Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - mariemeyer

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 287
1
Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King  had two different approaches to racial injustice
Malcolm X advocated violence &  Dr. Martin Luther King stressed non-violence.

Malcolm X in reality became a Black Muslim who did not believe in racial integration
but demanded Blacks become a separate nation.  Dr. MLK was a Baptist pastor who
preached that we are all members of the human race created by God to love one
another.  He believed in racial integration.

Bottom Line: Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King had completely opposite approaches
to racial justice.



Some historians might question the above. True, Malcolm X embraced Islam, but to the best of my knowledge he did not advocate violence. Historians on this Forum may have further in formation about Malcolm X.

Marie Meyer

2
There is a reason why reputable academics do not allow their students to quote Wiki-anything


A good Wiki article contains footnotes where researchers can look up the source material and quote from them.


I think that CRT would ask if any student should be able to quote a white author talking about the Black experience. Or, as a white man tried to do here, to teach us about Native American spirituality.


If Wiki is an unreliable source, than so are folks who talk about races and genders that are not their own. That, I believe, is what is being critiqued. Let those who actually live the experiences tell their stories rather than "experts" who theorize about them.

So, you are saying that any non-white person ought not talk about white privilege since they haven't lived that alleged experience?  And Mrs. Meyer cannot talk about LCMS men and how they are oppressive to women or patriarchal or whatever anymore?  Cool.  That settles that.

For some reason Steven W Bohler finds it necessary to twist this thread with the following, "And Mrs. Meyer cannot talk about LCMS men and how they are oppressive to women or patriarchal or what ever more? Cool. That settles that."

Rather than start another thread, I would simply ask that Mr. Bohler surface any post, one will do, where I have commented on how oppressive LCMS men are to women.   

I have stated, and continue to maintain, that some LCMS men have misused God's Word to teach that God's order for the relationship of man and woman in the Church is a structured chain of being and/-or a structured chain of command.

I am persuaded that it is to the spiritual detriment of men when they, albeit unwittingly, place the human male between God and God's creation, the human woman.    The ultimate issue is letting God be God in the life of woman.

I am grateful to the LCMS men, beginning with my late father Herman Otten Sr., my parochial school teachers including Dr. Robert Schnabel,  my pastors including the Rev Oswald Hoffman and The Rev Ted Whitrock, the vicars who served my home church including John Damm, John Tietjen, Walter Bouman, Milton Rudnick, Art Simon, Hans Spalteholz and Dale Hansen,  my college professors including Prof Robert C Schultz, Robert Bertram, Richard Koenig, my father-in-law the Rev Adolf Meyer  AND my beloved  husband of 59 years, Bill Meyer. (Please note how many of these men have a history with the ALPB.;

Was I oppressed?  Hardly.  These men taught me the importance of letting God be God in my life....no man was to claim a place between  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and me.  Most certainly, they were not to misuse Scripture to prove it was God's idea that a  man or men take God's rightful place in  my life.  Doing so is the result of original sin; the mind and heart being curved inward on self. 

Marie Otten Meyer

Mrs. Meyer, you wrote: "Rather than start another thread, I would simply ask that Mr. Bohler surface any post, one will do, where I have commented on how oppressive LCMS men are to women.   I have stated, and continue to maintain, that some LCMS men have misused God's Word to teach that God's order for the relationship of man and woman in the Church is a structured chain of being and/-or a structured chain of command."  I think you have just answered your own question.

Mr. Bohler, the above is a cop-out.  I think you have taken a coward's way out of a situation you created.

There is yet to be any post on this Forum that suggests I am an oppressed women.  A rather humorous comment was made by an LCMS District President when we were both serving on the LCMS Convention Nominations Committee.   His comment, "Marie, you are a very feminine women.  You also have the ability to stand firm like a MACK truck."

I took the reference to a MACK truck as a complement.   

Marie Otten Meyer


3
There is a reason why reputable academics do not allow their students to quote Wiki-anything


A good Wiki article contains footnotes where researchers can look up the source material and quote from them.


I think that CRT would ask if any student should be able to quote a white author talking about the Black experience. Or, as a white man tried to do here, to teach us about Native American spirituality.


If Wiki is an unreliable source, than so are folks who talk about races and genders that are not their own. That, I believe, is what is being critiqued. Let those who actually live the experiences tell their stories rather than "experts" who theorize about them.

