Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: Yesterday at 05:49:23 PM »

I'm curious, Dave.  Why are you so fixated on Luther Classical College?  Does the prospect of a conservative, Lutheran, classical education for my grandchildren trouble you?  Do we conservatives threaten you in some way?  If our values don't conform to yours, what is it to you?  What's the bee in your bonnet?

There's only one bee in my bonnet.  I believe that what you are propounding here, and what is without question the teaching your children and all the various other clergy you have taught in various ways, is going to be propounded as the only authentic Lutheran/orthodox teaching.  And I think you are not only propounding bad theology, but promoting that bad theology to another generation.  You do so as do those in your family and camp, in such a way to propound it as the only authentic Lutheran position.  It's not. 

Other than that, I'm fine.  Life goes on.

Dave Benke

You accuse me of promoting "bad theology."  Please tell me what this bad theology is and why it is bad.

2

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: Yesterday at 08:55:40 AM »

Frankly, Tom, it take a bit of chutzpah for you to accuse me of imposing my views on 1 Timothy 2:12 when it is you who insists that Paul's words, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" do not mean "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" but rather I do not permit a woman to conduct the Divine Service.  No, Tom, faithful Lutherans should not deny that God forbids women theological professors just because somebody cannot acknowledge the obvious sense of the biblical text.  When a brother is wrong, a faithful brother tells him so.  You are wrong.  You refuse to take Paul's words to mean what they say.  The teaching of theology to seminarians is not given by God to women to do.  To put a woman in the classroom to teach theology to seminary students is to disobey the clear apostolic instruction of St. Paul.  It is as a faithful Lutheran brother that I say to you: "Scripture's clear teaching on this should be obvious to you!" 1 Timothy 2:12 means what it says.

At this point, I  hate to have to say it, but this is simply fundamentalist Pietism in Lutheran wrapping. Multiple challenges - legitimate questions - with your application have been pointed out by others equally committed to the Scriptures and confessions in the attempt for scripture to interpret scripture. Instead, at this point, all you’re doing is shouting, “my way is the only faithful way!” When pressed, your response is, “it should be obvious.” You do realize that these are the fallbacks when reasoned argumentation has failed?

The result is that, instead of being able to say, I believe that these are the most faithful applications of scripture, you must accuse everyone with different applications of ignoring or despising scripture. It’s simply not that clear-cut.

Then the policy, which is not simple Scripture, but which is a particular application of one interpretation, becomes the cultural marker by which we’re  going to prove that we’re not feminists, and prove that the liberals haven’t invited us. It becomes a brand-new, man-made law. Can you see the way that that is happening?

Instead of binding together on the basis of a quia subscription to the confessions, we splinter using the litmus tests of various man-made interpretations… one year lectionary only, DS3 only, no women lectors, no language overlap with CRT… Satan leans back in his desk chair and smiles.

I have argued that when St. Paul said that he does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man that he meant to say that he does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.  This you call "fundamentalist Pietism in Lutheran wrapping."  Why?  Well, because others "equally committed to the Scriptures and confessions in the attempt for scripture to interpret scripture" disagree with me.  I see.  Well, how can I argue with that?  People disagree!  Thus, I must temper my remarks, word it in a different way, and say something like this:  "It is my view, tentative of course as I must subject it to the approval of those with different views, that when Paul said he doesn't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man he probably means that a woman should not serve as a theological professor at a seminary where her job is to teach and have authority over a man.  But this is just my tentative opinion."  Is that better?  More in accord with a "quia" subscription to the Lutheran Confessions? 

3

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: Yesterday at 08:40:34 AM »

My mind really frazzles - and I fear for the sanity of seminary professors - if we are to think that everything they say or do in class is somehow exactly the same as scripture itself or some direct channel of theological truth from God, through their brains and mouths into the ears and brains and all future preaching of the seminarians.
Pastor Preus, in my humble opinion, has so absolutized an interpretation of scripture that the consequences of that interpretation end up in a tsunami of consequences that are unrealistic, messy, legalistic and decidedly non-Gospel.
I wonder if, in the LCMS dialogues - if any - with those outside the Waltherian brotherhood, the LCMS has encountered any female theologians. Even Rome has them. Would they have to be banned from the dialogues?

