ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Dan Fienen on May 08, 2021, 12:14:58 PM

Title: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 08, 2021, 12:14:58 PM
The memorial thread for Marva Dawn has devolved into rehashing complaints and defenses of LCMS hiring practices. Perhaps that essential task could be continued here and the Marva Dawn memorial thread reserved for tributes to or memories of Marva Dawn. Since church gender issues have been hashed and rehashed interminably with little new being said and little chance that anyone's mind being changed there seems little left but sniping and name calling in that topic. Hardly a fit tribute for Marva.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Dave Benke on May 08, 2021, 01:17:34 PM
Nice title, Dan.  I'll try not to live up to it.

Rhoda Schuler, a former parishioner of my brother Bob in St. Paul, MN, is one of a very, very small group of women who teach/have taught theology or been affiliated with the theology department in the LCMS University system.  Another is Dr. Elizabeth Goodine, who spent four years on faculty at Concordia, Bronxville in the earlier 2000s.  Another was Patra (Pfotenhauer) Mueller, a second cousin of mine, who served in some theological capacity at Concordia, Irvine, and is now family life minister at a parish in Seattle.

All of them, and Marva Dawn (+), operate at a level of theological acumen at the top level, as their books, theses, and academic credentials demonstrate.  They would be or have been excellent role models for women entering called positions as theologians of the church.  That is possibly still a dynamic in play. Except the positions they held or were allowed to hold were not called positions in the Missouri Synod.  The same logic applies, not by the way, to a woman becoming the President of one of our remaining colleges/universities. 

What is that logic?  The logic begins and ends with public teaching.  Public teaching, the logic claims, belongs to the pastoral office.  Except when exceptions are made for again, a very few non-ordained Presidents of Colleges (Ralph Schultz comes to mind from a past era).  Professorially, other non-ordained men have served admirably.  So - if non-pastorally-ordained people are allowed to serve in certain functions, what about women? 

It seems to me the logic proceeds down to the level raised on this board, that for a woman to speak in the public assembly is to engage in public teaching.  So no reading of lessons, and, for some, no singing of solos (which have a teaching component!).  No teaching in the congregation beyond Sunday School up to middle school.  I find all of this to be a deteriorated form of logic, harmful to the Body of Christ and the gifts of all its members being used for the edification of the entire Body.

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod allows the ordination of women to the pastoral office.  However, you can go to any RC University theology roster and there will be a good number of women listed teaching theology.   What's the difference?  I think it has to do with the doctrines surrounding ecclesiology, and in particular the sacrament of ordination, its auspices and biblical origination.  For Roman Catholics, the supervisory capacity of the priest, bishop, cardinal and pope - all male - is sufficient to ensure sound teaching and therefore opens the opportunity to women to teach Catholic theology.  The Missouri Synod's more Scriptural anchor (the apostles' teaching), runs, as in all Protestant traditions, the danger of becoming biblicist and fundamentalist, an exercise in proof-texting.  The text being proved is one - Let a woman keep silent.  And that's where we're stuck.  How do we know that?  The women serving as deaconesses in the Concordia Deaconess Conference, (LCMS) are to sign a pledge that they will not read the Scriptures during a Divine Service.   They are to keep silent, less they be perceived through the reading of Scripture to be publicly teaching.  Secondly, many (I don't know how many) rostered members and layfolks would not receive the Lord's Meal at a congregation if a woman read a non-Gospel lesson.  Because the command to silence would have been broken.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: John_Hannah on May 08, 2021, 01:30:36 PM
Nice title, Dan.  I'll try not to live up to it.

Rhoda Schuler, a former parishioner of my brother Bob in St. Paul, MN, is one of a very, very small group of women who teach/have taught theology or been affiliated with the theology department in the LCMS University system.  Another is Dr. Elizabeth Goodine, who spent four years on faculty at Concordia, Bronxville in the earlier 2000s.  Another was Patra (Pfotenhauer) Mueller, a second cousin of mine, who served in some theological capacity at Concordia, Irvine, and is now family life minister at a parish in Seattle.

All of them, and Marva Dawn (+), operate at a level of theological acumen at the top level, as their books, theses, and academic credentials demonstrate.  They would be or have been excellent role models for women entering called positions as theologians of the church.  That is possibly still a dynamic in play. Except the positions they held or were allowed to hold were not called positions in the Missouri Synod.  The same logic applies, not by the way, to a woman becoming the President of one of our remaining colleges/universities. 

What is that logic?  The logic begins and ends with public teaching.  Public teaching, the logic claims, belongs to the pastoral office.  Except when exceptions are made for again, a very few non-ordained Presidents of Colleges (Ralph Schultz comes to mind from a past era).  Professorially, other non-ordained men have served admirably.  So - if non-pastorally-ordained people are allowed to serve in certain functions, what about women? 

It seems to me the logic proceeds down to the level raised on this board, that for a woman to speak in the public assembly is to engage in public teaching.  So no reading of lessons, and, for some, no singing of solos (which have a teaching component!).  No teaching in the congregation beyond Sunday School up to middle school.  I find all of this to be a deteriorated form of logic, harmful to the Body of Christ and the gifts of all its members being used for the edification of the entire Body.

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod allows the ordination of women to the pastoral office.  However, you can go to any RC University theology roster and there will be a good number of women listed teaching theology.   What's the difference?  I think it has to do with the doctrines surrounding ecclesiology, and in particular the sacrament of ordination, its auspices and biblical origination.  For Roman Catholics, the supervisory capacity of the priest, bishop, cardinal and pope - all male - is sufficient to ensure sound teaching and therefore opens the opportunity to women to teach Catholic theology.  The Missouri Synod's more Scriptural anchor (the apostles' teaching), runs, as in all Protestant traditions, the danger of becoming biblicist and fundamentalist, an exercise in proof-texting.  The text being proved is one - Let a woman keep silent.  And that's where we're stuck.  How do we know that?  The women serving as deaconesses in the Concordia Deaconess Conference, (LCMS) are to sign a pledge that they will not read the Scriptures during a Divine Service.   They are to keep silent, less they be perceived through the reading of Scripture to be publicly teaching.  Secondly, many (I don't know how many) rostered members and layfolks would not receive the Lord's Meal at a congregation if a woman read a non-Gospel lesson.  Because the command to silence would have been broken.

Dave Benke

DAVE,

Thanks for the detailed clarification. Good to know that there have been some exceptions and that at least three women have taught. The prohibition seems not to be absolute and may, in fact, be changing for the better. What do you think?    ;D

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Dave Benke on May 08, 2021, 01:36:21 PM
Nice title, Dan.  I'll try not to live up to it.

Rhoda Schuler, a former parishioner of my brother Bob in St. Paul, MN, is one of a very, very small group of women who teach/have taught theology or been affiliated with the theology department in the LCMS University system.  Another is Dr. Elizabeth Goodine, who spent four years on faculty at Concordia, Bronxville in the earlier 2000s.  Another was Patra (Pfotenhauer) Mueller, a second cousin of mine, who served in some theological capacity at Concordia, Irvine, and is now family life minister at a parish in Seattle.

All of them, and Marva Dawn (+), operate at a level of theological acumen at the top level, as their books, theses, and academic credentials demonstrate.  They would be or have been excellent role models for women entering called positions as theologians of the church.  That is possibly still a dynamic in play. Except the positions they held or were allowed to hold were not called positions in the Missouri Synod.  The same logic applies, not by the way, to a woman becoming the President of one of our remaining colleges/universities. 

What is that logic?  The logic begins and ends with public teaching.  Public teaching, the logic claims, belongs to the pastoral office.  Except when exceptions are made for again, a very few non-ordained Presidents of Colleges (Ralph Schultz comes to mind from a past era).  Professorially, other non-ordained men have served admirably.  So - if non-pastorally-ordained people are allowed to serve in certain functions, what about women? 

