A woman runs for President, is it Lutheran? With POLL. UPDATED

June 14th, 2011 Post by

[poll id=”5″]

I heard on my local talk radio tonight that Michelle Bachmann will be running for President this time around.  Sarah Palin will also probably throw her head-covering in the ring as well.  Bachmann was at one point an active member of a WELS congregation, but according to this site, she has left the WELS to be something a little less “denominational” Apparently the teachings of the WELS (and Lutheranism for that matter) about the Antichrist being the pope were not in line with her beliefs.  UPDATE: According to her former parish, she has indeed been released from her membership, so she is no longer associated with the WELS (other than a former member).  The reasons for her release were not stated, so we will leave it at that.

For those of us who are in the LCMS, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona should be noted as being a member of a LCMS congregation.

Women in positions of authority in government – good idea or not?

Feel free to comment on your opinions and also beliefs…

Anyone have some Lutheran statements on the matter?  Bible passages?  Confessions passages?






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. June 15th, 2011 at 15:11 | #1

    Great poll question, Pr. Scheer!

    One distinction should be made. There are really two questions: 1) “What do you think of a woman serving as president?”, and 2) “What do you think of voting for a woman to serve as president?”

    The votes we cast in the secular realm take many things into account as we do our best to determine which candidate will best “rule” for the physical well-being of the society in which we live. We do not vote for the candidate with the most orthodoxy or with the fewest vices, but for the one who seems capable of doing the most good (or the least evil) in society. I could see myself voting for a Palin or Bachmann, which would, indeed, highlight the shame of our society, that a woman must step in and do the job that properly belongs to men. It would probably not be viewed that way by either of these women, but that’s how I would view it.

    But what if the candidate were a female member of my congregation? Would I commend her for running for president (or governor or Senator), or would I tell her she ought not do it? I think I would present to her the same passages that Pr. Hess and Mr. Pierce cited above. I don’t know how you get around those headship principles, for as much as I might like to just let it go. This is such a hard issue, because it goes so directly against the modern culture in which we live and that so influences our thinking.

    I wonder what others have experienced in this regard. Could a woman run the country, but come home and, as the “weaker vessel” submit to her husband’s headship as the Church submits to Christ? Could her husband still view himself as in the position of Christ in their relationship? Could the president go to church on Sunday and be perfectly content not to have a vote in church, for the man was created first, and it was the woman who was deceived…? Just asking the question. I wrestle with all of this.

  2. Carl Vehse
    June 15th, 2011 at 15:17 | #2

    Someone previously stated elsewhere:

    But you say: 270] Shall I not say it if it be the truth? Answer: Why do you not make accusation to regular judges? Ah, I cannot prove it publicly, and hence I might be silenced and turned away in a harsh manner [incur the penalty of a false accusation]. “Ah, indeed, do you smell the roast?” If you do not trust yourself to stand before the proper authorities and to make answer, then hold your tongue. But if you know it, know it for yourself and not for another. For if you tell it to others, although it be true, you will appear as a liar, because you cannot prove it, and you are, besides, acting like a knave. For we ought never to deprive any one of his honor or good name unless it be first taken away from him publicly. 271] False witness, then, is everything which cannot be properly proved. 272] Therefore, what is not manifest upon sufficient evidence no one shall make public or declare for truth.

  3. Rev. Don Kirchner
    June 15th, 2011 at 15:24 | #3

    Josh Schroeder :@Rev. Don Kirchner #99 So you’re saying that Pastor Esget is just spreading rumors.

    No. I’m saying that you are.

  4. Carl Vehse
    June 15th, 2011 at 15:31 | #4

    “Could a woman run the country, but come home and, as the “weaker vessel” submit to her husband’s headship as the Church submits to Christ? Could her husband still view himself as in the position of Christ in their relationship? Could the president go to church on Sunday and be perfectly content not to have a vote in church, for the man was created first, and it was the woman who was deceived…?”

    Rev. Rydecki, would even positive answers to these questions make any difference in your view of presenting the same passages that Pr. Hess and Mr. Pierce cited above to a female member of your congregation running for public office?

    Also if you were to vote for the female member of your congregation (or Palin or Bachmann) would you consider yourself as having sinned by voting for a female?