So, you are saying that any non-white person ought not talk about white privilege since they haven't lived that alleged experience?  And Mrs. Meyer cannot talk about LCMS men and how they are oppressive to women or patriarchal or whatever anymore?  Cool.  That settles that.

For some reason Steven W Bohler finds it necessary to twist this thread with the following, "And Mrs. Meyer cannot talk about LCMS men and how they are oppressive to women or patriarchal or what ever more? Cool. That settles that."

Rather than start another thread, I would simply ask that Mr. Bohler surface any post, one will do, where I have commented on how oppressive LCMS men are to women.   

I have stated, and continue to maintain, that some LCMS men have misused God's Word to teach that God's order for the relationship of man and woman in the Church is a structured chain of being and/-or a structured chain of command.

I am persuaded that it is to the spiritual detriment of men when they, albeit unwittingly, place the human male between God and God's creation, the human woman.    The ultimate issue is letting God be God in the life of woman.

I am grateful to the LCMS men, beginning with my late father Herman Otten Sr., my parochial school teachers including Dr. Robert Schnabel,  my pastors including the Rev Oswald Hoffman and The Rev Ted Whitrock, the vicars who served my home church including John Damm, John Tietjen, Walter Bouman, Milton Rudnick, Art Simon, Hans Spalteholz and Dale Hansen,  my college professors including Prof Robert C Schultz, Robert Bertram, Richard Koenig, my father-in-law the Rev Adolf Meyer  AND my beloved  husband of 59 years, Bill Meyer. (Please note how many of these men have a history with the ALPB.;

Was I oppressed?  Hardly.  These men taught me the importance of letting God be God in my life....no man was to claim a place between  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and me.  Most certainly, they were not to misuse Scripture to prove it was God's idea that a  man or men take God's rightful place in  my life.  Doing so is the result of original sin; the mind and heart being curved inward on self. 

Marie Otten Meyer

4
DeHall1  ask the question....

Which of these resolutions SPECIFICALLY "do NOT contribute to teachable moments or opening minds to knowing the truth about our nation."?


RESOLVED, That the LCMS Mid-South District reject any doctrine that teaches:   

● One’s race, ancestry, or nationality are inherently superior to the race, ancestry, or nationality of another.
● Any individual is inherently racist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, because of his or her race, ancestry, or nationality;


In this resolve there is an assumption that the CRT supports the idea... Any individual is inherently racist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, because of his or her race, ancestry, or nationality."   

The Mid South rejects any doctrine that teaches "Any individual is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, because of his or her race, ancestry or nationality."   That sounds to me as if the LCMS Mid-South District rejects the doctrine of original sin.

Might the CRT be on to something that is Biblical and in keeping with the Lutheran Confessions.  Seems to me that the CTCR report Racism connected racism with our human ancestry that goes back to the Fall.  The problem, according to the CTCR report, is both the denial and self-defensiveness of how we humans are inclined to erect barriers between humans on the basis of visual distinctions.

Marie Meyer

5
Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod president, Matthew Harrison, posted the Mid South District CRT resolution on Facebook.  His comments begin with one word.  ""Excellent."

I find it totally inappropriate  that the president of my church would use the social media in this way.  What has the LCMS come to?

Former Atlantic District president David Benke offered a resolution that reflects how Christian pastors, particularly those who identify themselves as Lutheran, are called to lead their people in the mission of the Church.

In heart and mind I grieve that the resolution was adopted and that President Harrison posted it on Facebook with his endorsement.

Marie Meyer

What about the resolution "grieves" you?  Is it that the resolution "rejects CRT" or something else?

Pr. Engebretson, What prompts you to ask if there is "something else?"     What in my post suggests your question?

Marie Meyer

I think it was simply an attempt to cover anything else in the resolution that bothered you.  I just wondered about the specifics behind your "grieving" over the resolution. 

As I was typing this David Garner replied first.  He captures my intent.

From David Garner.....
"As I read it, Pr. Engebretson was surprised you would be grieved by a mere rejection of CRT, and was wondering basically "is that all?"

Perhaps I misread him, but I don't think it's anything nefarious.  Dr. Benke has said he reads the resolution as a rejection of the work of LRJ, of which I am unfamiliar and cannot comment, but if one were a supporter of LRJ's work and thought LRJ's work did not promote CRT, that would be a reason other than rejection of CRT that might grieve a person."