It seems to me the logic proceeds down to the level raised on this board, that for a woman to speak in the public assembly is to engage in public teaching.  So no reading of lessons, and, for some, no singing of solos (which have a teaching component!).  No teaching in the congregation beyond Sunday School up to middle school.  I find all of this to be a deteriorated form of logic, harmful to the Body of Christ and the gifts of all its members being used for the edification of the entire Body.

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod allows the ordination of women to the pastoral office.  However, you can go to any RC University theology roster and there will be a good number of women listed teaching theology.   What's the difference?  I think it has to do with the doctrines surrounding ecclesiology, and in particular the sacrament of ordination, its auspices and biblical origination.  For Roman Catholics, the supervisory capacity of the priest, bishop, cardinal and pope - all male - is sufficient to ensure sound teaching and therefore opens the opportunity to women to teach Catholic theology.  The Missouri Synod's more Scriptural anchor (the apostles' teaching), runs, as in all Protestant traditions, the danger of becoming biblicist and fundamentalist, an exercise in proof-texting.  The text being proved is one - Let a woman keep silent.  And that's where we're stuck.  How do we know that?  The women serving as deaconesses in the Concordia Deaconess Conference, (LCMS) are to sign a pledge that they will not read the Scriptures during a Divine Service.   They are to keep silent, less they be perceived through the reading of Scripture to be publicly teaching.  Secondly, many (I don't know how many) rostered members and layfolks would not receive the Lord's Meal at a congregation if a woman read a non-Gospel lesson.  Because the command to silence would have been broken.

Dave Benke

DAVE,

Thanks for the detailed clarification. Good to know that there have been some exceptions and that at least three women have taught. The prohibition seems not to be absolute and may, in fact, be changing for the better. What do you think?    ;D

Peace, JOHN

One woman is dead, one is contracted but already retired (emerita), one, also of retirement age, is teaching at a Roman Catholic institution, and the other is teaching in a parish setting.  Marie Meyer is over 65 (barely), and you and I are long in the tooth. 

Change and decay in all around I see.  But - where there's life, there's hope, no?

Dave Benke
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 08, 2021, 01:43:14 PM
As a district secretary I have the responsibility of reviewing all constitutions of the district that are new or revised, which I then present to the BOD for approval.  Doing so has made me aware that we live in a bifurcated church body when it comes to the role and work of women.  The Synod's guidelines, which reflect the various resolutions passed over the years as synodical conventions, make allowances for quite a difference in practice regarding the role of women in the church.

For example the guidelines state that "a paragraph may be included to make clear the extent to which women are permitted to vote and/or hold office in the congregation."  So we allow for congregations that have women's suffrage (which I suspect a majority of our churches do; all that I have served in my 33+ years in two districts have) and we allow for those who say that male only suffrage is the rule.  Likewise with offices.  Some churches, including one I worked with some years ago as a circuit counselor/visitor, had a woman president.  The language in my constitution does not allow for this.  In the case of positions such as that of the elder, language is usually inserted that allows them to hold this office as long as it "does not call upon them to carry out the specific  functions of the pastoral office (preaching in or serving as the leader of the public worship service, the public administration of the sacraments, the public exercise of church discipline)." 

There is an obvious tension here, and I know that we haven't resolved it, nor will we in my lifetime.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 08, 2021, 01:56:53 PM
The topic of lay people reading some of the lessons in the worship service and women as lay people being included in that has despite the widespread acceptance of that practice, or perhaps because of its widespread acceptance, been hotly discussed. At the 1989 Synodical Convention, Resolution 3-14, "To Address Appropriate roles for Women and Men in Worship" was adopted. That resolution stated in part, "That the congregation of the Synod proceed with care and sensitivity in making decisions permitting the lay reading of the Scriptures, recognizing decisions in this regard lie in the area of Christian judgment."


An article in the October 1995 Concordia Journal from St. Louis, "Lay Readers in Public Worship," further examined the topic. (I have copies of the article that I could email if contacted.) The article examined such topics as the silence enjoined on women keeping in mind that in the Pauleen Epistles it was mentioned that women did participate in worship including publicly praying and prophesying. It concluded that women participating in the public reading of the Scripture lessons does not place them the pastoral office, nor need it be a threat to what we understand about that office.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 08, 2021, 01:58:37 PM
As a district secretary I have the responsibility of reviewing all constitutions of the district that are new or revised, which I then present to the BOD for approval.  Doing so has made me aware that we live in a bifurcated church body when it comes to the role and work of women.  The Synod's guidelines, which reflect the various resolutions passed over the years as synodical conventions, make allowances for quite a difference in practice regarding the role of women in the church.

For example the guidelines state that "a paragraph may be included to make clear the extent to which women are permitted to vote and/or hold office in the congregation."  So we allow for congregations that have women's suffrage (which I suspect a majority of our churches do; all that I have served in my 33+ years in two districts have) and we allow for those who say that male only suffrage is the rule.  Likewise with offices.  Some churches, including one I worked with some years ago as a circuit counselor/visitor, had a woman president.  The language in my constitution does not allow for this.  In the case of positions such as that of the elder, language is usually inserted that allows them to hold this office as long as it "does not call upon them to carry out the specific  functions of the pastoral office (preaching in or serving as the leader of the public worship service, the public administration of the sacraments, the public exercise of church discipline)." 

There is an obvious tension here, and I know that we haven't resolved it, nor will we in my lifetime.


There is also a tension between whether God's word against women having authority should just apply to the church (women can't vote on church matters) or in the world, too, (woman shouldn't vote in any civil elections).
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 08, 2021, 02:01:44 PM
The topic of lay people reading some of the lessons in the worship service and women as lay people being included in that has despite the widespread acceptance of that practice, or perhaps because of its widespread acceptance, been hotly discussed. At the 1989 Synodical Convention, Resolution 3-14, "To Address Appropriate roles for Women and Men in Worship" was adopted. That resolution stated in part, "That the congregation of the Synod proceed with care and sensitivity in making decisions permitting the lay reading of the Scriptures, recognizing decisions in this regard lie in the area of Christian judgment."


An article in the October 1995 Concordia Journal from St. Louis, "Lay Readers in Public Worship," further examined the topic. (I have copies of the article that I could email if contacted.) The article examined such topics as the silence enjoined on women keeping in mind that in the Pauleen Epistles it was mentioned that women did participate in worship including publicly praying and prophesying. It concluded that women participating in the public reading of the Scripture lessons does not place them the pastoral office, nor need it be a threat to what we understand about that office.


It seems to me, having served on committees who planned them, that this becomes a much greater issue for worship services at District or national conventions. I don't know about your District conventions, but our synod assemblies always included at least one eucharist. There will be readers. We are encouraged (almost mandated) to show diversity in our selection of worship assistants.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 08, 2021, 02:08:03 PM
And quotas do such a good job of increasing diversity. After years of efforts and quotas the ELCA is the second least racially diverse church body in the US, barely beating out the LCMS for that spot on the diversity scale.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Charles Austin on May 08, 2021, 02:17:50 PM
Pastor Fienen:
And quotas do such a good job of increasing diversity. After years of efforts and quotas the ELCA is the second least racially diverse church body in the US, barely beating out the LCMS for that spot on the diversity scale.
Me:
Quotas have nothing to do with membership or composition of congregations. Quotas were intended to make sure there are more minorities on decision making bodies.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on May 08, 2021, 04:37:35 PM
The LCMS has male pastors and female deaconesses. This fits with patterns in Scripture. I believe these are good distinctions especially at a time when the world is introducing ever more strange and confusing ideas. I hope the distinctions stay.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 08, 2021, 05:58:28 PM
The LCMS has male pastors and female deaconesses. This fits with patterns in Scripture. I believe these are good distinctions especially at a time when the world is introducing ever more strange and confusing ideas. I hope the distinctions stay.