  5. June 15th, 2011 at 15:51 | #5

    @Carl Vehse #104
    Rev. Rydecki, would even positive answers to these questions make any difference in your view of presenting the same passages that Pr. Hess and Mr. Pierce cited above to a female member of your congregation running for public office?

    Answer: Maybe. If a woman in my congregation were able to answer “yes” to all those questions and explained how she views a woman in this leadership position in the country, not as great “progress” for the rights of women, but as a societal step backwards, as the equivalent of a Deborah, who shamed the man who was supposed to lead but was too weak-kneed to do it, and if she were willing to state that as her public position on the matter, then I might be persuaded that she was, in fact, trying to honor God by serving in that role rather than trying to oppose his revealed will.

    But I’m pretty sure that a woman who spoke that way publicly would stand no chance of ever being elected president of our country.

    Also if you were to vote for the female member of your congregation (or Palin or Bachmann) would you consider yourself as having sinned by voting for a female?

    No, I don’t believe it’s necessarily a sin to vote for a female for secular office, even if I had to vote at the same time that she be excommunicated from the church. In the same way, men from different countries (but members of churches in fellowship with one another) may fight against one another with all their might in a war, but then gladly commune together on Sunday morning. This is how the doctrine of the two kingdoms often plays out.

  6. Jean
    June 15th, 2011 at 16:10 | #6

    Rev. Paul Rydecki :
    @Carl Vehse #104
    If a woman in my congregation were able to answer “yes” to all those questions and explained how she views a woman in this leadership position in the country, not as great “progress” for the rights of women, but as a societal step backwards, as the equivalent of a Deborah, who shamed the man who was supposed to lead but was too weak-kneed to do it, and if she were willing to state that as her public position on the matter, then I might be persuaded that she was, in fact, trying to honor God by serving in that role rather than trying to oppose his revealed will.

    In this case, other men are running for the office as well. Doesn’t she slap headship in the face if she runs against other men? It is not that men are not willing and able it is her perspective that she can get the job done better than them.

  7. Josh Schroeder
    June 15th, 2011 at 16:23 | #7

    @Rev. Don Kirchner #103
    Since when is quoting sources spreading rumors?

  8. Rev. Don Kirchner
    June 15th, 2011 at 17:39 | #8

    Josh Schroeder :@Rev. Don Kirchner #103 Since when is quoting sources spreading rumors?

    An unverified and ambiguous report from an unamed or ambiguous source is what a rumor is, Mr. Schroeder. In the law, it is called a lack of foundation and, therefore, inadmissible as proof.

  9. Josh Schroeder
    June 15th, 2011 at 18:15 | #9

    Rev. Don Kirchner :

    Josh Schroeder :@Rev. Don Kirchner #103 Since when is quoting sources spreading rumors?

    An unverified and ambiguous report from an unamed or ambiguous source is what a rumor is, Mr. Schroeder. In the law, it is called a lack of foundation and, therefore, inadmissible as proof.

    So I shouldn’t take Pastor Esget’s word for it?

  10. June 15th, 2011 at 18:34 | #10

    Rev. Don Kirchner :
    An unverified and ambiguous report from an unamed or ambiguous source is what a rumor is, Mr. Schroeder. In the law, it is called a lack of foundation and, therefore, inadmissible as proof.

    For those who are not lawyers it is called “a news story.” :)

  11. Rev. MLKumm
    June 15th, 2011 at 19:19 | #11

    From my personal experience with him, Paul Simon was a member of an LCMS church in name only. His family was not. When he died, there was a small prayer service at the LCMS congregation he attended and then the service moved to the Southern Illinois University Arena where a Unionistic service that included a presiding Episcopal Bishop, A female Methodist clergy, a Jewish Rabbi and several others of various denominations. Sen. Simon’s brother, Art Simon, an LCMS pastor, delivered the eulogy but did not participate in the conduct of the service. This service clearly demonstrated not only his non-Lutheran public faith, but that his “public confession by membership” was Lutheran in name only.

    Sen. Simon’s personal and political stand on life issues has been accurately stated by Pr. Kirchner.

  12. Carl Vehse
    June 15th, 2011 at 19:57 | #12

    The Division of News & Information, LCMS Communications, put together this Paul Simon eulogy, “Congregation will miss Simon, pastor says,” in the January 2004 issue of The Lutheran Witless. Simon was never excommunicated from his church for his political and legislative contributions to murder-by-abortion, nor was the church’s membership in the Missouri Synod revoked for their failure to do so.

