I didn’t notice until today…. I had only discussed the worry I have over the correlation between the sacraments and losing your salvation.
    I never addressed the concern I had over the pastor who would state “of blessed and holy memory” to my Pastor. At the time , my current Pastor was the associate Pastor. I didn’t want to cause problems between the pastors. This Pastor, who I considered a friend because of his help with my struggles, has since left the church to take another call. I am also sorry about that.. In Christ’s love,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.