Actually, the first six deacons were all male.


Who do you consider the biblical female deaconesses?
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on May 08, 2021, 06:13:06 PM
Oh, okay, if someone needs to snipe…

The term is sex, not gender, Dan.

Beam is a good base bourbon, for manhattans, etc. If one wants to enjoy a very good straight bourbon without breaking the bank, Evan Williams Single Barrel is among the good choices. If you’re up for excellent bourbon, as my southern Georgia friend said the first time he brought it into our lodge on our fishing trip on Lake of the Woods, a bottle of 4 Roses Single Barrel, “This is the good stuff, It is. Single Barrel, not Small Batch, which is popular in the stores.

Oh yeah, the snipe…

Jack Daniels is the most overrated booze in the US.

Rolf,

I recall years ago attending a District convention in Fargo-Moorhead. David and I had a room, and your brother, Daniel, was there too, and He and some others came over for a drink. I gave him a scotch on the rocks. As he finished it, he said, “This is good scotch. What is it?” I told him, “Johnnie Walker Black (12 year). Would you like another? He did. Ingratiating myself to the LCMS VP.  😉
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on May 08, 2021, 06:20:45 PM
The LCMS has male pastors and female deaconesses. This fits with patterns in Scripture. I believe these are good distinctions especially at a time when the world is introducing ever more strange and confusing ideas. I hope the distinctions stay.

Actually, the first six deacons were all male.


 Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicholas,

I count seven.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 08, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
The LCMS has male pastors and female deaconesses. This fits with patterns in Scripture. I believe these are good distinctions especially at a time when the world is introducing ever more strange and confusing ideas. I hope the distinctions stay.

Actually, the first six deacons were all male.


 Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicholas,

I count seven.


Seven there were; but from what we read, Stephen never really did the work of a deacon.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on May 08, 2021, 06:49:06 PM
And off we go into the stratosphere!

Brian, try to focus. There were seven deacons, the number of completion.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Tom Eckstein on May 08, 2021, 07:15:51 PM
Nice title, Dan.  I'll try not to live up to it.

Rhoda Schuler, a former parishioner of my brother Bob in St. Paul, MN, is one of a very, very small group of women who teach/have taught theology or been affiliated with the theology department in the LCMS University system.  Another is Dr. Elizabeth Goodine, who spent four years on faculty at Concordia, Bronxville in the earlier 2000s.  Another was Patra (Pfotenhauer) Mueller, a second cousin of mine, who served in some theological capacity at Concordia, Irvine, and is now family life minister at a parish in Seattle.

All of them, and Marva Dawn (+), operate at a level of theological acumen at the top level, as their books, theses, and academic credentials demonstrate.  They would be or have been excellent role models for women entering called positions as theologians of the church.  That is possibly still a dynamic in play. Except the positions they held or were allowed to hold were not called positions in the Missouri Synod.  The same logic applies, not by the way, to a woman becoming the President of one of our remaining colleges/universities. 

What is that logic?  The logic begins and ends with public teaching.  Public teaching, the logic claims, belongs to the pastoral office.  Except when exceptions are made for again, a very few non-ordained Presidents of Colleges (Ralph Schultz comes to mind from a past era).  Professorially, other non-ordained men have served admirably.  So - if non-pastorally-ordained people are allowed to serve in certain functions, what about women? 

It seems to me the logic proceeds down to the level raised on this board, that for a woman to speak in the public assembly is to engage in public teaching.  So no reading of lessons, and, for some, no singing of solos (which have a teaching component!).  No teaching in the congregation beyond Sunday School up to middle school.  I find all of this to be a deteriorated form of logic, harmful to the Body of Christ and the gifts of all its members being used for the edification of the entire Body.

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod allows the ordination of women to the pastoral office.  However, you can go to any RC University theology roster and there will be a good number of women listed teaching theology.   What's the difference?  I think it has to do with the doctrines surrounding ecclesiology, and in particular the sacrament of ordination, its auspices and biblical origination.  For Roman Catholics, the supervisory capacity of the priest, bishop, cardinal and pope - all male - is sufficient to ensure sound teaching and therefore opens the opportunity to women to teach Catholic theology.  The Missouri Synod's more Scriptural anchor (the apostles' teaching), runs, as in all Protestant traditions, the danger of becoming biblicist and fundamentalist, an exercise in proof-texting.  The text being proved is one - Let a woman keep silent.  And that's where we're stuck.  How do we know that?  The women serving as deaconesses in the Concordia Deaconess Conference, (LCMS) are to sign a pledge that they will not read the Scriptures during a Divine Service.   They are to keep silent, less they be perceived through the reading of Scripture to be publicly teaching.  Secondly, many (I don't know how many) rostered members and layfolks would not receive the Lord's Meal at a congregation if a woman read a non-Gospel lesson.  Because the command to silence would have been broken.

Dave Benke

Even though I think very strong arguments can be made for why women should NOT be ordained into the pastoral office, I've always thought that equating teaching theology in a university classroom with the function of the pastoral office is a category mistake.  Both my children attended CSP and were taught by Dr. Rhoda Schuler (among others).  Even though I agree with the LCMS that women should not be ordained into the pastoral office, I never thought that Dr. Schuler was in violation of that by teaching theology at CSP.

Also, my daughter wrote a paper for her "honor's class" under Dr. Schuler and in this paper my daughter articulated the biblical, theological and historical reasons women should NOT be ordained into the pastoral office.  She got an "A"!  Dr. Schuler has encouraged her to pursue a PhD in theology.  My daughter is currently getting her Deaconess degree at CTSFW.  However, as many single female students at CTSFW, my daughter married a seminarian and will be going on with him to his first call next spring.  I don't know when or how she will have time to get a PhD, but she is a very sharp theologian and would be a good teacher at any Concordia University.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on May 08, 2021, 07:19:55 PM
And off we go into the stratosphere!

Brian, try to focus. There were seven deacons, the number of completion.

And one tenth of the Apostles of the Seventy.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Dave Benke on May 08, 2021, 07:57:21 PM
Nice title, Dan.  I'll try not to live up to it.

Rhoda Schuler, a former parishioner of my brother Bob in St. Paul, MN, is one of a very, very small group of women who teach/have taught theology or been affiliated with the theology department in the LCMS University system.  Another is Dr. Elizabeth Goodine, who spent four years on faculty at Concordia, Bronxville in the earlier 2000s.  Another was Patra (Pfotenhauer) Mueller, a second cousin of mine, who served in some theological capacity at Concordia, Irvine, and is now family life minister at a parish in Seattle.

All of them, and Marva Dawn (+), operate at a level of theological acumen at the top level, as their books, theses, and academic credentials demonstrate.  They would be or have been excellent role models for women entering called positions as theologians of the church.  That is possibly still a dynamic in play. Except the positions they held or were allowed to hold were not called positions in the Missouri Synod.  The same logic applies, not by the way, to a woman becoming the President of one of our remaining colleges/universities. 

What is that logic?  The logic begins and ends with public teaching.  Public teaching, the logic claims, belongs to the pastoral office.  Except when exceptions are made for again, a very few non-ordained Presidents of Colleges (Ralph Schultz comes to mind from a past era).  Professorially, other non-ordained men have served admirably.  So - if non-pastorally-ordained people are allowed to serve in certain functions, what about women? 

It seems to me the logic proceeds down to the level raised on this board, that for a woman to speak in the public assembly is to engage in public teaching.  So no reading of lessons, and, for some, no singing of solos (which have a teaching component!).  No teaching in the congregation beyond Sunday School up to middle school.  I find all of this to be a deteriorated form of logic, harmful to the Body of Christ and the gifts of all its members being used for the edification of the entire Body.

