I’ve noticed that a lot of Lutheran bloggers have commented and linked to Jon Pahl’s (Professor of History of Christiantity, Luther Theological Seminary at Philadelphia and Fellow in the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University) article in the Journal of Lutheran Ethics where he weighs in on what he views as the bottom line of the CORE/NALC movement.
Granted, I had to look terms like Docetism, Donatism, and Pelagianism (what can I say, I was a biology and chemistry major, not a theologian by training) to see what they meant. And I don’t intend to rehash this journal article as there are great blog posts already already analyzing it.
But there are a few things that really stood out in the article:
Lutheran CORE represents, in its demographic and historical contours, a largely white, heterosexual, male backlash against the supposedly evil changes in gender roles, sexual mores, and participatory democracy that marked the 1960s. At the same time, the leaders of the movement also ironically embrace many of the least savory aspects of the sixties rhetoric of adolescent resentment and entitlement. Most fundamentally, the leaders of Lutheran CORE have come to the brink of dividing the church in an attempt to hold onto (or to carve out) some power.
If you look at American Lutherans as a whole–ELCA, Missouri Synod, WELS, LCMC, CORE, etc, the status quo for leadership and rostered clergy is the heterosexual white male. You can’t argue that. There is a paucity of clergy of color, and women still make up the minority in denominations that ordain and roster them. That isn’t a political statement. That’s pure statistics. I hardly think Professor Pahl is labeling CORE/NALC a group of racists, homophobes or misogynists with this statement. But he is breaking down their mulitutudes of criticism toward the ELCA and their driving force to a simple concept: CORE/NALC does not want to yield leadership or Scriptural Authority. It strives to maintain the status quo of white male heteronormative privilege.
And I think I have to agree with Professor Pahl.
On the surface wants to sound like something else, stating that they acknowledge the ordination of women, but there is this one statement that stands out in their article regarding the formation of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC):
The NALC and Lutheran CORE will recognize both women and men in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject.
Just wait a second. Is that a caveat that paves wiggle room to reject the role of ordained women. Would you mind elaborating on the part that says “…while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on the subject.”
It that an acknowledging the diversity opinion as in we acknowledge that the Missouri Synod does not ordain women, but we aren’t going to rock their boat? Or is it something a little more malignant? Is that an acknowledging the divirsity of opinion to reject the ordination of women on a parish or synod level? Is it acknowledging the differences outside of NALC, or is this an nod to differences inside NALC? Is it nothing more than a token gesture where the unspoken intention is to maintain that status quo of heteronormative, white male control of power? Is it rights with a bunch of fine-print caveats? Does that mean ordained women will merely be grandfathered into the NALC clergy, or does this statement pave the way for a future moratorium on their ordination?
Because if it is the latter, I don’t ever want to be caught on any part of that incredibly slippery slope! That once sentence generates a lot more questions than affirm concrete facts. Now while I’ll probably never join the LCMC, at least this church body has made a true committement to lifting women up to be on equal footing in all aspects of church life.
So let’s go back to Professor Pahl. For every blog on the internet that has supported his essay, there are probably just as many on the other side that are tearing it apart. The Anti-ELCA blog Shellfish is one of those that vivisected Pahl’s jounral article. As Professor Pahl himself is a blogger, he took the opportunity to answer the criticism directly:
Thanks for picking up on my piece, and for identifying me with Lazareth and the venerable institution I’m delighted to represent. I wrote the essay in Laz’s spirit, as I’ve been researching his earlier writing. I did check my facts, however, and since I quote Benne repeatedly, and he surely represents Lutheran CORE, I stand by the associations. Even more–I’d welcome engagement with my reasoning, which is pretty clear, closely reasoned, and hardly a screed: Lutheran CORE (and fellow travelers) do not represent orthodox Lutheranism but a Lutheranism accommodated to the American civil religion and its millennialism, individualism, moralism, and innocent domination. The movement is led (largely) by white males (and their consorts) frightened of losing privilege, with more than passing elements of the heresies of Donatism, Docetism, and Pelagianism. That’s the argument in a nutshell, with ample evidence to back it up.
It didn’t take long for the highlighted segment to be pounced upon with outrage (*waves to Tony*.) Sexism, misogyny, pot calling the kettle something to the right of dark grey.
But I can say with confidence that Jon Pahl is not a misogynist. During his time as a Christ College and theology professor at Valparaiso University he was one of the most vocal faculty that protested the ban (which have since been lifted) on women leading worship or preaching in the Chapel of the Resurrection.
So take all the ad hominem attacks from both sides apart, and let’s look at his choice of words: consort.