Permit me to explain.

I first read about the Southern District resolution on Facebook, not on the Lutheran Forum where matters of faith are discussed.  Only after the district resolution on CRT was posted here did I report that the resolution appeared on Facebook with President Matthew Harrison's one word comment, "Excellent."

I was grieved that the subject of a resolution as adopted by an LCMS District and endorsed by the synodical present appeared on a social media platform.  I do not consider Facebook a media that allows for a thoughtful discussion of issues where politics, morality and theology intersect.  One word comments do not offer an opportunity for a teachable moment, nor do they open minds for being teachable.   

IMO, past and present issues related to race relations in our country continue to provide "teachable moments."   For example, while visiting a museum with several grandsons, one was troubled by the photo of a lynching that took place during the Jim Crow era.  it was a teachable moment, not to make him feel guilty for being white, but a moment simply to explain what happened in that time of our nation's history.

I am also persuaded all American citizens benefit from being "teachable" about the reality of our history.  For this reason I think CRT merits consideration. 

As a Lutheran, I look to LCMS leaders to recognize how racism, past and in present,  provide "teachable moments" in the Kingdom of the Left. At issue is recognizing how best do we, citizens of the Right, address a moral issue in the Kingdom of the Left. To do this I submit we  have to open ourselves to being taught, first by Scripture, but also by our history as citizens of the United States of  America. 

IMO, the resolution passed by the Southern District, endorsed by the LCMS president and promoted here by fellow LCMS for further similar resolutions  in other districts do NOT contribute to teachable moments or opening minds to knowing the truth about our nation.

For this reason, I am persuaded that LCMS pastors and laity must give careful attention to the up or down CRT resolution put before delegates to an LCMS district convention.   

Marie Meyer

6
Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod president, Matthew Harrison, posted the Mid South District CRT resolution on Facebook.  His comments begin with one word.  ""Excellent."

I find it totally inappropriate  that the president of my church would use the social media in this way.  What has the LCMS come to?

Former Atlantic District president David Benke offered a resolution that reflects how Christian pastors, particularly those who identify themselves as Lutheran, are called to lead their people in the mission of the Church.

In heart and mind I grieve that the resolution was adopted and that President Harrison posted it on Facebook with his endorsement.

Marie Meyer

What about the resolution "grieves" you?  Is it that the resolution "rejects CRT" or something else?

Pr. Engebretson, What prompts you to ask if there is "something else?"     What in my post suggests your question?

Marie Meyer

7
Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod president, Matthew Harrison, posted the Mid South District CRT resolution on Facebook.  His comments begin with one word.  ""Excellent."

I find it totally inappropriate  that the president of my church would use the social media in this way.  What has the LCMS come to?

Former Atlantic District president David Benke offered a resolution that reflects how Christian pastors, particularly those who identify themselves as Lutheran, are called to lead their people in the mission of the Church.

In heart and mind I grieve that the resolution was adopted and that President Harrison posted it on Facebook with his endorsement.

Marie Meyer 

8
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 23, 2021, 08:07:48 PM »
Good grief! You and Marie carry a lot of baggage!

Again, the clergy-only BS you manufacture (as Steve says, your story keeps changing) is something I’ve never heard. And I hung out for quite a while years back at the Steadfast site among other places.

BTW, your “Try it this way” explanation is logically flawed.

Who might the above "you" be?  Am I in good company?

In any event, I respectfully ask that Donald Kirchner define  the "a lot of baggage" I carry.

Look forward to hearing clarification about the statement made about me.

Marie Meyer

9
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 22, 2021, 09:48:39 AM »
Moderator Peter Speckhard writes on the endless controversy......

"We have been down this road before because you proceed as though though nobody interacted with you. You lament that TLSB has a section about women but not men, and when multiple people point out why that makes perfect sense, you just keep pointing it out. You don’t say, “Okay, in that point you’re making sense,” or “I hadn’t looked at it that way,” nor do you disagree or even acknowledge the point was made. You just hold onto to your original lament. A year from now you’ll asking why TLSB has a section about women and not men."

Pr. Speckhard is on target when observing that I have not stated it makes sense to me that TLSB refers to wife and women as biblical topics without referring to husband and man as biblical topics.