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod allows the ordination of women to the pastoral office.  However, you can go to any RC University theology roster and there will be a good number of women listed teaching theology.   What's the difference?  I think it has to do with the doctrines surrounding ecclesiology, and in particular the sacrament of ordination, its auspices and biblical origination.  For Roman Catholics, the supervisory capacity of the priest, bishop, cardinal and pope - all male - is sufficient to ensure sound teaching and therefore opens the opportunity to women to teach Catholic theology.  The Missouri Synod's more Scriptural anchor (the apostles' teaching), runs, as in all Protestant traditions, the danger of becoming biblicist and fundamentalist, an exercise in proof-texting.  The text being proved is one - Let a woman keep silent.  And that's where we're stuck.  How do we know that?  The women serving as deaconesses in the Concordia Deaconess Conference, (LCMS) are to sign a pledge that they will not read the Scriptures during a Divine Service.   They are to keep silent, less they be perceived through the reading of Scripture to be publicly teaching.  Secondly, many (I don't know how many) rostered members and layfolks would not receive the Lord's Meal at a congregation if a woman read a non-Gospel lesson.  Because the command to silence would have been broken.

Dave Benke

Even though I think very strong arguments can be made for why women should NOT be ordained into the pastoral office, I've always thought that equating teaching theology in a university classroom with the function of the pastoral office is a category mistake.  Both my children attended CSP and were taught by Dr. Rhoda Schuler (among others).  Even though I agree with the LCMS that women should not be ordained into the pastoral office, I never thought that Dr. Schuler was in violation of that by teaching theology at CSP.

Also, my daughter wrote a paper for her "honor's class" under Dr. Schuler and in this paper my daughter articulated the biblical, theological and historical reasons women should NOT be ordained into the pastoral office.  She got an "A"!  Dr. Schuler has encouraged her to pursue a PhD in theology.  My daughter is currently getting her Deaconess degree at CTSFW.  However, as many single female students at CTSFW, my daughter married a seminarian and will be going on with him to his first call next spring.  I don't know when or how she will have time to get a PhD, but she is a very sharp theologian and would be a good teacher at any Concordia University.

Super narrative and conclusion, Tom.  I like the concept of a "category mistake,"  and will pray for your daughter that her diaconal vocation might bring opportunity for theological teaching. I was told by somebody in the know that at one time one of the three/four women mentioned above was such a great communicator of the Gospel that when it was determined that she would bring a chapel talk at one of our Concordias, they changed the category of that chapel offering to "family devotion." 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: mariemeyer on May 08, 2021, 08:27:57 PM
Please refer to my final post regarding the late Marva Dawn.

Thank you.

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Rebekah Curtis on May 08, 2021, 11:28:55 PM
Everybody should read Adam Bede and pay close attention to Dinah all the way through. 

But if time is short, here's what I don't get. A lot of people are or would make good theologians. A lot of places have zero problem with women teaching theology. What is the benefit of causing offense in the few places where a woman teaching theology might cause offense?

What is lost if this hypothetical female theology teacher decides, I'm not going to make trouble for these brothers and sisters in Christ who would be troubled by my teaching here. I will send my resume where it won't make trouble.?

Maybe that particular position was the only one that was really available to her: then it is a professional loss to her. She can count it that way and still obtain Christ. An act of personal sacrifice like this is normally commended among Christians. The high and complex level of achievement we're imagining for her suggests she won't end up eating dog food. (Another way of saying this is that no one has a right to teach theology at all, and less at a particular place, simply because s/he is good at it. Everyone does have a duty not to give needless offense.)

This imaginary person would have taught in a unique way that would have benefitted students in a unique way, but that is true of any person. One person holds a position to the exclusion of all other people, each of whom has unquantifiable strengths for the task. The measurable loss again accrues to the individual teacher rather than the students/institution. I think it is the individual's duty to accept the loss to herself in the interest a multitude of neighbors since, again, she has other options. The neighbors do not have other options if ecclesiastical communities that accommodate this type of conscience and piety cease to exist.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that we need to have women teaching theology for social reasons; ie, that students won't respect female intellect until they hear a lady Greeking out on Pauline syntax. Every other department has women teaching in it, and the number of pastors who can't do math is staggering.

I think the last remaining argument is to say that it's an absolute wrong to have a policy against and/or take offense at a woman teaching. Even if proponents of this argument are correct, since women with credentials, interest, and skills for teaching theology have other options, why not allow the bold sinners their place to sin boldly, poor things, and commend them to the mercy of our Lord? Missionary zeal to bulldoze protection of a conviction that is based in a defensible interpretation of Scripture, has colossal historical precedent (for a variety of reasons), and is strongly cultural seems plain mean.

(Can't promise to get involved. This post is born of procrastination.)
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 09, 2021, 02:38:36 AM
And off we go into the stratosphere!

Brian, try to focus. There were seven deacons, the number of completion.


Yes, my mistake. How many deaconesses were there?
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 09, 2021, 03:41:02 AM
The larger  concerns in this topic of conversation are:  What factors, institutional, cultural, theological have to be dealt with in making sense of this diversity of opinion?  What is meant by teaching?  What is Ordination?  How do larger social understandings fit in?  Is there one way of thinking about these things? Is knowledge on the topic  available and comprehensible to all or is it known only to the initiated?  [ Personal note:  I had never heard of Marva Dawn until her death.  On theological questions I have been told that I do not understand because I have had no formal theological education.]
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Charles Austin on May 09, 2021, 05:04:56 AM
Norman Teigen writes:
Personal note:  I had never heard of Marva Dawn until her death.  On theological questions I have been told that I do not understand because I have had no formal theological education.
I comment:
I had rarely heard of Marva Dawn. But she was a considerable presence outside the places where I usually hang out.
And every discipline likes to "protect" or "use" its assumed expertise by telling others they are unable to understand certain things. Sometimes this is true, but not nearly as often as the guardians of the disciplines say it is.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: GalRevRedux on May 09, 2021, 07:02:44 AM
I have fond memories of presentations by Dr. Dawn at several synod assemblies and also, I believe, at an ELCA Churchwide ( or it could have been an ELCW Convention, I am old), and I have found value in her writings. I really enjoyed “Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down,” as well as “The Sabbath.”

This thread is a great reminder of why I don’t read or post much here anymore.

Mother’s Day blessings to those who celebrate.

Donna
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 09, 2021, 08:13:54 AM
Keeping the Sabbath Wholly is a very interesting read. She makes a persuasive case for keeping the pattern of the Sabbath in a Gospel/third use of the law kind of way. As I remember it (been a while since I read it) one point she makes is that the day of rest as a gift does not stop being a gift after it is fulfilled in Christ, but in Christian freedom we too often throw it away. She recommends making a personal discipline of Sabbath keeping but with Christian freedom to determine what is restful and which day to keep it.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 10, 2021, 11:23:48 AM
This thread is a great reminder of why I don’t read or post much here anymore.

Indeed.  Along with nearly every other thread on here for me...
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: mariemeyer on May 11, 2021, 11:29:51 AM
I have fond memories of presentations by Dr. Dawn at several synod assemblies and also, I believe, at an ELCA Churchwide ( or it could have been an ELCW Convention, I am old), and I have found value in her writings. I really enjoyed “Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down,” as well as “The Sabbath.”

This thread is a great reminder of why I don’t read or post much here anymore.

Mother’s Day blessings to those who celebrate.

Donna

Thanks for the Mother's Day blessing. I eagerly look forward to two new great-grandchild this summer. From my perspective as an LCMS woman I understand why the "sniping at each other over gender issues" turns you and others off.

