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] 4 5 ... 287
31
Your Turn / Tulsa Racial Massacre
« on: June 01, 2021, 04:22:45 PM »
Hannibal Johnson, a black lawyer in Tulsa, offered thoughts on the 100th 1921 Race Massacre in today's NYT.


"Like a wound left untreated, years of silence and neglect left the damage of the massacre to fester. Its effects linger.  Healing that history - owning an addressing it - is out present imperative...

"Learning this history is necessary if we are to advance toward racial reconciliation, but it is not sufficient. We must also build trust across racial groups...Like trust building, the larger project of racial reconciliation requires acknowledgement, apology and atonement.  Here, it's a work in progress."

"The city's efforts at reconciliation, while unquestionable incomplete, strike the right tone, one of inclusion and openness to new possibilities. Racial reconciliation requires trust among individuals and community constituents that define us. Tulsa is ot alone. Most communities have work to do - which mean that most of us have work to do, too."

Food for thought.  I did not know anything about the Tulsa massacre until I became acquainted with the Lutheran Human Relations Association.

Marie Meyer

32
Your Turn / Re: Israel and Hamas
« on: May 20, 2021, 05:16:20 PM »
The Palestinians are fighting for their homeland, and have been deceived and  betrayed for decades. At every “peace,” Israel expands its “sovereignty “ over land and people.

That's the way I see it.

Marie Meyer

33
Your Turn / Re: Marva Dawn +
« on: May 14, 2021, 12:56:04 PM »
As a Seminarian at Concordia, St.Louis from 1964 to 1968, I would like to share a fact.
Our professors who taught Dogmatics and the Book of Concord included Piepkorn, Robert
Preus, Ralph Bohlmann, Klann, and Wunderlich.  In all of my classes with them the topic
of women's ordination was never discussed. It was assumed that pastoral ministry was
for men according to Holy Scriptures.

It was also "assumed" then that women were not allowed to vote in their congregation.

Prior to 1968 the LCMS had not adopted Zerbst's understanding of "the order of creation and the  order of redemption.  My husband graduated in 1963 and was never taught anything about "the order of creation" as an immutable structure were God assigned man and woman two non-interchangeable of supra and subordinate positions in relation to one another.

Luther spoke of the orders of creation defined as orders of preservation where God acted as God in and through men and women for the preservation of a fallen creation.

Marie Meyer

34
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

35
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

36
Your Turn / Re: Beyond Order
« on: May 10, 2021, 04:44:21 PM »
In practically every culture, part of becoming a man is distinguishing yourself from women. Our culture doesn't encourage that or allow that, so we end up with toxic masculinity or else neutered people.


But not every culture, which indicates that it is a cultural determination rather than inbred.


I find it ironic that you speak against profiling people by races/color of skin, but you are more than eager to profile people by their biology.
That's because biological/sex difference are real. Races/skin color is an arbitrary, artificial distinction. What culture do you know of in which becoming a man did not involve distinguishing oneself from women? And why would we find it surprising that even in something as innate as sex differences there might be the rare, exceptional culture in which something innate had become perverted or expressed in ways that other cultures do not see it?


The biological/sex differences are real. Gender identity is an arbitrary, artificial distinction. Genitalia are created by certain chromosomes we are born with. Sexual orientation and gender identity take place in the brain, not genitalia. They are influenced by many different factors: possibly genes, possibly hormones, possibly environment, and more likely, a combination of things.
Yes, and when I speak of men and women I am talking about real sex differences and a male-female binary, not perceived placement on a spectrum of gender differences.


Being born with a penis (or vagina) says nothing about what that person is able to do or likes to do, except produce sperm (or produce eggs and carry a child in a womb). It doesn't say who will be a better hunter or nurturer or mathematician or welder, etc.
Actually it says quite a lot. Not infallibly, of course, but hormones do a lot more than form genitalia. Studies even of infants show strong male/female differences in many things, and those differences persist into childhood.

And these differences are????

Marie Meyer
Is that a genuine question? You sincerely wonder whether hormones such as testosterone make any lasting difference beyond the formation of genitalia?

Even as infants girls respond more to human faces and boys respond more to moving objects. Girls develop faster, have better fine motor skills sooner, have a much more developed sense of smell, can discern shades of color better, can read people's moods better, and have better verbal skills. In general they simply talk more than boys. Countless studies confirm major differences in brain development based on the presence of male or female hormones.

Testosterone makes a person more aggressive, competitive, and willing to take risks. Women are more risk-averse than men. Studies back this up. One study demonstrated that a young boy gains status in the eyes of his peers by doing something physically dangerous for no reason, say, by taking a dare to jump off a roof onto a dumpster below, but a girl loses status in the eyes of her peers by doing the same thing. Men dominate the corridors of power-- the senate and the corporate board room-- for the same reason they dominate the prisons. They play for higher stakes than women, moving to the extremes of positive and negative while girls and women gravitate to the middle.

There is a reason people who think they can change from male to female or vice versa don't just surgically alter their genitals. They have hormone therapy because male and female hormones make profound, lasting differences.