I have argued that when Paul wrote that he does not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man he meant to say that a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man.  According to you I have "so absolutized an interpretation of scripture that the consequences of that interpretation end up in a tsunami of consequences that are unrealistic, messy, legalistic and decidedly non-Gospel."  Amazing!  I argue that the text a) means what it says, and b) should be followed.  This, according to you, is "decidedly non-Gospel."  I think I understand!  It's all coming back!  The arguments in the early seventies as the LCMS was rocked by the Battle for the Bible.  If you say that the Bible really is the norm of our doctrine and practice, you are attacking the Gospel.  Well, that's clear enough!

4

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: Yesterday at 08:28:24 AM »

I'm curious, Dave.  Why are you so fixated on Luther Classical College?  Does the prospect of a conservative, Lutheran, classical education for my grandchildren trouble you?  Do we conservatives threaten you in some way?  If our values don't conform to yours, what is it to you?  What's the bee in your bonnet?

5

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 11:52:33 PM »

I take Rev. Preus' point to be that seminary instructors hold an office of the Word and receive a formal call to that office, to publicly instruct on behalf of the Church.  They are "officially" speaking/teaching for the Church.  Not so when a mother teaches her child, or Priscilla teaches Apollos.

Steve, just so I understand what you believe, would you be OK with a deaconess teaching/talking about God's Word with men in her home?  Unless I misunderstand Rolf, he seems to think that this would be wrong whereas I would see this as the same as what Priscilla did with Apollos.

As for a woman sharing her insights from Scripture with men in a classroom, I just don't see that as much different than what Priscilla did with Apollos.  Preaching from pulpit in the Divine Service is another issue.

Again, I encourage you to call a spade a spade.  You use the words "sharing her insights from Scripture with men in a classroom."  Is this how you describe the teaching of a theological professor at a seminary?  Sharing his insights?  Really?  Jesus taught God's Word.  Paul taught God's Word.  Luther taught God's Word.  Were they "sharing their insights from Scripture"?  Are you not deliberately avoiding the use of words that would accurately depict what a theological professor is doing in the classroom?  Are you not doing so to avoid running afoul of St. Paul's words that clearly teach that a woman may not "teach or have authority over a man"?  So, you rephrase it, spin it, and dress it up as something it is not.  Theological professors at seminaries are not there to share their insights from Scripture.  They are there to teach, publicly, officially, on behalf of the church, God's Word to men to prepare them to be pastors in the church.  Let's call a spade a spade.

Steven and Rolf, I appreciate this discussion because it helps us all think through things that are not as obvious as we'd like to think when considering 1st Tim. 2:12 (in spite of what Rolf thinks is "clear teaching").

Steven, in a previous post you wrote:  "Your question has way too many variables to give a simple 'yes' or 'no'.  For instance: Is she teaching in an official capacity, as a deaconess under call by the church?  Is she teaching a formal Bible class or is she just sharing with friends who have asked questions?  Are the men members of her congregation or are they prospective members that she is encouraging toward instruction with the pastor?  You see, it is not as simple as question you have posed." I agree!  There are many variables and unique situations that are not so obviously addressed by 1st Tim. 2:12 which, as all three of us can agree, prohibits a women from preaching as a pastor in the Divine Service.  Of course, Rolf would add that 1st Tim. 2:12 also forbids a lay woman from teaching lay men in any PUBLIC setting of the Church - but as Rob Morris has pointed out elsewhere, what qualifies as "PUBLIC teaching of the Church" is precisely what is being debated!

Rolf, in a previous post you wrote to me:  "Again, I encourage you to call a spade a spade."  Two responses.  First, I have!  Second, you need to do a better job at defining what you call a "spade" because what you think is obviously a "spade" is NOT obviously a "spade" to others.

For example, when I speak of a woman with a PhD in exegetical theology "sharing her insights from Scripture" in a classroom you accuse me of being vague.  OK.  Of course, she is "teaching God's Word" - but what does that mean in a classroom setting?  Honestly, the kind of lectures I remember getting in a seminary classroom setting were much different creatures than what I got in the sermon from the pastor in the pulpit on Sunday mornings.