  13. Larry Kleinschmidt
    June 15th, 2011 at 20:47 | #13

    @Carl Vehse #112 I just read this. It doesn’t look like a eulogy to me. And “Lutheran Witless”? Very clever. I never heard that one before.

  14. Carl Vehse
    June 15th, 2011 at 23:09 | #14

    Larry, I heard that phrase used back in the old Lthrn-L days, if not earlier.

  15. June 16th, 2011 at 07:38 | #15

    @Jean #106

    other men are running … Doesn’t she slap headship

    Yes, and perhaps righteously.

    Deborah was a deliverer from bondage or the threat of it when men would not do it. There are roads to bondage besides military defeat. A common one is debt. Today when we borrow from a bank we sign a promissory note, but prior generations signed a bond, the root word of bondage. The U.S. Treasury issues treasury bonds (also treasury bills and treasury notes). The entire nation is being borrowed into bondage. Of every dollar of government benefits that you and I receive, we are borrowing forty cents against the collateral of our children’s and grandchildren’s labor. Bondage. We sin against our children by robbing from. “A righteous man leaves an inheritance to his children.” We are enslaving them to foreign creditors who might or might not let them continue to have the U.S. Constitution.

    All this by men exercising headship. My folks have been talking about deficit, debt, and servitude since the ’64 election. A degree in accounting and economics has allowed me to understand their emphasis on this issue.

    Show me the man who will deliver you children from this form of bondage. What is his name. Yesterday I heard an advertisement by Santorum who talked a good game on just this. If he or another man is genuine, then I should vote for him. But if not, voting for another enslaving male would be as much a sin as voting for a delivering woman, pun intended. Sometimes it takes a mother. Tentatively, it appears that Bachmann has motherhood in spades.

    God is free, and it defames God when those bearing his image are slaves.

    A hereford does better for its calf than these men have done for their children.

  16. Jean
    June 16th, 2011 at 08:41 | #16

    I agree that our country is in big trouble… but does that justify voting for a woman if Lutherans (and apparently not all) believe that a male would be more biblical correct. By voting for a woman are we say that we know better than God. I would vote for a man until my choices got narrowed to an only woman field of candidates (that had the most Christian values). Just as, I might see a candidate that is strong in finance but yet lacking Christian values, I would not vote for them. I trust that God will bless me no matter what and that a candidate with Christian values (if there is such a thing) is going to benefit me more in the long run.

    If church/synod was in trouble…. would we vote for a female candidate to fix it? No, we would trust that God provide the male leaders to guide the church. Why, doesn’t that apply to the country as well? (If you believe that God intended male to be over female also outside of church.)

  17. June 16th, 2011 at 09:53 | #17

    @Jean #116
    I am attracted to and sympathize with everything you wrote. Trouble is, in a choice between two for President, we never have the chance to vote for a candidate who is good up and down the list of our values. We are always stuck prioritizing. Would I vote for a pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia man over a pro-life woman. Male headship is one of our values. Life is another. It would be tough for me to make male headship absolute and life not. Isn’t that what I would be doing. Maybe someone can show me how my conscience could be relieved, but that’s the problem I’m having. And this year, though my computation could be wrong, I don’t think the debt is just big trouble. It is an existential threat to the liberty, not just the lifestyle, of our descendants. If that is true, it is a spriritual and moral issue about whether we truly love our children.

    The people demanded a king and God gave them Saul. God was right and the people were wrong. You are correct that God always wiil be right, but that does not by itself mean we are.

  18. Rev. Jon Brohn
    June 16th, 2011 at 10:53 | #18

    I was unaware of this discussion until Rev. Scheer asked for a little clarification. As I read through this thread, I have appreciated much of the discussion. I’m thankful that there are Lutherans out there who are not part of our synod, yet treasure the Word as much as I do.

    At the same time, I was deeply disturbed by the amount of “speculation” and comments about Michele’s church background. Then I read this comment by “James”: “Since we are speculating on Ms. Bachmann’s motives: Perhaps the Church Growth programs in Ms. Bachmann’s former WELS congregation have unintentionally assisted her in her decision to join the non-denominational church. Gotta go where the coffee and praise bands are better!” Have you been here to witness our so-called “Church Growth” programs? Since the thread quotes Luther so often, why don’t we go back to the basics of our heritage as followers of Christ. The LORD told Moses to write, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16 ESV).