Sadly, it is not possible for an LCMS woman to ask that we  not discuss the ordination of woman.  I, and other woman who were educated in the LCMS before Genesis two was interpreted to reveal God's will for a pre-fall order of creation legal structure where woman is subordinate to man, are asking to redefine the issue of woman in the church in terms of God's rightful place in the life of woman and man.  

Beginning in 1955 the LCMS adopted the concept of two orders in the Church, the order of creation and the order of redemption.  Since then layer upon layer of studies and reports were added to the claim that Genesis two reveals that God, for the sake of order in creation, designated the man as "the more responsible party" (see The Lutheran Study Bible, p.17).   Since the man had no means of procreation God created woman as man's helper. According to TLSB (p.17) the designation of woman as "helper" implies no inferiority, "but it does reinforce the order of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 states, "the man gave names. Sign that Adam exercised authority over animals as God's steward of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:23 she shall be called Woman. "First name Adam gave to his wife. Like the name of Adam ('adam), the name of his wife ishshah is a classification. In his role as God's steward, Adam gives a name to this category of beings, just as he has given names to the rest of God's creation."   

Here, Genesis  2 is used to claim that woman and man belong to two different categories of being. Previously, LCMS  writings limited the order of creation to man and woman having different God given purposes, man being the primary steward of creation and woman being the one to help man accomplish his God given purpose. Today, the Bible is used to claim the difference  between man and woman is ontological.

Thus, the questions, "Does God relate to man and woman according to their common human nature or is does God relate to man and woman as two distinct categories of being? Is there  a difference in how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are a living presence in the life of baptized men and women. What does it mean to "Let God be God" in the life of man and woman. according their male and female sexuality?'

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Dave Benke on May 11, 2021, 01:45:31 PM
I have fond memories of presentations by Dr. Dawn at several synod assemblies and also, I believe, at an ELCA Churchwide ( or it could have been an ELCW Convention, I am old), and I have found value in her writings. I really enjoyed “Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down,” as well as “The Sabbath.”

This thread is a great reminder of why I don’t read or post much here anymore.

Mother’s Day blessings to those who celebrate.

Donna

Thanks for the Mother's Day blessing. I eagerly look forward to two new great-grandchild this summer. From my perspective as an LCMS woman I understand why the "sniping at each other over gender issues" turns you and others off.

Sadly, it is not possible for an LCMS woman to ask that we  not discuss the ordination of woman.  I, and other woman who were educated in the LCMS before Genesis two was interpreted to reveal God's will for a pre-fall order of creation legal structure where woman is subordinate to man, are asking to redefine the issue of woman in the church in terms of God's rightful place in the life of woman and man.  

Beginning in 1955 the LCMS adopted the concept of two orders in the Church, the order of creation and the order of redemption.  Since then layer upon layer of studies and reports were added to the claim that Genesis two reveals that God, for the sake of order in creation, designated the man as "the more responsible party" (see The Lutheran Study Bible, p.17).   Since the man had no means of procreation God created woman as man's helper. According to TLSB (p.17) the designation of woman as "helper" implies no inferiority, "but it does reinforce the order of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 states, "the man gave names. Sign that Adam exercised authority over animals as God's steward of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:23 she shall be called Woman. "First name Adam gave to his wife. Like the name of Adam ('adam), the name of his wife ishshah is a classification. In his role as God's steward, Adam gives a name to this category of beings, just as he has given names to the rest of God's creation."   

Here, Genesis  2 is used to claim that woman and man belong to two different categories of being. Previously, LCMS  writings limited the order of creation to man and woman having different God given purposes, man being the primary steward of creation and woman being the one to help man accomplish his God given purpose. Today, the Bible is used to claim the difference  between man and woman is ontological.

Thus, the questions, "Does God relate to man and woman according to their common human nature or is does God relate to man and woman as two distinct categories of being? Is there  a difference in how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are a living presence in the life of baptized men and women. What does it mean to "Let God be God" in the life of man and woman. according their male and female sexuality?'

Marie Meyer

I had not heard this specific argumentation, being an avid non-user of TLSB.   "This category of beings" not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 11, 2021, 03:10:56 PM
The LCMS has male pastors and female deaconesses. This fits with patterns in Scripture. I believe these are good distinctions especially at a time when the world is introducing ever more strange and confusing ideas. I hope the distinctions stay.

I am glad to hear this. Yet another objection which has recently arisen against the Divine Order of Creation of the Sexes is the following:

Beginning in 1955 the LCMS adopted the concept of two orders in the Church, the order of creation and the order of redemption.  Since then layer upon layer of studies and reports were added to the claim that Genesis two reveals that God, for the sake of order in creation, designated the man as "the more responsible party" (see The Lutheran Study Bible, p.17).   Since the man had no means of procreation God created woman as man's helper. According to TLSB (p.17) the designation of woman as "helper" implies no inferiority, "but it does reinforce the order of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 states, "the man gave names. Sign that Adam exercised authority over animals as God's steward of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:23 she shall be called Woman. "First name Adam gave to his wife. Like the name of Adam ('adam), the name of his wife ishshah is a classification. In his role as God's steward, Adam gives a name to this category of beings, just as he has given names to the rest of God's creation."   

Here, Genesis  2 is used to claim that woman and man belong to two different categories of being. Previously, LCMS  writings limited the order of creation to man and woman having different God given purposes, man being the primary steward of creation and woman being the one to help man accomplish his God given purpose. Today, the Bible is used to claim the difference  between man and woman is ontological.

Thus, the questions, "Does God relate to man and woman according to their common human nature or is does God relate to man and woman as two distinct categories of being? Is there  a difference in how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are a living presence in the life of baptized men and women. What does it mean to "Let God be God" in the life of man and woman. according their male and female sexuality?'
And also,
I had not heard this specific argumentation, being an avid non-user of TLSB.   "This category of beings" not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.

Dave Benke
The question is, how can you REFUTE the objection that the TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 & 23, by teaching that men and women belong to two different categories of being "not only seems to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also seems to put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals; so there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man; and so in the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property; and that the 10th commandment teaches the order: Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property"?
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 11, 2021, 04:11:30 PM
I had not heard this specific argumentation, being an avid non-user of TLSB.   "This category of beings" not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.


Interesting who calls [קָרָא] the names [שֵׁם] in Genesis 1-5.


God calls the names of Day, Night, Sky, Earth, and Seas (Gen 1:5, 8, 10).
The man calls the names of every living creature, cattle, birds, animals of the field (Gen 2:19, 20)
The man calls the name of his wife, Eve (Gen 3:20).
Enoch calls the name of his city, Enoch (Gen 4:17).
Eve calls the name of her son, Seth (Gen 4:25).
Seth calls the name of his son, Enosh (Gen 4:26)
At that time the people began to call on the name of the LORD (Gen 4:26).
God calls the name of the male and female, "Humankind" (Gen 5:2).
Adam called the name of his son, Seth (Gen 5:3).


The passive form is used in Gen 2:23b: "… this one shall be called Woman, …."
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: George Rahn on May 11, 2021, 04:23:26 PM
The LCMS has male pastors and female deaconesses. This fits with patterns in Scripture. I believe these are good distinctions especially at a time when the world is introducing ever more strange and confusing ideas. I hope the distinctions stay.

I am glad to hear this. Yet another objection which has recently arisen against the Divine Order of Creation of the Sexes is the following:

Beginning in 1955 the LCMS adopted the concept of two orders in the Church, the order of creation and the order of redemption.  Since then layer upon layer of studies and reports were added to the claim that Genesis two reveals that God, for the sake of order in creation, designated the man as "the more responsible party" (see The Lutheran Study Bible, p.17).   Since the man had no means of procreation God created woman as man's helper. According to TLSB (p.17) the designation of woman as "helper" implies no inferiority, "but it does reinforce the order of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 states, "the man gave names. Sign that Adam exercised authority over animals as God's steward of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:23 she shall be called Woman. "First name Adam gave to his wife. Like the name of Adam ('adam), the name of his wife ishshah is a classification. In his role as God's steward, Adam gives a name to this category of beings, just as he has given names to the rest of God's creation."   