For instance, in many of my exegetical classes we discussed the dates/authorship of various books of Scripture, ancient maps of the Holy Land and the varioius views of geographical locations of ancient cities, textual variants, the views of various exegetical theologians throughout history, the fine points of grammar/syntax of the Hebrew/Greek text, discussing difficult bible passages which have had various interpretations by various Christians throughout history, etc. - are you saying an educated woman cannot share her views about such things in a seminary classroom because that would be the same thing as a pastor preaching a sermon from a pulpit during the Divine Service?  If so, I think you are in error on that.

In addition, in many of my seminary classes in historical theology we discussed the ideas and view of various early church fathers; theological controversies of the early church - such as montanism, arianism and pelagianism;  dates of significat events in Church history; names of theologians and laypeople who were significant players in the Reformation; important people and events in Amercian Lutheranism, etc. - are you saying an educated woman cannot share her views about such things in a seminary classroom because that would be the same thing as a pastor preaching a sermon from a pulpit during the Divine Service?

Also, in my classes of systematic theology we discussed the differences between various theological traditions; the intricacies of the Two Natures of Christ and the Christological genera; compared and contrasted difference theological books written by different authors - such as "Freedom of the Will" by Erasmus versus "Bondage of the Will" by Luther, etc. -  are you saying an educated woman cannot share her views about such things in a seminary classroom because that would be the same thing as a pastor preaching a sermon from a pulpit during the Divine Service?

Now, when it comes to teaching a class on homiletics or pastoral theology - I think that such subjects should be taught by an ordained pastor, but in the other cases I mentioned above I don't see why a woman can't share her insights in a seminary classroom because what is going on there is far different than what a pastor is doing when he baptizes, absolves, preaches and consecrates the elements of the Lord's Supper during the Divine Service.

I have a deaconess in my congregation who will sometimes teach a bible class in my absence - and these bible classes have both men and women.  She does this with the following understanding:  1)  She is NOT the pastor of the congregation and any teaching she does is under my authority;  2) When she teaches a bible class she is doing this as lay person talking about God's Word with other lay people - which is something lay Christians have always done and is what Priscilla did with Apollos.  Just because lay people are discussing God's Word at church versus someone's home doesn't make the former PUBLIC and the latter PRIVATE.  The issue is whether she claims to be teaching God's Word as the ordained pastor of the congregation, which she is NOT!  In addition, I would also make a distinction between a bible study (which can happen with only lay people present) versus the Divine Service where God's people are gathered to receive Christ's gifts from the called and ordained pastor in their midst.


Here'a another example.  At a congregation I once served in the St. Louis area there were a few lay women who were vocal about how the LCMS should ordain women as pastors.  I used Scripture to correct them on this, but they would respond that I was reading Scripture as a "man" and couldn't be objective.      Well ... there was a woman who was getting her PhD in exegetical theology at the St. Louis seminary.  She was writing her thesis on 1st. Corinthians 11 and the meaning of "headship" - and she agreed 100% with the LCMS that women should not serve as pastors and used 1st Cor. ch. 11 as one of the texts to prove that point.  So, I invited her to address our bible class one Sunday and give her insights from her study of I Cor. chap. 11 and what "headship" means and why only men should serve as pastors.  Do you think she sinned when she did this?


One last example.  The LifeLight Bible Study series from CPH has multiple authors who are men (I'm one of them) as well as WOMEN.  Do you think 1st Tim. 2:12 forbids a lay woman from writing a LifeLight bible study for other lay people to consider and digest?  If so, why?

Rolf, in a nutshell, I think you are using 1st Tim. 2:12 to impose your views of what women can't do on situations that, contrary to your view, are not so obviously addresed by 1st Tim. 2:12.  Again, I don't think that a professor giving a lecture about Scripture or other theological subjects in a seminary classroom is the same as what a called and ordained pastor is doing during the Divine Service.  I think the seminary classroom is more like what Priscilla did with Apollos.  Faithful Lutherans need to be able to discuss these things without one of them saying:  "Scripture's clear teaching on this should be obvious to you!"