Wife cannot be a biblical topic without husband also being a biblical topic.   The term wife defines a relationship with a husband.  You can't have one without the other.  IOW, no woman can be, or could never have been a wife, without a husband. 

The same is true for woman being a biblical topic without man being a biblical topic.  No woman can be human alone...so also, no man can be human alone.   Adam could never have known what it means to be a human, not God or one of the animals, without the woman God created to complete God's work of creating Man, male and female, in the image of God.

Finally, I find use of the term "lament" in reference to my posts condescending.  Reciprocal mutuality in any conversation avoids the persistent use of "you" in reference to how the other person has been, is now and will forever be misguided. 

Marie Meyer 

10
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 21, 2021, 02:18:25 PM »
The following appeared here on June1st...

"Rick Warren’s Saddleback church recently made headlines by ordaining three female leaders. I was grateful to see these women recognized and lent both the public authority and institutional accountability that comes from ordination. But when I read the news, I also thought with a heavy sigh, “Oh, here we go again.” I knew the debate about women’s roles in the church would dominate conversation all week, and I could already predict the rutted arguments I’d hear recited over and over."

Three weeks later and LCMS members of this list remain stuck in the same rut...defending an the order of creation structure where man and woman differ in origin, being, purpose and assigned non-interchangeable positions in relation to one another.

According to the accepted rational  the Genesis 2 biblical account of how God created the human male reveals God's design and will for an immutable pre-fall order of creation where the man, according to his visible created maleness, has natural precedence and authority in relation to woman. [/ This legal structure, known as the order of creation, does not apply in society.  It was for the sake of order and unity in the home and  among the people of God that God ordained the order.   

In the home and among the people of God, the order of creation structure binds God's authority to the man's position in the home and church.  NT texts are interpreted on the basis of the order of creation structure.

In society, God is free to work through man and woman to preserve creation. What Luther referred to as the orders of preservation. 

To date no one here has asked if God the Son violated the order of creation by taking on our human nature...by coming down to us as True God and true Man... by revealing the nature of God, not to regard the lowly estate of a young Jewish as a barrier to God the Son becoming a human man, but the freedom of God to act as God in, through and from the virgin Mary.

Was the incarnation of God the Son the ultimate violation of the order of creation as defined in LCMS literature?

Marie Meyer
No. Not as I see it. The Incarnation is a mystery we accept without understanding based on revelation. In some ways, so is the distinction between male and female. It isn’t just Gen. 2, it is also other places in Scripture that address the matter specifically and inference from Scripture that address the issue more generally or tangentially. It seems to me your position does an end around to avoid the Scriptures that address it by beginning with a set of foundational interpretations and using human reasoning from there to make things make sense even in opposition to divine revelation.

Given that I am a woman not a man, I have never played football.  I do, however,  understand what it means to attempt an end run.

The above strikes me as a misguided attempt to deny, dismiss, deflect and or disregard the fact that the order of creation, as defined and applied it the LCMS originates, in natural human reason. IOW, it's a classic end run to avoid  the one foundational Law to which man and woman are both subject, the first commandment... that we Let God, revealed as I AM WHo I AM for you, man and woman, be God in the life of man and woman.  No chain of being or chain of command end runs allowed. 

God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, relate as God to man and to woman.  Each are present as God in the life of man and woman.  Each are a living presence as God in the life of baptized man and woman.  Each are members of the One Holy Body of Christ who, but the power of the Holy Spirit grow up into the fullness of Christ, the One Head of the Church.

Marie Meyer



But we have been this road before.   

11
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 20, 2021, 04:37:43 PM »
The following appeared here on June1st...

"Rick Warren’s Saddleback church recently made headlines by ordaining three female leaders. I was grateful to see these women recognized and lent both the public authority and institutional accountability that comes from ordination. But when I read the news, I also thought with a heavy sigh, “Oh, here we go again.” I knew the debate about women’s roles in the church would dominate conversation all week, and I could already predict the rutted arguments I’d hear recited over and over."

Three weeks later and LCMS members of this list remain stuck in the same rut...defending an the order of creation structure where man and woman differ in origin, being, purpose and assigned non-interchangeable positions in relation to one another.

According to the accepted rational  the Genesis 2 biblical account of how God created the human male reveals God's design and will for an immutable pre-fall order of creation where the man, according to his visible created maleness, has natural precedence and authority in relation to woman. [/ This legal structure, known as the order of creation, does not apply in society.  It was for the sake of order and unity in the home and  among the people of God that God ordained the order.   