Here, Genesis  2 is used to claim that woman and man belong to two different categories of being. Previously, LCMS  writings limited the order of creation to man and woman having different God given purposes, man being the primary steward of creation and woman being the one to help man accomplish his God given purpose. Today, the Bible is used to claim the difference  between man and woman is ontological.

Thus, the questions, "Does God relate to man and woman according to their common human nature or is does God relate to man and woman as two distinct categories of being? Is there  a difference in how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are a living presence in the life of baptized men and women. What does it mean to "Let God be God" in the life of man and woman. according their male and female sexuality?'
And also,
I had not heard this specific argumentation, being an avid non-user of TLSB.   "This category of beings" not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.

Dave Benke
The question is, how can you REFUTE the objection that the TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 & 23, by teaching that men and women belong to two different categories of being "not only seems to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also seems to put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals; so there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man; and so in the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property; and that the 10th commandment teaches the order: Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property"?

How can one refute this?  Because we sinners no longer live in the perfection of Genesis 2.  We all live and reflect upon situations which occurred pre-Fall as post-Fall and exiled creatures.  We no longer live together in history as what God created in Genesis 2.  IE.  Can't refute because there is nothing to refute since reason is infected by sin.  Or by refuting we believe to be successful at it.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 11, 2021, 04:42:14 PM
How can one refute this?  Because we sinners no longer live in the perfection of Genesis 2.  We all live and reflect upon situations which occurred pre-Fall as post-Fall and exiled creatures.  We no longer live together in history as what God created in Genesis 2.  IE.  Can't refute because there is nothing to refute since reason is infected by sin.  Or by refuting we believe to be successful at it.


Of course people think that they can refute things since the fall. The fall (and a part of human sinfulness ever since) is thinking we are gods and that we know everything (the meaning of knowing good and evil).


This suggests that the redeemed have come to believe, I am not God; and, I don't know everything, or, I know very little.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 11, 2021, 04:47:26 PM
I don't think every category necessarily becomes an ontological category. "In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them" would seem to categorize people by sex without making an ontological distinction. Both categories are human/mankind. It also speaks of a binary, not a spectrum.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 11, 2021, 05:05:22 PM
The LCMS has male pastors and female deaconesses. This fits with patterns in Scripture. I believe these are good distinctions especially at a time when the world is introducing ever more strange and confusing ideas. I hope the distinctions stay.

I am glad to hear this. Yet another objection which has recently arisen against the Divine Order of Creation of the Sexes is the following:

Beginning in 1955 the LCMS adopted the concept of two orders in the Church, the order of creation and the order of redemption.  Since then layer upon layer of studies and reports were added to the claim that Genesis two reveals that God, for the sake of order in creation, designated the man as "the more responsible party" (see The Lutheran Study Bible, p.17).   Since the man had no means of procreation God created woman as man's helper. According to TLSB (p.17) the designation of woman as "helper" implies no inferiority, "but it does reinforce the order of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 states, "the man gave names. Sign that Adam exercised authority over animals as God's steward of creation."

TLSB note on Gen. 2:23 she shall be called Woman. "First name Adam gave to his wife. Like the name of Adam ('adam), the name of his wife ishshah is a classification. In his role as God's steward, Adam gives a name to this category of beings, just as he has given names to the rest of God's creation."   

Here, Genesis  2 is used to claim that woman and man belong to two different categories of being. Previously, LCMS  writings limited the order of creation to man and woman having different God given purposes, man being the primary steward of creation and woman being the one to help man accomplish his God given purpose. Today, the Bible is used to claim the difference  between man and woman is ontological.

Thus, the questions, "Does God relate to man and woman according to their common human nature or is does God relate to man and woman as two distinct categories of being? Is there  a difference in how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are a living presence in the life of baptized men and women. What does it mean to "Let God be God" in the life of man and woman. according their male and female sexuality?'
And also,
I had not heard this specific argumentation, being an avid non-user of TLSB.   "This category of beings" not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.

Dave Benke
The question is, how can you REFUTE the objection that the TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 & 23, by teaching that men and women belong to two different categories of being "not only seems to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also seems to put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals; so there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man; and so in the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property; and that the 10th commandment teaches the order: Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property"?

How can one refute this?  Because we sinners no longer live in the perfection of Genesis 2.  We all live and reflect upon situations which occurred pre-Fall as post-Fall and exiled creatures.  We no longer live together in history as what God created in Genesis 2.  IE.  Can't refute because there is nothing to refute since reason is infected by sin.  Or by refuting we believe to be successful at it.
The contention of Mr. Benke is precisely that the TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 & 23, seems to make women ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men: with the inferiority being of the same kind as (but of a lesser degree than) the inferiority of the brute irrational animals to mankind. I am seeking an explanation, a sound, scriptural explanation of WHY the TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 & 23, DOESN'T make women ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men: with the inferiority being of the same kind as (but of a lesser degree than) the inferiority of the brute irrational animals to mankind and reduce the female sex to a state of chattel, unlike the fact that the irrational brute animals were designed to be chattels of men.

God himself endowed mankind with special intrinsic qualities of reason, intelligence, spirituality and religiosity which make mankind different from the brutes and therefore more perfect, and it is precisely on account of these unique qualities that God gave mankind dominion over the brute living creation. God in His wisdom SAW that if it had not been for those unique foundational essential qualities of mankind which distinguish mankind from the irrational brute animals, it would not have been befitting for mankind to have dominion over the irrational brute animals.

What I desire is a sound Scriptural reason (and I'm NOT talking about explanations which have no authority higher than "human reason" and human philosophies to support them) WHY, given the fact that the man named the woman ishshah (which means Woman) was a mark of authority over her, NEITHER Bible's account of Gen. 2:20 & 23, NOR the true and accurate meaning of the 10th Commandment, "Thou shalt not covet ...", places the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals; as if there had been "males, who give names", and females, who ought more appropriately to be placed in the "same category ontologically as the animals", as though she were less distinctively human and more distinctively like the brute irrational animals than the male sex, and therefore in the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the woman ought more properly to be ontologically ranked as one of those items of property rather than precisely the sort of true rational and spiritual being that humanity was essentially and intrinsically CREATED to be, no less than is the man. Sure, these dehumanizing and invidious degradations have occurred over and over again in this fallen and sinful world, but why aren't they the true and accurate pre-Fall meaning of the divine order of creation of the sexes originally given BEFORE the fall?

I don't think every category necessarily becomes an ontological category. "In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them" would seem to categorize people by sex without making an ontological distinction. Both categories are human/mankind. It also speaks of a binary, not a spectrum.
But if God wills it, I will show one of these days that a "continuous" spectrum of living things on a finite Earth, however short or long its duration, is mathematically impossible.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 11, 2021, 05:12:32 PM
For the same reason children are not ontologically different from or inferior to the parents who named them, but rather simply under their authority.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 11, 2021, 06:48:53 PM
For the same reason children are not ontologically different from or inferior to the parents who named them, but rather simply under their authority.

But that fails to take into account the fact that children are generally mentally and intellectually inferior to adults, however, this is NOT because the child belongs to an essentially and ontological SPECIES or SUBSPECIES of being to that of the adult, but because the child has not simply yet fully developed. What about when those children grow up to the state of adulthood? What then becomes of the authority of the parent over those children?

The thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument is that the TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 & 23, not only seems to make women ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men just as though she should have been more appropriately ranked with irrational brute animal beings rather than rational beings, but also just as if the female sex had been essentially from cradle to grave childlike in its intellectual nature, and also just as if only males had been capable of outgrowing this mental imbecility and mental and intellectual inferiority, but then, also just as though females by virtue of their essential nature as females had been intrinsically incapable of outgrowing it!