    I believe that publicly speculating about the truth is gossip, and violates these words. I am sure that the intention of this site and the bloggers is not to openly break the commandment. Please take our words and actions in the kindest possible way. If anyone has questions about Michele’s faith, ask her. If you have questions about Salem Ev. Lutheran Church and School, ask us, as Rev. Scheer did. If you have questions about my vocation in God’s kingdom, ask me. Please don’t use this forum as an opportunity to verbally harm my flock, or sheep that were part of my flock. Thank you.

    Rev. Jonathan Brohn
    Salem Ev. Lutheran Church
    Stillwater, MN

  19. Rev. David Mueller
    June 16th, 2011 at 11:07 | #19

    @T. R. Halvorson #117
    Your conscience is relieved the only way it can ever be relieved–“Baptism-the appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
    Make the wisest, most selfless decision you can, guided by the Word of God, and then remember your righteousness doesn’t depend upon the presidential candidate for whom you vote but upon Christ.
    Conversations such as this one is part of working through the guidance of God’s Word.

  20. Rev. James Gier
    June 16th, 2011 at 11:58 | #20

    Does the Order of Creation apply to all of creation or only to the Church?

    And, on Senator Simon, I had to serve Communion to him when I was vicar at his church in Carbondale. Though he was one of the nicest men I met, nevertheless it vexed me to do so. I first counseled with my vicarage supervisor who understood my concern. In summary the conclusion was that the table was not under my authority or supervision, but that of the pastor.

    Later, in talking about the matter with the pastor, the answer was that though Simon held differing views from the LCMS, the hope was to change him (bring to repentance) through the “Gospel.” Now this pastor was very big on Law and Gospel but certainly confused the two in this matter. I am not saying anything that this pastor would not say to anyone else who would ask him.

  21. helen
    June 16th, 2011 at 13:09 | #21

    @Jean #116
    (If you believe that God intended male to be over female also outside of church.)

    Jean, do you say, “I hear and obey” to every post-confirmand in center-zipped trousers? (The quoted passages refer to husband and wife.)

    Just to confuse things further for the ‘old Germans': Luther thought it admirable for a husband to do laundry and change diapers as necessary. [That, in some households, is as rare as going to private confession & absolution.]

  22. Jean
    June 16th, 2011 at 13:24 | #22

    @helen #121

    Is there a difference between Governor/ U.S President or Manager at McDonalds or a police officer? I’m not saying women are never allowed positions of authority but I believe God intended male to be over female also outside of church. Where those lines are is a little blurry (due to my sinful nature, I’m sure).

  23. Carl Vehse
    June 16th, 2011 at 13:34 | #23

    Rev. James Grier #120: Later, in talking about the matter with the pastor, the answer was that though Simon held differing views from the LCMS, the hope was to change him (bring to repentance) through the “Gospel.”

    For a Lutheran, that answer is absolutely pathetic… but not really surprising. An October, 1999 LCMSNews release, “Pastors respond to Ventura, noted that Jesse was at that time a member of the Missouri Synod congregation (St. John’s Lutheran Church, Maple Grove, MN, Rev. Steven Briel, Senior Pastor). The news release included:

    The governor, in the November issue of Playboy magazine, states, “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business”…

    In services on Sunday, Oct. 3, [Rev. Steven] Briel and Associate Pastor Loel Wessel read to worshipers the following statement they had prepared:

    “Governor Ventura has sought to clarify his comments regarding organized religion in an open letter to the churches and in a televised press conference.

    “We share the concerns of many about the negative light this episode has cast on the `organized church.’ We believe that many congregations like our own take seriously their commitment to proclaim the Gospel of God’s forgiveness and salvation through our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ and seek to live out His command to love one another as He has loved us.

    “Governor Ventura has apologized to each of his pastors for any problems or embarrassment his public comments (or how they were interpreted) have caused our congregation and assured us that he did not intend to include congregations such as our own in his comments.

    “Our continuing concern about his statements are matters of pastoral ministry between us and him.”