In the home and among the people of God, the order of creation structure binds God's authority to the man's position in the home and church.  NT texts are interpreted on the basis of the order of creation structure.

In society, God is free to work through man and woman to preserve creation. What Luther referred to as the orders of preservation. 

To date no one here has asked if God the Son violated the order of creation by taking on our human nature...by coming down to us as True God and true Man... by revealing the nature of God, not to regard the lowly estate of a young Jewish as a barrier to God the Son becoming a human man, but the freedom of God to act as God in, through and from the virgin Mary.

Was the incarnation of God the Son the ultimate violation of the order of creation as defined in LCMS literature?

Marie Meyer


12
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 17, 2021, 05:41:08 PM »
Marie, I think Tom, Peter, and Don are correctly describing the writer's intention in this case. A philosophical ontology was not in my mind as editor. As I've noted, I had not experienced this use of the term in this category of doctrine before seeing it on ALPB. It appears to be a Roman Catholic use, although someone cited Aulen saying something similar, perhaps because of views about apostolic succession that he shares with Roman Catholics.

Pr. Engelbrecht, several characteristics of TLSB are perplexing to me.

For example: wives and women are listed as biblical topics. For some reason, neither husbands or men are listed as biblical topics.  How can this be? Are men and woman so different that only women and wives are "topics" addressed in the Bible?

The 65 scholars consulted to write comments on the books of Scripture, introductions to the books and study notes began with the premise that a created difference between man and woman is that  men know the mind and will of God in ways not given to women.  They are designated by God to  teach woman the nature of her being, her purpose and the order of her relationship to men.  Rather than being "topics" in the Bible, men are the ones designated by God  to teach women and wives are "topic" in the Bible. 

Study notes begin with a God ordained "order of creation" that is a functional hierarchy of knowledge. How God created man and woman, man first, woman from the man, woman for the man, man having the authority to name woman all are given as reasons revealing God's will that man be the more responsible "party" in the order of creation.  It's all very rational.   

According to the TLSB man's sin is that he failed to exercise his authority as the head of the human community.  From the beginning, prior to the fall, man's role was to rule over woman.  "The order God established at creation has not been altered by the fall. Together, Adam and Eve will continue to rule over creation (1:28)."   However,   "God also intends that Adam remain God's steward, responsible for cultivating creation (vv, 17,23) and that the husband will remain the head of the family."     That women may now experience "the order of creation" as troublesome and a source of suffering is a direct result of the fall. 

What does this mean??? What about the pre-Fall "order of creation" might now be "troublesome" to woman?

Another confusing dimension of TLSB  is how the Incarnation of God the Son as the true Son of Man, born of the virgin Mary, is dismissed in study notes and comments.  Again the question, "What were the biblical scholars thinking about Mary, mother of God the Son incarnate as the Son of Man, when they stated that she was"confused by his calling," that "she did not agree with his decision to  leave the carpentry trade and live like a rabbi," and that "Jesus down played the suggestion that she was especially blessed because of their earthly calling."

Ironically, readers of the TLSB are directed to Luther's Magnificat Commentary.  I wonder how many of the consultants read where Luther states that Mary, as taught by the Holy Spirit, teaches us how to know God?  Given that the majority of laymen and laywomen have not read Luther on the Magnificat, why was Luther not quoted in TLSB comments on Mary? Why was the uniqueness of her invitation from God to be God's helper in the Incarnation ignored? 

The endless controversy concerns the biblical witness to how God, from the beginning, worked as God in the creation of Man, male and female in the image of God.  I understand a Lutheran theology of creation to beCreatio ex Nihilo.  In the Magnificat Commentary Luther states that the nature of God to "work from nothing"  remained the same in the incarnation of God the Son as the One true Son of Man as at the creation of woman from man.   

Whether at the creation of woman from man or the Incarnation of Jesus the Christ from a woman, God's work originated in and revealed the nature of  God's Divine gracious goodness in the life of man and woman.  Mary, as taught by the Holy Spirit, knew that what God accomplished from her for all the good of all humanity, was all about God.  God's work from her for human did not place her above any milk maid or any shepherd boy.