The question was sincere. No question, hormones do contribute to certain differences between men and woman. At the same time some of the differences mentioned are not true for all girls/women and all boys/men. 

My question was in regard to spiritual differences.  In what way are do boys and girls differ spiritually?  How do adult men and adult women differ spiritually?  IOW, what does the Bible teach us about how God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit relate to man and woman?

Marie Meyer

37
Your Turn / Re: Beyond Order
« on: May 09, 2021, 04:23:47 PM »
In practically every culture, part of becoming a man is distinguishing yourself from women. Our culture doesn't encourage that or allow that, so we end up with toxic masculinity or else neutered people.


But not every culture, which indicates that it is a cultural determination rather than inbred.


I find it ironic that you speak against profiling people by races/color of skin, but you are more than eager to profile people by their biology.
That's because biological/sex difference are real. Races/skin color is an arbitrary, artificial distinction. What culture do you know of in which becoming a man did not involve distinguishing oneself from women? And why would we find it surprising that even in something as innate as sex differences there might be the rare, exceptional culture in which something innate had become perverted or expressed in ways that other cultures do not see it?


The biological/sex differences are real. Gender identity is an arbitrary, artificial distinction. Genitalia are created by certain chromosomes we are born with. Sexual orientation and gender identity take place in the brain, not genitalia. They are influenced by many different factors: possibly genes, possibly hormones, possibly environment, and more likely, a combination of things.
Yes, and when I speak of men and women I am talking about real sex differences and a male-female binary, not perceived placement on a spectrum of gender differences.


Being born with a penis (or vagina) says nothing about what that person is able to do or likes to do, except produce sperm (or produce eggs and carry a child in a womb). It doesn't say who will be a better hunter or nurturer or mathematician or welder, etc.
Actually it says quite a lot. Not infallibly, of course, but hormones do a lot more than form genitalia. Studies even of infants show strong male/female differences in many things, and those differences persist into childhood.

And these differences are????

Marie Meyer

38
Your Turn / Re: Marva Dawn +
« on: May 09, 2021, 04:22:09 PM »
Remembrances of Marva Dawn:

In 1992 I negotiated with Paul Hinlicky, editor of the Lutheran Forum, to publish Different Voice/Shared Vision, Male and Female in the Trinitarian Community.  The essays were by Marva Dawn, Dot Nuechterlein,  The Rev Richard Hinz (President of the LCMS South Eastern District) Liz Yates and Marie Meyer. None of the essays referred to the ordination of women.  The goal was to address the question:

"What is the Biblical basis for understanding who we are as sons and daughters of God and how does this affects our participation in the Church?  Paul and I reviewed the essays for publication and I approved a draft of the essays.

Unknown to me, Paul wrote an Afterword titled, "Why Women May Be Ordained" and the added an appendix "An Appeal  to Missouri for the Ordination of Women" by George L Murphy. I was to have received the Hinlicky  Afterword and the Murphy Appendix.   I did not.  The book was published without my knowledge of either the Afterword or the Appendix. In fact, I did not know they existed until after all LCMS District Presidents received a gift copy of the book.

Thus, I faced the question, "Do I ask the ALPB to recall all books sent out and reprint the essays where NO mention was made of ordaining women,  or  do write a  letter to all the DPs explaining what happened?" At the time the ALPB was low on funds. We were new at book publishing.  What to do? I spoke to each essayist.  The only one whose teaching career in the LCMS was at stake was Marva Dawn.  The others felt an explanation of what happened would be accepted without any detriment to their service in the LCMS.  Reluctantly Marva agreed not to ask the ALPB to reprint the book without the two additions. I made the final decision not to ask the ALPB for a reprint.

I have lived with the knowledge that I contributed to why Marva Dawn's  LCMS teaching career became suspect.  She came to be regarded as a "feminist" who promoted the ordination of women. 

In retrospect, I should has asked the ALPB to destroy the books as first printed and to reprint the book with only the original essays.  Mistakes were made by Paul Hinlicky, the office staff who somehow neglected to send me a final draft with the two additions and by me for not asking the ALPB to proceed with a reprint.

I tell this story not to dishonor Marva Dawn, but to somehow make amends for how her LCMS teaching career came to an end.

Marie Meyer

I think, if I were you, I would more upset with Paul Hinlicky and the ALPB than with the LCMS.



 Pr. Bohler:    Please explain the basis for saying I am "upset" with the LCMS. The LCMS is the Mother that nurtured me, gave me an incredible education and provided me with many opportunities to serve our God and Father. Marva Dawn was never "upset" with the LCMS. She continued to believe God had given her gifts to serve LCMS brothers in their understanding of God's Word.

I was blessed to have John Damm for a 4th grade teacher.  There is no end of what he taught his students about the liturgy.   6th grade teacher Herbert Geisler focused on the Means of Grace.  That year, 1950, I was awarded first place in a District wide essay contest on "What My Baptism Means to Me."