Therefore the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument is that only by rejecting Complementarian and accepting feminism / egalitarianism is there hope of rejecting all of the following the propositions, firstly, that the female sex is ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men, secondly, that the female sex more should be more appropriately ranked with irrational brute animal beings rather than rational beings, thirdly, the female sex is essentially from cradle to grave childlike in its intellectual nature, and finally, only males are capable of outgrowing this mental imbecility and mental and intellectual inferiority, but females by virtue of their essential nature as females are intrinsically incapable of outgrowing it.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 11, 2021, 06:59:44 PM
For the same reason children are not ontologically different from or inferior to the parents who named them, but rather simply under their authority.

But that fails to take into account the fact that children are generally mentally and intellectually inferior to adults, however, this is NOT because the child belongs to an essentially and ontological SPECIES or SUBSPECIES of being to that of the adult, but because the child has not simply yet fully developed. What about when those children grow up to the state of adulthood? What then becomes of the authority of the parent over those children?

The thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument is that the TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 & 23, not only seems to make women ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men just as though she should have been more appropriately ranked with irrational brute animal beings rather than rational beings, but also just as if the female sex had been essentially from cradle to grave childlike in its intellectual nature, and also just as if only males had been capable of outgrowing this mental imbecility and mental and intellectual inferiority, but then, also just as though females by virtue of their essential nature as females had been intrinsically incapable of outgrowing it!

Therefore the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument is that only by rejecting Complementarian and accepting feminism / egalitarianism is there hope of rejecting all of the following the propositions, firstly, that the female sex is ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men, secondly, that the female sex more should be more appropriately ranked with irrational brute animal beings rather than rational beings, thirdly, the female sex is essentially from cradle to grave childlike in its intellectual nature, and finally, only males are capable of outgrowing this mental imbecility and mental and intellectual inferiority, but females by virtue of their essential nature as females are intrinsically incapable of outgrowing it.
The 4th Commandment has no age expiration. People of all ages are to honor their parents. This is not simply because children are incapable of caring for themselves. It is also because the elderly may be incapable of caring for themselves, and any number of other possible reasons, perhaps knowable to us and perhaps not. When Jesus accuses his accusers of setting aside a commandment of God in favor or rules taught by men He is explicitly applying the 4th commandment to grownups.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 11, 2021, 07:25:37 PM
For the same reason children are not ontologically different from or inferior to the parents who named them, but rather simply under their authority.

But that fails to take into account the fact that children are generally mentally and intellectually inferior to adults, however, this is NOT because the child belongs to an essentially and ontological SPECIES or SUBSPECIES of being to that of the adult, but because the child has not simply yet fully developed. What about when those children grow up to the state of adulthood? What then becomes of the authority of the parent over those children?

The thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument is that the TLSB note on Gen. 2:20 & 23, not only seems to make women ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men just as though she should have been more appropriately ranked with irrational brute animal beings rather than rational beings, but also just as if the female sex had been essentially from cradle to grave childlike in its intellectual nature, and also just as if only males had been capable of outgrowing this mental imbecility and mental and intellectual inferiority, but then, also just as though females by virtue of their essential nature as females had been intrinsically incapable of outgrowing it!

Therefore the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument is that only by rejecting Complementarian and accepting feminism / egalitarianism is there hope of rejecting all of the following the propositions, firstly, that the female sex is ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men, secondly, that the female sex more should be more appropriately ranked with irrational brute animal beings rather than rational beings, thirdly, the female sex is essentially from cradle to grave childlike in its intellectual nature, and finally, only males are capable of outgrowing this mental imbecility and mental and intellectual inferiority, but females by virtue of their essential nature as females are intrinsically incapable of outgrowing it.
The 4th Commandment has no age expiration. People of all ages are to honor their parents. This is not simply because children are incapable of caring for themselves. It is also because the elderly may be incapable of caring for themselves, and any number of other possible reasons, perhaps knowable to us and perhaps not. When Jesus accuses his accusers of setting aside a commandment of God in favor or rules taught by men He is explicitly applying the 4th commandment to grownups.

But that STILL ignores the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument, which is precisely that only by rejecting Complementarian and accepting feminism / egalitarianism is there hope of rejecting all of the following the propositions, firstly, that the female sex is ONTOLOGICALLY inferior to men, secondly, that the female sex more should be more appropriately ranked with irrational brute animal beings rather than rational beings, thirdly, the female sex is essentially from cradle to grave childlike in its intellectual nature, and finally, only males are capable of outgrowing this mental imbecility and mental and intellectual inferiority, but females by virtue of their essential nature as females are intrinsically incapable of outgrowing it.

The duty of obedience as well as honor to one's parents, and the power of the parent (known as Patria Potestas) over the child is founded on the imbecility of the child relative to that of an adult, and which can only be outgrown by proper education, training, and discipline. For it is written in Sacred Scripture (Galatians 4.1/2): Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant [i.e. a slave or a person not sui juris], though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

The thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument is that only by rejecting Complementarian and accepting feminism / egalitarianism is there hope of NOT continuing to treat adult females as if they were perpetual minors or perpetual infants who by virtue of their sex alone are intrinsically INCAPABLE of outgrowing it! - see the point these feminists are trying to make: "perpetual minors, perpetual infants, or perpetual imbeciles"! It is THIS thrust that needs to be refuted! How do you plan on refuting it?
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: mariemeyer on May 11, 2021, 07:41:11 PM
I don't think every category necessarily becomes an ontological category. "In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them" would seem to categorize people by sex without making an ontological distinction. Both categories are human/mankind. It also speaks of a binary, not a spectrum.

Come on Peter... a difference in being is an ontological distinction.   The Bible text does make being male or female an ontological distinction... the study notes do.

Marie
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 11, 2021, 08:02:39 PM
I don't think every category necessarily becomes an ontological category. "In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them" would seem to categorize people by sex without making an ontological distinction. Both categories are human/mankind. It also speaks of a binary, not a spectrum.

Come on Peter... a difference in being is an ontological distinction.   The Bible text does make being male or female an ontological distinction... the study notes do.

Marie
For the same reason children are not ontologically different from or inferior to the parents who named them, but rather simply under their authority.

I have discussed this thing already. The duty of obedience as well as honor to one's parents, and the power of the parent (known as patria potestas) over the child is founded on the imbecility of the child relative to that of an adult, and which can only be outgrown by proper education, training, and discipline. For it is written in Sacred Scripture (Galatians 4.1/2): Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant [i.e. a slave or a person not sui juris], though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

The thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument is that, unless Complementarian is rejected and feminism / egalitarianism is accepted, there is absolutely no hope of preventing adult females from continuing to be treated as if they were perpetual minors or perpetual infants who by virtue of their sex alone are intrinsically INCAPABLE of outgrowing it! - see the point these feminists are trying to make: "perpetual minors, perpetual infants, or perpetual imbeciles"!

Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 11, 2021, 08:25:39 PM
No, it is founded on the 4th Commandment. Bright children of mentally deficient parents are not thereby exempt from the duty to honor their parents. Nor are adults with parents in mental decline. The relative imbecility of children is but one facet of case, and it is false reasoning to think that once one has accounted for mental capacity one has exhausted the application of the 4th Commandment.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 11, 2021, 09:07:35 PM
No, it is founded on the 4th Commandment. Bright children of mentally deficient parents are not thereby exempt from the duty to honor their parents. Nor are adults with parents in mental decline. The relative imbecility of children is but one facet of case, and it is false reasoning to think that once one has accounted for mental capacity one has exhausted the application of the 4th Commandment.