Marie Meyer
   

13
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 15, 2021, 08:13:41 PM »
Peter writes, "There simply is no way to understand humanity as created or salvation history as revealed without acknowledging the sharp distinction between male and female that is not part of the fall but part of the original creation and redeemed in the New Creation."


So how is the pre-fall "sharp distinction" of man and woman played out in the Church... in the home...in society?

As I understand the NT, the oneness of man and woman who are ONE Holy Body of Christ, is the work of God the Holy Spirit.  Due to the Living Presence of God the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace, man and woman who are the Church are now of one mind, heart, spirit and will.... the mind, heart, spirit and will of Christ, Head of the Church. 

Through Baptism, they are branches grafted to the same vine...IOW, the inner life of Christ is now a living reality in man and woman.  Both the Christian man and the Christian woman are changed from within even as they remain distinctly male or female. Rather than being directed inward toward self, including their distinct sexuality, both are directed to know God as revealed in Christ. 

According to Luther, a true biblical theology of creation, including the creation of man and woman, begins not with the creature, but the Creator. From a Lutheran perspective, it is crucial that we begin with the grace and freedom of God at creation. We, neither man nor woman, can understand or know the will of our good and gracious Creator apart from God's revelation of God in the Incarnate Son of God born of the virgin Mary.

If we try to understand God's work of creation in Genesis one and two apart from God revealed in Christ, we end with an understanding of creation that originates in natural reason.  The key to understanding God's work of creating Man, male and female, God's presence and promises to the people of Israel and God's presence in the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Son of Man and the Son of God.

Mary, the Mother of God the Son incarnate as the Son of Man, "got it."  What God accomplished in and through her through for the world is a work as significant as the creation of woman from a man ...if not more so.  Adam was asleep when God created woman from Adam for Adam.

Mary carried the Son of God in her womb for 9 months, she suffered the pain of giving birth to the Son of God become the Son of Man and then nursed him from her breasts.  Yet Mary did not  consider what God accomplished from her for the sake of the world as anything that set her above or apart from any milk maid... 

In the Magnificat Luther states that Mary, by her words and the example of her experience, teaches us how to know God....if we would but listen to her.  What might Mary teach us, man and woman, about God's work of creating woman from man?  Is it about the nature of God in relation to man and woman... or about an immtuable order of creation structure order of being structure of God, man, woman, animals?

Marie Meyer

Marie, you said:  "...or about an immtuable order of creation structure order of being structure of God, man, woman, animals?"

I'm not sure where you get the idea the LCMS - now or ever - suggest that women are of a different ONTOLOGICAL category than men.  As Peter as stressed to you numerous times, men and woman are both human beings created in God's image and yet we are also male and female.  We are ONTOLOGICALLY the same in our relationship to God, but God has given us different roles and vocations as male and female in His creation.  These two facts are not in opposition to each other.
Pastor Eckstein:

Suggest you read the CPH book LadyLike Living Biblically.  It passed doctrinal review, was recommended by President Harrison and Professor Peter Scaer.

Human is a category of being...male or female is not.  Human males and human females belong to the same category of being, human.  They are different in several ways, most certainly in that men are fathers, not mothers.  They most certainly are not spiritually different.

It's been 60 years since I took a few philosophy classes, but we seem to be operating with a different understanding of ontology.  I do not understand the Bible to say anything about "roles." I believe that man and woman were both created for the same purpose,  to give God glory, to be God's stewards in creation, to be God representatives on earth and above all, to know and be known to God.

marie   I

14
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 15, 2021, 09:47:56 AM »


Marie, I’m at a loss to discover where you think I disagree with you on any of this other than your last sentence, which is a false alternative. I don’t think it is at all fair to describe the LCMS position as though somehow woman were some level of creature between human and animal. Even the must arch-conservative advocate of patriarchy would not describe their views that way. The immutable order of creation is that men are men and women are women, and nobody is neither or both. To be human is to be either male or female, and they aren’t the same thing. 

Peter,

The so called "false alternative" appears in CPH publications that have  passed  the LCMS doctrinal review. (I have previously called attention to them.)  The critical issue is how "the order of creation" as a chain of being and/or a chain of command appears in LCMS writings including CTCR reports, Bible Studies, CPH books and Study Bibles. 

Previously you wrote," There simply is no way to understand humanity as created or salvation history as revealed without acknowledging the sharp distinction between male and female that is not part of the fall but part of the original creation and redeemed in the New Creation."