    The LCMSNews article also quotes Minnesota South District President Lane R. Seitz:

    “The Christian faith and the Christian Church are powerful forces for good and have seasoned our culture in profound and positive ways. In that spirit, I join the people of our state in praying that God would bless Governor Ventura with the wisdom he needs to carry out his duties and responsibilities.”

    The LCMSNews article carefully tapdanced around any mention or reference to the Jesse Ventura’s promotion of abortion, legalized prostitution, legalized drugs, homosexual “rights”, and Jesse’s desire to be reincarnated as a 38-DD bra.

  24. Pastor Joshua Scheer
    June 16th, 2011 at 14:22 | #24

    I have updated the post with information from Pr. Jon Brohn (#118 above), who is a pastor at Michelle Bachmann’s former parish.

  25. June 16th, 2011 at 16:16 | #25

    @Rev. David Mueller #119
    Thank you. That’s what I’m betting the farm on.

  26. helen
    June 16th, 2011 at 19:56 | #26

    @Jean #122
    I’m not saying women are never allowed positions of authority but I believe God intended male to be over female also outside of church.

    (sigh) If you look at the chain of command you will find that the men are up there!
    No fear!

    While you believe you know what God intended, you might read through the Gospels again and look at what Jesus DID.
    1. He spoke to a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, at a time when Jews wouldn’t go there, let alone speak to an unrelated woman.
    2. He defended the woman caught in adultery, [possibly because if “caught in the act”, the “john” should have been there for stoning, too, but the text doesn’t tell us what was on His mind].
    3. He reprimanded the disciples who criticized a woman for pouring perfume on Him.
    4. He did not make apostles of women, and neither should we, but nevertheless, women were the first to see Him after the resurrection.

    As previously noted, the passages on “headship” are spoken in a husband/wife context.

    Imagining you know what the Bible does not say, [eisegesis] is generally frowned upon in Lutheran academic circles. But in your case, it will do no more harm than my ramblings, since neither of us will claim a pulpit.

    Has it occurred to you all that the wife who obtains an office, or holds a responsible job which entails supervising other men, may be doing so with the approval of her own husband?

    Are you taking instructions from 14 year old boys, BTW?

  27. Jean
    June 16th, 2011 at 20:20 | #27

    @helen #126

    When the subject has come up in Bible Classes, the passages in post #85 concluded that is would be out of God’s natural order for a woman president.

    I agree with Pr. Rydecki’s statement:

    Rev. Paul Rydecki :
    I don’t know how you get around those headship principles, for as much as I might like to just let it go. This is such a hard issue, because it goes so directly against the modern culture in which we live and that so influences our thinking.

    Sorry that you disagree. In our society, 14 year old boys are not voting members of the Church nor do they have adult rights in society. So that argument is not really fair.

  28. Jean
    June 16th, 2011 at 20:46 | #28

    @helen #126

    As note in the Bible passages you cited, women have a special place in God’s Kingdom. We are not mere servants to be looked down upon. Proverbs 31 is an excellent example of this. Women are great blessings to men. The examples you gave show women loving Jesus, worshiping him (Mary and the women who went to the tomb). As for the woman who was to be stoned in John 8, Jesus point was that the Pharisees were no better than her. Sin is sin. As everyone had left the scene there were no witnesses left to throw the 1st stone as Mosaic Law commanded. Jesus did not defend her actions he forgave her. How does this show headship? These are examples of love, worship & forgiveness.

  29. June 17th, 2011 at 09:09 | #29

    @Rev. Roger D. Sterle #77

    We in the Orthodox Lutheran Alliance (OLA) are more conservative & “higher” in Churchmanship than the LCMS and/or WELS.

  30. helen
    June 17th, 2011 at 09:59 | #30

    @Jean #127
    14 year old boys are not voting members of the Church nor do they have adult rights in society. So that argument is not really fair.

    Conceded, as to adult rights, although that is the age at which I am supposed to stop teaching them religion, according to “headship” defenders I have met. [Yes, I am otherwise qualified.]

    @Fr. Philip Mullen #129
    That may be true, but it sounds slightly Pharisaic for you to say so.
    Rather let others praise your faithfulness.

  31. helen
    June 17th, 2011 at 10:12 | #31

    Oh, yes, we could probably make another list of women who ran their households and businesses as well, if we thought about it a minute. Proverbs 31 is a good start.