Frankly, Tom, it take a bit of chutzpah for you to accuse me of imposing my views on 1 Timothy 2:12 when it is you who insists that Paul's words, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" do not mean "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" but rather I do not permit a woman to conduct the Divine Service.  No, Tom, faithful Lutherans should not deny that God forbids women theological professors just because somebody cannot acknowledge the obvious sense of the biblical text.  When a brother is wrong, a faithful brother tells him so.  You are wrong.  You refuse to take Paul's words to mean what they say.  The teaching of theology to seminarians is not given by God to women to do.  To put a woman in the classroom to teach theology to seminary students is to disobey the clear apostolic instruction of St. Paul.  It is as a faithful Lutheran brother that I say to you: "Scripture's clear teaching on this should be obvious to you!" 1 Timothy 2:12 means what it says.

6

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 06:17:51 PM »

Here's something I wrote on this topic: http://christforus.org/NewSite/index.php/1996/10/05/historical-use-of-laymen-within-the-worship-service/

From the linked paper: "That the authority denied to women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 includes pastoral authority is obvious. That it denies to women the reading of the authoritative word of God to God's people during the public service of the Word and Sacrament ought to be equally obvious." Obviously, it is not equally obvious. For one thing, as rightly stated here, the authority of the readings is vested in the Word of God itself, not the person who reads it out loud during worship. For another, the paper actually argues against allowing any layperson, male or female, to read the lessons during worship; so 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is really beside the point.

I ask again: In what other context would anyone seriously maintain that reading an authoritative text out loud constitutes teaching? Why does reading the lessons out loud during worship constitute publicly teaching, but reading the very same passages out loud during a Bible class does not?

You write, "the authority of the readings is vested in the Word of God itself, not the person who reads it out loud during worship." I agree.  The authority is vested in the Word of God.  Not in the preacher.  In the Word of God.

7

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 04:53:59 PM »

Here's something I wrote on this topic:

http://christforus.org/NewSite/index.php/1996/10/05/historical-use-of-laymen-within-the-worship-service/

8

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 04:47:16 PM »

The "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.

That is precisely what is being disputed--whether reading Scripture out loud during worship is publicly teaching, and thus restricted by AC XIV to those who have a regular call. The doctrinal position of the LCMS is that it is not, although I think that a case could be made for having the pastor read all the lessons as a matter of good order. After all, in what other context would anyone seriously maintain that merely reading a text out loud constitutes teaching? Should women also be forbidden from reading Bible passages out loud during a Sunday morning class, even if it is being led by the pastor?

Mr. Schmidt, I would like you to document your assertion that the doctrinal position of the LCMS is that reading the lessons in the Divine Service is not publicly teaching.

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Convention Proceedings: the 57th Regular Convention, Wichita, Kansas, July 7-14, 1989, p. 118.

To Address Appropriate Roles for Women and Men in Worship

RESOLUTION 3-14

Overtures 3-90-91 (CW, pp. 195-96)

Whereas, The Gospel images and expectations of women—particularly those associated with the incarnation, the resurrection, and the ministry of Jesus—present strong and persistent recognition of the active and vital roles of service that women can offer to our Lord and to others; and

Whereas, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) has stated that there are certain distinct functions which should not ordinarily be carried out by the laity (who may hold auxiliary offices) but which are to be exercised by the pastor, including the following: 1. Preaching in the services of the congregation 2. Leading the formal public services of worship 3. The public administration of the sacraments 4. The public administration of the Office of the Keys (Women in the Church, p. 42); and

Whereas, The CTCR has also stated in its report Women in the Church: "There is no ceremonial law in the New Testament regarding the reading of Scripture in the context of public worship. Nor is there explicit apostolic prohibition of such reading by women. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the CTCR that the reading of the Scriptures is most properly the function of the pastoral office and should therefore not ordinarily be delegated to lay per son, woman or man," (Women in the Church, p. 45); and

Whereas, The use of lay assisting ministers, both female and male, is permitted within the rubrics of Lutheran Worship for the reading of the lessons, except the Gospel and the leading of the prayers of the people; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod urge and encourage the continued service of women and men to our Lord and His church in accordance with His will as set forth in Holy Scripture; and be it further

Resolved, That the CTCR report Women in the Church and especially Section III, "Guidelines for Practice," be commended for study and guidance; and be it finally

Resolved, That the congregations 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.