Perhaps I do not understand what is meant by "the sharp distinction between male and female that originates in Genesis two.What is the "sharp distinction" in question?  Does it refer to a distinction in being? in purpose? in the relationship between man and woman? a difference in authority?
 
We agree that humans are distinct as male and female.  We agree that Genesis 1-5 reveals God's will that Man, male and female, made in the image of God, were created as God's representatives on earth, stewards of God's creation and procreators of humans who would know and be known to God as Adam and Eve knew and were known to God.  IOW, the relationship between God and humans was to be an intimate relationship of unlike to unlike, Creator/creature, and like to like, God and human being good.   I think we agree that neither male or female could accomplish God's will for creation without the other.

We also agree that God created man and woman in different ways.  The man was created first. The woman was created from the man flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.  The woman was created for the man who could not accomplish God's will for humanity alone.  He needed a "helper," a counterpart that would be like him, yet unlike him. 

Where we begin to differ is in the following... "The point is simply that recognizing the distinction between male and female and recognizing that God made them different and in some ways with different, complementary purposes in no way means God doesn't relate to men and women equally according to His nature as God."   

First - I bag the terms "equal" or "equality." I do not think it's a biblical term used in reference to man and woman. 

The presenting issue is how the different manner in which God created man and woman reveal that they have "different complementary purposes?"  What are the two different complementary purposes for which God created man and woman?  Where do they apply? in the home? in the Church? in society.  If they belong to a pre-Fall deep distinction that belongs to being male and female, then the different purposes have to apply in society.

Whether in the home, the Church or society, man and woman are who they are.  The pre-Fall order of creation distinction has to apply when and wherever they are.. that is to say it belongs to their being.  It is simply not possible to state that the deep created distinction does not apply beyond the home and church.

Thus, my question remains, "What is the deep created distinction revealed as God's will in different manner God created man and woman?" How are we to live out the deep created distinction in the home? the Church? society?

Marie



   

15
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 14, 2021, 05:52:52 PM »
Peter writes, "There simply is no way to understand humanity as created or salvation history as revealed without acknowledging the sharp distinction between male and female that is not part of the fall but part of the original creation and redeemed in the New Creation."


So how is the pre-fall "sharp distinction" of man and woman played out in the Church... in the home...in society?

As I understand the NT, the oneness of man and woman who are ONE Holy Body of Christ, is the work of God the Holy Spirit.  Due to the Living Presence of God the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace, man and woman who are the Church are now of one mind, heart, spirit and will.... the mind, heart, spirit and will of Christ, Head of the Church. 

Through Baptism, they are branches grafted to the same vine...IOW, the inner life of Christ is now a living reality in man and woman.  Both the Christian man and the Christian woman are changed from within even as they remain distinctly male or female. Rather than being directed inward toward self, including their distinct sexuality, both are directed to know God as revealed in Christ. 

According to Luther, a true biblical theology of creation, including the creation of man and woman, begins not with the creature, but the Creator. From a Lutheran perspective, it is crucial that we begin with the grace and freedom of God at creation. We, neither man nor woman, can understand or know the will of our good and gracious Creator apart from God's revelation of God in the Incarnate Son of God born of the virgin Mary.

If we try to understand God's work of creation in Genesis one and two apart from God revealed in Christ, we end with an understanding of creation that originates in natural reason.  The key to understanding God's work of creating Man, male and female, God's presence and promises to the people of Israel and God's presence in the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Son of Man and the Son of God.

Mary, the Mother of God the Son incarnate as the Son of Man, "got it."  What God accomplished in and through her through for the world is a work as significant as the creation of woman from a man ...if not more so.  Adam was asleep when God created woman from Adam for Adam.

Mary carried the Son of God in her womb for 9 months, she suffered the pain of giving birth to the Son of God become the Son of Man and then nursed him from her breasts.  Yet Mary did not  consider what God accomplished from her for the sake of the world as anything that set her above or apart from any milk maid... 

In the Magnificat Luther states that Mary, by her words and the example of her experience, teaches us how to know God....if we would but listen to her.  What might Mary teach us, man and woman, about God's work of creating woman from man?  Is it about the nature of God in relation to man and woman... or about an immtuable order of creation structure order of being structure of God, man, woman, animals?

Marie Meyer

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 287