But that still doesn't address the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument, which is that, unless Complementarian is rejected and feminism / egalitarianism is accepted, there is absolutely no hope of preventing adult FEMALES (unlike adult MALES) from continuing to be treated as if they were perpetual minors or perpetual infants who by virtue of their sex alone are intrinsically INCAPABLE of outgrowing it! - see the point these feminists are trying to make: "perpetual minors, perpetual infants, or perpetual imbeciles"!
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 11, 2021, 09:48:53 PM
I don't think every category necessarily becomes an ontological category. "In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them" would seem to categorize people by sex without making an ontological distinction. Both categories are human/mankind. It also speaks of a binary, not a spectrum.

Come on Peter... a difference in being is an ontological distinction.   The Bible text does make being male or female an ontological distinction... the study notes do.

Marie
What you quoted said "Adam gives a name to this category of beings [women]." Beings is simply a generic noun. It wasn't just Eve who was called woman, it was all female humans, who were bone of Adam's bone and flesh of his flesh, i.e. ontologically the same as men and yet recognizably different from males. The statement doesn't address "being" as a subject as in ontology, but is just common parlance for "created thing." Men and women are both "beings" but God categorizes them as male and female. "Brother" is a name for a category of beings without being an ontological distinction.

A woman is not the same thing as a man. "Female human" is a recognizable category of creature/thing/being as distinct from "male human" while both are ontologically humankind.

Adam gave a name-- woman-- to Eve and all women as a category. How do you think the note should have phrased that?   
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 11, 2021, 10:05:53 PM
I don't think every category necessarily becomes an ontological category. "In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them" would seem to categorize people by sex without making an ontological distinction. Both categories are human/mankind. It also speaks of a binary, not a spectrum.

Come on Peter... a difference in being is an ontological distinction.   The Bible text does make being male or female an ontological distinction... the study notes do.

Marie
What you quoted said "Adam gives a name to this category of beings [women]." Beings is simply a generic noun. It wasn't just Eve who was called woman, it was all female humans, who were bone of Adam's bone and flesh of his flesh, i.e. ontologically the same as men and yet recognizably different from males. The statement doesn't address "being" as a subject as in ontology, but is just common parlance for "created thing." Men and women are both "beings" but God categorizes them as male and female. "Brother" is a name for a category of beings without being an ontological distinction.

A woman is not the same thing as a man. "Female human" is a recognizable category of creature/thing/being as distinct from "male human" while both are ontologically humankind.

Adam gave a name-- woman-- to Eve and all women as a category. How do you think the note should have phrased that?

But that still doesn't address the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument, which is that, unless Complementarian is rejected and feminism / egalitarianism is accepted, there is absolutely no hope of preventing adult FEMALES (unlike adult MALES) from continuing to be treated as if they were perpetual minors or perpetual infants who by virtue of their sex alone are intrinsically INCAPABLE of outgrowing it! - see the point these feminists are trying to make: "perpetual minors, perpetual infants, or perpetual imbeciles"! Furthermore, it still fails to address another important central part of the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument, which is precisely this:
I had not heard this specific argumentation, being an avid non-user of TLSB.   "This category of beings" not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 11, 2021, 10:50:14 PM
I don't think every category necessarily becomes an ontological category. "In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them" would seem to categorize people by sex without making an ontological distinction. Both categories are human/mankind. It also speaks of a binary, not a spectrum.

Come on Peter... a difference in being is an ontological distinction.   The Bible text does make being male or female an ontological distinction... the study notes do.

Marie
What you quoted said "Adam gives a name to this category of beings [women]." Beings is simply a generic noun. It wasn't just Eve who was called woman, it was all female humans, who were bone of Adam's bone and flesh of his flesh, i.e. ontologically the same as men and yet recognizably different from males. The statement doesn't address "being" as a subject as in ontology, but is just common parlance for "created thing." Men and women are both "beings" but God categorizes them as male and female. "Brother" is a name for a category of beings without being an ontological distinction.

A woman is not the same thing as a man. "Female human" is a recognizable category of creature/thing/being as distinct from "male human" while both are ontologically humankind.

Adam gave a name-- woman-- to Eve and all women as a category. How do you think the note should have phrased that?

But that still doesn't address the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument, which is that, unless Complementarian is rejected and feminism / egalitarianism is accepted, there is absolutely no hope of preventing adult FEMALES (unlike adult MALES) from continuing to be treated as if they were perpetual minors or perpetual infants who by virtue of their sex alone are intrinsically INCAPABLE of outgrowing it! - see the point these feminists are trying to make: "perpetual minors, perpetual infants, or perpetual imbeciles"! Furthermore, it still fails to address another important central part of the thrust of the feminist / egalitarian argument, which is precisely this:
I had not heard this specific argumentation, being an avid non-user of TLSB.   "This category of beings" not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.
Sure it does. It demonstrates that being under authority is not a question of ontological inferiority. I am conscience bound to honor my mother. I am not ontologically different from my mother; we are both fully human. By reducing the 4th Commandment to a matter of maturity you make it something that can be outgrown. Maturation has nothing to do with it. That's why the feminist position you are critiquing is wrong-- just because infants, immature, and incapable people are under authority does not mean being under authority means being perpetually treated as infantile or incapable.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 11, 2021, 11:05:44 PM
Sure it does. It demonstrates that being under authority is not a question of ontological inferiority. I am conscience bound to honor my mother. I am not ontologically different from my mother; we are both fully human. By reducing the 4th Commandment to a matter of maturity you make it something that can be outgrown. Maturation has nothing to do with it. That's why the feminist position you are critiquing is wrong-- just because infants, immature, and incapable people are under authority does not mean being under authority means being perpetually treated as infantile or incapable.

Yes, you have addressed the question of the supposed "ontologically based perpetual minority, perpetual imbecility, ..." etc, which it is supposedly precisely because of the unchangeable essential being of the female sex that the female sex is supposedly intrinsically incapable of outgrowing. But you still have not addressed Mr. Benke's concern that: '"This category of beings" [as mentioned in TLSB's comments on Genesis 2:20 and 23] not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.' The question is, why is it that this claim of Benke's cannot be scripturally or confessionally substantiated?
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 11, 2021, 11:59:53 PM
I named my son. I also named my dog. So? Only by twisting categories does that make my son ontologically the same as my dog rather than ontologically the same as me. The notes in TLSB address the significance of naming, which means dividing things into categories of namers and named. That doesn’t make them ontological categories.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Juan Jeanniton on May 12, 2021, 12:02:00 AM
Mr. Speckhard, you replied:
I named my son. I also named my dog. So? Only by twisting categories does that make my son ontologically the same as my dog rather than ontologically the same as me. The notes in TLSB address the significance of naming, which means dividing things into categories of namers and named. That doesn’t make them ontological categories.

As they say in Latin, Solvitur ambulando!  :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) I am pleased with your reply. But please try and tell that to Mr. Benke, for it was he that first made the claim that '"This category of beings" [as mentioned in TLSB's comments on Genesis 2:20 and 23] not only seems to me to separate the man off from the woman ontologically, but also doesn't this put the woman into the same category ontologically as the animals?  So there are males, who give names, and then there is that which is named by the namer - living creatures, premiere of which kingdom is woman, since she is ordered directly from the man.  In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.  See the final commandment for the order:  Wife, Human Servant/Slaves by gender beginning with male, Domesticated Animals ox and donkey, all Other Property.'

Please show him in detail how and where that claim of his is in error by doing a point-by-point detailed rebuttal of every one of his points.
Title: Re: A Thread for Sniping at Each Other over Gender Issues
Post by: Charles Austin on May 12, 2021, 05:21:50 AM
What’s with the “Mr.”?
Then there’s “In the same way as the domesticated animals are the male's property, the women is counted among those items of property.“
Standing alone, the obscenity of that twice-posted bit of junk makes our computer screens quiver.
Please.