Action: Adopted (15).
 

Concerning the CTCR report "Women in the Church," it seems to me that while the CTCR did not give a definite yes or no in that report on women reading the lessons, it did write that

The reading of the Scriptures belongs to the priesthood of all believers, men and women. . . . .Moreover, there is no ceremonial law in the New Testament regarding the reading of Scripture in the context of public worship. Nor is there explicit apostolic prohibition of such reading by women. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the CTCR that the reading of the Scriptures is most properly the function of the pastoral office and should therefore not ordinarily be delegated to a lay person, woman or man.

Why would the reading of the Scriptures most properly be a function of the pastoral office when, "the reading of the Scriptures belongs to the priesthood of all believers"? One reason could be tradition. This seems to have been a large part of the CTCR's concern. Since the readings have traditionally been done by pastors, to have lay people read them could create confusion as to the pastoral role.

I wrote to the CTCR about this. In a personal letter in response to my inquiry as to the CTCR’s rationale, Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger wrote, "I think you have captured the essence of the Commission’s rationale for this opinion when you surmise that ‘the reasoning was perhaps primarily that it has been traditional in our church to have the pastor do the reading and so to have lay people read could produce confusion.’"

That is hardly a firm doctrinal stance that the reading of the lessons should only be done by the pastor. I am not aware of there being a doctrinal position of the LCMS on whether or not reading the lessons is teaching. But apparently it is not the doctrinal position of the LCMS that it is teaching in the sense that therefore it should only be done by pastors.

I would also point out that in the Rubrics for LSB, the Old Testament and Epistle lesson may be read by the lay assistant.

Rolf, I disagree with you on this point, that the Scripture Lessons in the worship service should only be read by the pastor. In disagreeing with you, I do not assert that you are being misogynistic, fighting the feminism wars or any such thing. Far too often in our discussions on this forum, participants demean each other by attributing motivations to each other for which they have no basis and rather than discuss the points of contention, simply try to discredit each other. I do not want to perpetuate such behavior. I am confident that you are trying, to the best of your ability, to be faithful to God's word, and careful in your interpretation. As am I. I simply think that you are wrong on this point.

Neither, however, do I want to enter into a detailed discussion on this. This is far too complex a topic to be reasonably researched and exhibited in a format like this forum. If you, or anyone else, wants to know my reasoning on this topic, I refer you to the article, "Lay Readers in Public Worship," Concordia Journal, October, 1995, pp. 400-414. Subscribers to the Concordia Journal may access this article online through ATLAS. Access information is available on the page after the Table of Contents of any recent issue. Alternatively, anyone can send me a PM with their email address, and I will email a copy.

Thank you, Daniel, I would like to receive a copy of your Concordia Journal article.  I'd have asked privately, but being computer-challenged, I can't figure out how to do it.  My email address is: rolfpreus@msn.com

Thanks!

9

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 03:47:44 PM »

The "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.

That is precisely what is being disputed--whether reading Scripture out loud during worship is publicly teaching, and thus restricted by AC XIV to those who have a regular call. The doctrinal position of the LCMS is that it is not, although I think that a case could be made for having the pastor read all the lessons as a matter of good order. After all, in what other context would anyone seriously maintain that merely reading a text out loud constitutes teaching? Should women also be forbidden from reading Bible passages out loud during a Sunday morning class, even if it is being led by the pastor?

The issue before us is not primarily AC XIV or the divine call.  We're arguing over whether when St. Paul says a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man, he means to say that a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man, or whether he rather means to say that a woman may not officiate at the Mass.  We're not arguing over AC XIV, though it is tangentially pertinent to the argument.  It's whether a woman may publicly teach Christian doctrine to men.  The lector in the Divine Service assumes a role very different from the volunteer reading a passage from the Bible in Bible class.  If you regard the lector as "merely reading a text out loud" I don't think you know what is going on in the Divine Service.

10

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 03:38:22 PM »

The "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.