Consort: (noun) 1. a husband or wife; spouse, esp. of a reigning monarch. Compare prince consort, queen consort. 2. a companion, associate, or partner: a confidant and consort of heads of state.
I’ll give you that it is a little inflammatory, but after reading the blog that criticizes Pahl, I can’t help but think it is a reflection of how Jon Pahl perceives how CORE/NALC views its own women. Again, can’t speak for him, but in my opinion, the word choice feels deliberate.
A consort may be a Queen Consort or a Prince Consort in a monarchy. They may get to wear the robes and coronets during official business such as the opening of parliament, but have you ever noticed they always walk three steps behind? To use the British monarchy as an example. Elizabeth is Queen yet her husband is the consort. He holds no power. He doesn’t open parliament. He sits next to her. To use a more patriarchal model, Elizabeth’s son Charles will eventually become king. When he does, he will be King Charles and his wife Camilla will be the Queen Consort. Yes, they will call her Queen Camilla, but a queen consort has no position of authority. She will not ascend to the throne if she outlives her husband.
To use a church based model, let’s look at the pastor’s spouse. A pastor can lead a worship service, can provide care during times of emergency and mortality, can baptise children and marry couples, and can preach from the pulpit. His wife is usually held in high regard. But her is very limited. She can’t assume his responsiblities if he is taken ill or dies. The call isn’t passed to her in those cases (unless she is a rostered clergy.)
A consort, at first glance, may appear to be on equal footing as those in power. But scratch the surface and they still walking the proverbial three steps behind.
And if you read the blog where Pahl responds, the tone in the blogger reveals this tone in his comments regarding the Journal of Lutheran Ethics editor Pastor Kaari Reierson (bold emphasis once again mine):
JLE started in 2001 and editrix ELCA pastor Kaari Reierson has presided over a lively exchange on all sorts of matters over the years.
Edirix. That’s not a typographical error. Editrix as in Editress: a female editor. It has that old world charm of my Missouri Synod congregation growing up where the director of the women’s altar guild was titled the directress.
With that line of thinking, would that make me a doctress even though I have the same degree, rights and privileges as my male counterparts in the medical field? What’s next? A pastress? Or go one step further: A pastorette?
When you start codifying roles and titles according to gender lines you either directly or indirectly start stratifying the roles along a hierarchy whether you want to or not. One half is superior and the other is relegated to a secondary role.
Which brings us back to maintaining the hierarchy of heteronormative white males.
Progressively Lutheran 
*Waves at Kelly.*
I would disagree with you (surprise!) I will leave Pahl alone here, because I have commented on him sufficiently elsewhere.
But to differentiate by gender is not to discriminate. Discrimination is a separate and not automatic follow-on action. If we take Bella Abzug’s admonition years ago ( no citation, I just remember it clearly) that “the only jobs that should be discriminated by gender are wet nurse and sperm donor” ** it is important within a discreet population of people to know how many of each (wet nurses and sperm donors) you have.
Even the term woman was originally a designation of a coveted subset of men: men with a womb. Womb-men. Coveted for their childbearing ability; but considered relatively unsuited for warfare at the time.
And even where there is a preference today, such discrimination is not always insidious. I know many women who prefer a doctress for their gynocologist. That is discrimination; is it a bad thing?
And perhaps there are women or men who would have a preference for counselling or personal confession with a pastor or a pastress. (Pasotette only is she is VERY petite.) Again, a bad thing? To discriminate in preaching or presiding on that basis would be contra-biblical (IMNTBHO). After all, the vast majority of really bad sermons over the last 100 years are clearly preached by males. 🙂
** Rep Abzug was responding to a question by a reporter who wanted to know if it would be ok for a club to require that a steam room towel attendant be male. And she may have said ‘sex’ rather than ‘gender’; not so much a quote as an extremely close paraphrase.
(BTW: All the -ress terms used tongue in cheek.)
Blessings TS
One more thought on this – and specifically to Pahl’s complaint: I am reliably to that at the ELCA CWA, representatives of the African Immigrant churches asked that the ELCA not make this change because it would devastate their evangelism efforts among Muslim immigrants in the US. The ELCA relied on the fact that those congregations are dependent on ELCA money to assure themselves that they would not leave.
Those congregations met with LCMC and found our way of offering them funding to be inadequate in their opinion. They met with CORE and have been offered funding, I hear. It is my impression that those congregations will join NALC … which may, at least at first, make it the only every black majority Lutheran denom in the US.
If this comes to pass, it will seriously diminish the number of non-whites in the ELCA.