    *Lydia, “seller of purple”, very likely employed men for the heavier tasks, (although I admit to guesswork in saying that).
    *Abigail acted without her husband’s knowledge or permission and saved David from killing him.
    (Nabal died anyway, which was apparently good for Abigail.)
    *Deborah was a judge and prophetess in Israel… and a married woman.

    [Anyone else want to add a name?] :)

  32. June 17th, 2011 at 10:13 | #32

    I was simply answering Pr. Serle’s, #77, question in regard to my denominational affiliation —
    providing a concise & factual description of the difference between the OLA & LCMS or WELS….
    no intention of crowing! ;)

  33. helen
    June 18th, 2011 at 14:13 | #33

    @Fr. Philip Mullen #132
    no intention of crowing!

    Taken as intended then, Fr. Mullen, I understand you to mean a more liturgical practice. What the ‘WNDITWB’ individuals refer to as “smells and bells”, too, perhaps? ;)

    God bless!
    Helen

    [“If it isn’t Mogen David, it can’t be communion”.] :)

  34. Russ Davis
    June 19th, 2011 at 05:23 | #34

    How tragic that only 16% here have the Biblical, Isaiah 3:12 view of women in authority over men, viz. “Isaiah 3:12 “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they that lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” ASV
    the others brainwashed by our fallen world, including our present cult of narcissism epitomized by the present lawless and unlawful occupant of the white house in the bitter sovereign providence of God (Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and when I had eaten it, my belly was made bitter.).

    That so high a percentage blindly pretends this is adiaphora
    (see “The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord
    X. Church Rites, Commonly Called Adiaphora.
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-adiaphora.php
    5] Namely, when under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God’s Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel].)
    only confirms the scandal of historical and especially Biblical illiteracy that so thoroughly infects so many, including LCMS, as evidenced by the tragic ignorant opinions of so many of the posts. That people are so blind as glibly to follow a woman like Bachmann (released from her WELS membership) with no questions asked (imagining it won’t be just as easy for her to jettison her “pro-life” and “conservative” bona fides, as Reagen’s Justice O’Connor did) is as glaring a depiction of the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life against which John sternly warned in 1 John as I can imagine. But of course we don’t want to spend more than an hour a week even thinking about God (but oh how we love those forty hourse of inane and banal TV and movies brainwashing lies and trash), much less hauling out that Bible for our seven seconds of “devotional” reading a week. And then we wonder where God is when we’re in trouble and why the Church is so powerless since He and His Word are so cavalierly ignored. As a charismatic I once loved our three hour worship services that once were the norm in this land that once sought God but now as an LCMS member I must get by with going to both services at TWO fellowships where I’m officially an active participating member at one and unofficially just as much an active participating member at another in order to sustain me for the week in the joy of the Lord as they both sadly consider God unworthy of their time they, like most others, rather devote to the idol Chronos, the Greek god of time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronus), to which those who peruse their CHRONOgraphs (=watches) instead of God’s Word tragically devote themselves. God save us all.

  35. Russ Davis
    June 19th, 2011 at 05:36 | #35

    PS
    Also see http://www.cbmw.org for some helpful understanding, though they are sadly too often inconsistent in sustaining the absolute sufficiency and authority of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) as I’ve seen with most today. It’s no surprise that so many with a feminized view of Scripture also have departed from the sole Biblical orthodoxy of six ordinary days/six ordinary millennia cosmology once universally held, as Eve departed from Adam’s God-given instruction regarding eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam abandoned/rejected his God-ordained headship to follow her wiles, a fundamental force behind the feminazi juggernaut seeking to impose women’s ordination as Eve also successfully cleverly overthrew Adam’s headship with his own help!, but how graciously He didn’t execute/damn them forever as they deserved as manifest ministers of satan. Soli Deo Gloria!