That is precisely what is being disputed--whether reading Scripture out loud during worship is publicly teaching, and thus restricted by AC XIV to those who have a regular call. The doctrinal position of the LCMS is that it is not, although I think that a case could be made for having the pastor read all the lessons as a matter of good order. After all, in what other context would anyone seriously maintain that merely reading a text out loud constitutes teaching? Should women also be forbidden from reading Bible passages out loud during a Sunday morning class, even if it is being led by the pastor?

Mr. Schmidt, I would like you to document your assertion that the doctrinal position of the LCMS is that reading the lessons in the Divine Service is not publicly teaching. 

11

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 03:34:45 PM »

But now you are contradicting yourself. Priscilla was able to teach the word of God to Apollos. That was God’s word. You said so last night. But now no women lectors because it’s Gods Word?

No, I am not contradicting myself and the Bible doesn't contradict itself either.  The Bible says a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man.  The Bible says that Pricilla taught Apollos.  So then, did she do wrong?  Or was Paul wrong to write to Timothy that a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man?  Is Paul contradicting Luke?  Or is there a difference between what Paul forbade and what Pricilla did?  Can you see the difference between Pricilla teaching Apollos privately and a woman publicly standing before the assembly during the Divine Service and reading to them the lessons from the Bible?

12

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 03:02:04 PM »

When my father was president of CTS, he invited a woman with a PhD in Education to speak to the professors about how to teach.  They all benefited.  There was nothing wrong with that.  Should a woman know something pertinent to a topic covered in the classroom and the professor wanted her to share her knowledge with the class, there would be nothing wrong with that.  There are many things a woman may do that do not entail authoritative public teaching of theology in the church.

You mean like reading a lesson in a church service, then.  The pastor authorizes lay people to read lessons.  The lessons are "under", in that sense, the teaching authority of the pastor.  Thanks for the encouragement, RD.

Dave Benke

And RevGalRedux, thanks for continuing to look in!

No, not like reading a lesson in a church service.  Not at all.  The lesson is God's Word.  When Paul forbids women to teach, he's talking about teaching God's Word.  The "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.  This business of women doing what God says they may not do if it's done "under the teaching authority of the pastor" places the pastor over God's Word, rather than under it.  Kind of like a DP participating in syncretistic worship "under the authority" of the SP who says it's okay and that makes it okay.

13

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 01:09:35 PM »

When my father was president of CTS, he invited a woman with a PhD in Education to speak to the professors about how to teach.  They all benefited.  There was nothing wrong with that.  Should a woman know something pertinent to a topic covered in the classroom and the professor wanted her to share her knowledge with the class, there would be nothing wrong with that.  There are many things a woman may do that do not entail authoritative public teaching of theology in the church.

14

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 12:58:12 PM »

I take Rev. Preus' point to be that seminary instructors hold an office of the Word and receive a formal call to that office, to publicly instruct on behalf of the Church.  They are "officially" speaking/teaching for the Church.  Not so when a mother teaches her child, or Priscilla teaches Apollos.

Steve, just so I understand what you believe, would you be OK with a deaconess teaching/talking about God's Word with men in her home?  Unless I misunderstand Rolf, he seems to think that this would be wrong whereas I would see this as the same as what Priscilla did with Apollos.

As for a woman sharing her insights from Scripture with men in a classroom, I just don't see that as much different than what Priscilla did with Apollos.  Preaching from pulpit in the Divine Service is another issue.

Again, I encourage you to call a spade a spade.  You use the words "sharing her insights from Scripture with men in a classroom."  Is this how you describe the teaching of a theological professor at a seminary?  Sharing his insights?  Really?  Jesus taught God's Word.  Paul taught God's Word.  Luther taught God's Word.  Were they "sharing their insights from Scripture"?  Are you not deliberately avoiding the use of words that would accurately depict what a theological professor is doing in the classroom?  Are you not doing so to avoid running afoul of St. Paul's words that clearly teach that a woman may not "teach or have authority over a man"?  So, you rephrase it, spin it, and dress it up as something it is not.  Theological professors at seminaries are not there to share their insights from Scripture.  They are there to teach, publicly, officially, on behalf of the church, God's Word to men to prepare them to be pastors in the church.  Let's call a spade a spade.

15

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 01, 2023, 12:04:58 PM »

Thanks, Steve.  You said it clearly.