A little inflammatory? How about demeaning and dismissive? Having been involved with CORE somewhat tangentially considering I left the ELCA a little over two years ago, I would have to say my experience with CORE members does not support the picture that Dr. Pahl and others are trying to paint. I had the pleasure of working with them at the 2005 CWA (when they were Word Alone and Rock Solid Lutherans) and at the 2007 CWA (when CORE was first being formed.) I met faithful, grace-filled Lutherans who loved the Lord and their church and had compassion for those who thought differently than they and who were struggling. I saw men and women, majorities and minorities, who worked side by side, showing great respect for one another. Dr. Pahl’s characterization is unfair, untrue, and, in my opinion, an attempt to demonize CORE in the eyes of ELCA members who are unhappy with the direction the church is going, but not sure where to go. They surely won’t want to be associated with those homophobic, angry white men!
“it is important within a discreet population of people to know how many of each (wet nurses and sperm donors) you have.”
Why? Here I thought we were neither Jew nor Greek…
Why? Because if you have a hungry infant whose mother is unable to feed her, I will do you little good in the wet nurse department, no matter what state I am in. Just as Kelly or you might be considered inadequate as sperm donors. 🙂
The reference is only to the ability to fulfill those specific tasks.
Blessings, TS
Hence the God-given development of Baby Formula!
“The NALC and Lutheran CORE will recognize both women and men in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject.”
And no one commented on how this same language (diversity of opinion) used by the ELCA to ‘agree to disagree on gay ordination” has gotten everyone opposed into a snit? First thing I noticed. Interesting that CORE uses the same language that is howled about when used by ELCA. How droll. But then as a card carrying LCNA member, i guess I would notice such things
What Prof Pahl didn’t come right out and say is that issues of sexuality are some of the most intimate and therefore most tightly held and defended. I suppose because in our society we derive a huge portion of our identities from our sexuality, as much as from our skin color, our gender, and our ethnic heritage. When someone threatens our image of self, we immediately go on the defensive. I saw it in the military when DADT was first being discussed – homophobic statements were made by politicians on behalf of servicemembers without asking them. And still are today. Yet, that macho image has been diluted somewhat by the outstanding performance of female sailors and soldiers in units that were previously male-only. Change can come, but with birthpangs (not that I know what that’s like :)).
I am very well aware that the ELCA used this language in the CWA09 statement on human sexuality. On one hand you have the ELCA that is using this language to open doors and bring more into the fold. Yes, I wish the ELCA policy statement didn’t have caveats in it, but I worry that anything more assertive would have been rejected last August. But it is a step in the right direction. And I guess I’m okay with what we have for the time being provided we as a church body can remove the escape clauses once we realize that this didn’t implode all 10,000 congregations.
And then you have NALC that uses the exact same language to subtly close doors. NALC just happens to promote more subtle gender equality compared to its overtly antiGLBTQ intolerance.
Sigh.
Here lies the rub with NALC/CORE’s statement and why I blogged about it: We’ve had forty years to discuss the ordination and rostering of women. The ELCA (and its predecessors) have accepted it for nearly forty years. NALC tossing in the caveat now shows it willing to take a step back when it comes to rostering women in the name of orthodoxy. Quite frankly, it is a slippery slope that I doubt many of the women embracing NALC realize is there unless they read the fine print. You don’t realize you’re the frog boiling to death in a pot of water of water if the temperature is slowly raised a degree at at time. Reminds me a lot of Niemoller’s First They Came… poem.
I must say, that Dr. Pahl’s use of the term “Orthodox Lutheran” is highly relativistic, cut off from any historical content it has had in Lutheran (or any other) circles. He uses it as a pedigree (“I am orthodox, therefore all who differ from me are NOT”) and term of approval, rather than having any correspondence with what anyone else might use the term for. We saw a lot of these word-games during the Seminex crisis in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod where the progressives called themselves “moderates,” and tried to claim the heritage of the Confessional Lutheran institutions while rejecting it. Those they deceived (many deceived themselves because they could not see the implications of the theology they wished to tolerate) have become some of your CORE people. You, at least, are highly sensitive to theological implications for you reject the language of tolerance if it might allow for backtracking on the issues dear to your heart. I am surprised that you applaud the essentially ad hominem argument of Dr. Pahl, but the feminists did say that “the personal is political,” and few things are as personal as one’s gender and race. Of course, Dr.Pahl’s argument that the theology of CORE is a cover for maintaining positions of power may tell us more about the author’s view of theology than his opponents’.
I’m quite surprised that JLE or anyone else would consider Pahl’s article serious scholarship. It is essentially a toothless rant dressed up with some sophisticated sounding words, which makes it seem scholarly to the sophists who have been anxiously waiting for some good reason to bash their fellow Lutherans. Absolutely appalling. Pity the poor seminarians who have to sit in Dr. Pahl’s classroom.
Pretty mean-spirited. Remember that 8th commandment!