  36. Russ Davis
    June 19th, 2011 at 05:47 | #36

    Last PS
    Also see http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersinGenesis.org for the irrefutable presentation of why alternative cosmologies are inherently antiBible and antiscience (which, ala Newton, was founded on God’s Word and is now crumbling due to its manifestly fascist falsehoods that are its base, as it did in the old USSR, apostate Darwin’s whores). It’s amazing how the proven bald-faced lies of Hugh Ross have been so conveniently ignored even by great scholars like the late Gleason Archer so they can stroke their scholarly egos and avoid the plain reading of the text as sadly also happened with the great B. B. Warfield Abraham Kuyper and Charles Hodge had to rebuke for his Darwinian deviation while claiming to hold to inerrancy, blind to his abandonment of the ultimate sufficiency of Scripture, as with Archer and Walter Kaiser and so many others. Let God be true and every man a liar. Romans 3:4

    How ironic that today’s professing “scientists” demand “science” follow a deranged old deviating Anglican CLERGYMAN who was never a professional scientist down the suicidal path of the “evolution” religion instead of the brilliant creationist SCIENTIST Newton who spent even more efforts on studying God’s Word than he did on his prodigious studies in science. Then of course they hypocritically pretend it’s not “science” if one listens to clergy! The Romans 1 spiritual blindness of such whoredom would be mind-boggling if that antedating Scripture had not shown us their course. Soli Deo Gloria!

  37. helen
    June 19th, 2011 at 13:05 | #37

    My, my! What a quantity (and variety) of opinion!

    Norm, have we got the spammer on board!?

  38. June 19th, 2011 at 14:26 | #38

    @helen #131

    Prob 31:16. Field, buys, profits (NKJV), vineyard. This woman is in business, and probably had employees, given agronomic technologies of the place and time, to say nothing of employees being necessary given all the other stuff the woman does in the rest of the chapter. And this is part of her being a wife of valor. She is valorious.

  39. Neal Breitbarth
    June 24th, 2011 at 23:32 | #39

    Apparently, this simply isn’t a matter of women in the civil realm rather than the church as I thought it would be.
    Just for your information, not all MN LCMS politcians are liberals. MN may have been home to former Gov Jesse Ventura, who held membership in a LCMS congregation where his wife attended. We also had a good one in U.S. Senator Rod Grams who is a LCMS member and was married in my former LCMS church. Sen Grams was Senator 10 years back.

  40. Carl Vehse
    June 25th, 2011 at 11:04 | #40

    According to the Jan. 26, 2011, Reporter article, “112th Congress includes six LCMS Lutherans,” the six LCMS Lutherans are all GOP and include:

    1. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.),
    2. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.),
    3. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.)
    4. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).
    5. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.)
    6. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)

    The last two were elected to Congress in Nov. 2010. There are no LCMS Lutheran members in the U.S. Senate.

  41. doof-fisch
    June 26th, 2011 at 11:30 | #41

    @Neal Breitbarth #139

    I understand that we have a Lutheran foot in the door regarding Michelle Bachmann’s candidacy. After all, Neal, isn’t her press secretary an LCMS Lutheran? (wink wink)

  42. Carl Vehse
    June 26th, 2011 at 13:34 | #42

    doof-fisch,

    What reference or link do you have to rhetorically suggest Michelle Bachmann’s press secretary, Alice Stewart, is an LCMS Lutheran?

  43. Neal Breitbarth
    June 26th, 2011 at 15:53 | #43

    doof-fisch, I plead the fifth on Bachmann’s press secretary.

  44. June 27th, 2011 at 14:51 | #44

    @Russ Davis #134

    Is 3:12

    It’s perhaps more than a layman or nonlinguist can figure out, since the linguists and theologians are not agreed whether that text actually refers to taxgatherers and creditors. Single vowels make the difference, and without rabbinical points, the vowels reportedly do not appear in the Hebrew text, until the Masorets.

    Looking to nearby context, the rest of the chapter fits with taxgatherers and creditors.

    Looking to wider context, the Bible often warns of the judgment of being oppressed under debts, but not so regarding women and children.

    One clear text is sufficient to settle a doctrinal point, but this one is not so clear as to be sufficient, without others, to build an assured doctrine.

    Not saying that you position could not be right, just that this text doesn’t clearly do it all by itself.

  45. Rev. James Gier
    June 29th, 2011 at 12:40 | #45

    Does the Order of Creation apply to all creation, or only to the Church?

    Perhaps this question could start another thread of discussion?

  46. BethAnn
    January 27th, 2012 at 10:29 | #46

    I just wanted to say that there is nothing wrong with women in politics as long as she is not a spiritual or pastoral role in the church. There are TWO kingdoms the Earthly kingdom and Heavenly Kingdom, as long as the women and her husband are keeping their marriage vows and trusting in the Lord for their salvation then there should not be a problem.

Comment pages
1 2 3 15145
If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

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