It seems interesting that the solution proposed is "add more ways to exclude people from ministry" when the current set of rules is not providing the desired result. While it's certainly easier than re-evaluating the rules, I don't think it actually fixes the problem. To look from a business standpoint, the successful businesses have to continually re-evaluate their rules and innovate: that means making completely new things up and throwing out the ones that cause problems. I think the 'must be male' is overripe for elimination, but really you should consider ordaining the lay ministers people raise up.

Actually, I think exclusion is the main principle that should be discarded. Instead of focusing on 'must be male' or 'must pass Hebrew', ordination should focus on inclusion-- encouraging people to use the gifts they have. This isn't to say that training is useless or unnecessary, but I think the idea of vocation-- your greatest gifts to the world's greatest need would be a much better guiding principle. A structure in place that enhances what clergy can bring to the table and ensure that they learn the church dogma is important, but maintaining and perpetuating that structure is not the mission of the church.

I don't have any peers messing up the Atonement; preaching JEDP or Q nonsense (or worse); or wimping on pro-life or biblical marriage issues. Yes, some could use more personal skills. Look at the current Concordia St. Louis expectations for ministry. They certainly address the concerns of the editorial. As for women in ministry-- they seem to make good chaplains-- if that's what you want leading your church then I guess you will be content. Given the fuzzy thinking and worse decision making in the ELCA this past year-- female ordination in the LCMS is dead-dead-dead. Besides, they wouldn't last long in flag football in seminary.

So the willingness to ordain women is to blame for the CWA2009 decisions? How long do you give CORE before they finally open the roster to those in same-gendered relationships as well?

Or is it not that ordination of women = ordination of those in same-gendered relationships, but the fear of similar upheaval in the LCMS if women's ordination was seriously considered? That sounds like 'we don't want to push it because we need to preserve our membership numbers', and that seems like the worst reason for making or failing to make any decision.

Is there a hint of mysoginism here, are is there really nothing between the lines?

So, is making any distinction between male and female roles mysoginism? (Yes, the flag football reference was cheap humor-- but it makes a point in a way). Hopefully we can soon get rid of this sixties hippie notion of "unisex" sizing. Men and women are different -- they have different roles and purposes and they are not the same and never will be. Yes, in a sense the fear from Missouri in observing the ELCA is the "sissification" of an entire denomination in the path of the (lost and now irrelevant as a Christian church) UCC and ECUSA. The decisions of the summer are seen by us (I will arrogantly speak for LCMS clergy) as destroying (or nullifying) the biblical concepts of Holy Ministry, marriage, family, fatherhood and motherhood (and just about everything else). Do you realize that our whole view of the Bible, church, home, life and society are in complete and total conflict? I now have to spend inordinate hours explaining how we are not "those lutherans" to people I meet. There may be no cause/effect relationship to female ordination and the loss of doctrinal stringency and church discipline-- but we aren't going to take that chance based on what we have seen.

Yes, our seminaries have room for improvement-- but the new and young pastors I meet are talented, biblically solid and Confessionally sound-- and they are having large families!

And here I thought it was historical criticism and Law/Gospel hermeneutics that put our whole view of the Bible, church, home, life and society in complete and total conflict. Or the idea that Jonah wasn't literally swallowed by a whale.

The problem is that when the wagons get circled, the Gospel isn't what's in the center. Instead you put the institution there and then fear that the institution might be "sissified" prevents you from daring to make any change. What would have happened in Paul's faith in the institution of Jewish Christianity led him to reject Gentiles that weren't circumcised? Or if Luther's faith in the Catholic church led him to trust it instead of the Gospel? The change to permit consumption of blood has no literal Scriptural precedent, and yet that's specifically mentioned in the Confessions as 'not a sin'.

The numbers in the LCMS are declining, too, like most of the rest of American Christianity. There's concern that it's financially difficult to keep two seminaries up and running at full potential. That's a judgement against you, and all of us. Trying to say 'well, there are only a few 'true' believers' is false comfort. We are failing to spread the Gospel. Our only hope is to trust in the radical power of that Gospel that calls us all to serve God in whatever capacity He, not we, decide.

One would think that the ELCA revisionists would now turn their attention to the UMC, with whom the ELCA is now in 'full communion'. After all, the ELCA began it's own destruction when it joined the with UCC, continued with the ECUSA, and is now well on the way to going out of business itself. One is reminded of the metaphor of the camel's nose under the tent flap...

In the words of the old comic strip character 'Pogo', "We have met the enemy and they am us."

Thanks for the chuckle!

Yeah, and the LCMS is really bringing in the harvest.....

Most men would seem to make good chaplains, but i don't want them leading my church and they do. I didn't know doctrinal expertise and preaching ability were based on gender......silly me.