Robert Schnable, 7th and 8th grade teacher, had his students keep a work book in which we had to summarize the Sunday lessons in our words.  We had to state what God was saying to us in the Epistle and Gospel as well as identify the of theme of the lessons and the propers.  IOW, I was taught that girls, like boys, were responsible to strive for excellence in our daily morning religions class.

At our 8th graduation Teacher Schnable introduced boys and girls to Luther's concept of vocation.  Our vocation was to be the best possible student in whatever large NYC public school we would attend. At the same time, we were to continue to attend Bible Class and grow up into the fullness of Christ, Head of the Church. Vocation was not linked to whether were male or female.   

Am I "upset" with the LCMS today?  In this regard I think it best not project how you would feel or think in my situation.  I am simply living out what  LCMS pastors and teachers taught me about "Letting God Be God" in my life.  (See Philip Watson's book Let God Be God, a study on Luther's Galatians Commentary.)

I look for the day LCMS theologians take a serious look at how Genesis one and two are quoted to claim knowledge of God's will for woman while excluding women from an exegetical study of the tests.  Till then, I am here to stay.

Marie Meyer

39
Your Turn / Re: Marva Dawn +
« on: May 09, 2021, 12:31:52 PM »
Remembrances of Marva Dawn:

In 1992 I negotiated with Paul Hinlicky, editor of the Lutheran Forum, to publish Different Voice/Shared Vision, Male and Female in the Trinitarian Community.  The essays were by Marva Dawn, Dot Nuechterlein,  The Rev Richard Hinz (President of the LCMS South Eastern District) Liz Yates and Marie Meyer. None of the essays referred to the ordination of women.  The goal was to address the question:

"What is the Biblical basis for understanding who we are as sons and daughters of God and how does this affects our participation in the Church?  Paul and I reviewed the essays for publication and I approved a draft of the essays.

Unknown to me, Paul wrote an Afterword titled, "Why Women May Be Ordained" and the added an appendix "An Appeal  to Missouri for the Ordination of Women" by George L Murphy. I was to have received the Hinlicky  Afterword and the Murphy Appendix.   I did not.  The book was published without my knowledge of either the Afterword or the Appendix. In fact, I did not know they existed until after all LCMS District Presidents received a gift copy of the book.

Thus, I faced the question, "Do I ask the ALPB to recall all books sent out and reprint the essays where NO mention was made of ordaining women,  or  do write a  letter to all the DPs explaining what happened?" At the time the ALPB was low on funds. We were new at book publishing.  What to do? I spoke to each essayist.  The only one whose teaching career in the LCMS was at stake was Marva Dawn.  The others felt an explanation of what happened would be accepted without any detriment to their service in the LCMS.  Reluctantly Marva agreed not to ask the ALPB to reprint the book without the two additions. I made the final decision not to ask the ALPB for a reprint.

I have lived with the knowledge that I contributed to why Marva Dawn's  LCMS teaching career became suspect.  She came to be regarded as a "feminist" who promoted the ordination of women. 

In retrospect, I should has asked the ALPB to destroy the books as first printed and to reprint the book with only the original essays.  Mistakes were made by Paul Hinlicky, the office staff who somehow neglected to send me a final draft with the two additions and by me for not asking the ALPB to proceed with a reprint.

I tell this story not to dishonor Marva Dawn, but to somehow make amends for how her LCMS teaching career came to an end.

Marie Meyer

Without question, the ALPB wronged you and the other authors, especially Dr. Dawn. There is no excuse. I am ashamed of my institution.

At the same time, the LCMS officials did not have to judge Dr. Dawn with guilt by association. They should instead have read her carefully to see that she did not advocate ordination for women. I suspect, however, that they were tempted by the urge to impose a supression of women. For many years after there were no women on our theological faculties. All as Bishop Benke explains above.

Peace, JOHN

John, you will recall that the publication of Different Voices/Shared Vision took place when the ALPB was new at book publication.  I honestly think this unfortunate incident was a communication issue.  The book should not have been published without my written or verbal approval.  Paul simply did not understand LCMS culture in matters pertaining to God's creation, woman.

As soon as I found out that all the DPs had received the book, I contacted DP John Heins, Chairman of the Synodical DPs.  He encouraged me to write a letter to all the DPs stating what happened.  Rich Hinz thought that would be sufficient.  He was not concerned for his reputation or position.  Paul Hinlicky  was troubled by what happened, but money to cover a reprint was a problem.   The George Murphy Appendix was a reprint from an earlier Lutheran Forum.

A lesson was learned by all involved.  Marva Dawn, being the woman she was,  never held a grudge against anyone.  She and I continued to work together in our desire to have the LCMS re-examine how it arrived at the concept of an immutable "order of creation" structure where God subordinated woman to man in the Genesis two account of creation.
 
Your sister in Christ,

marie

40
Please refer to my final post regarding the late Marva Dawn.

Thank you.

Marie Meyer

41
Your Turn / Re: Marva Dawn +
« on: May 08, 2021, 08:24:06 PM »
Remembrances of Marva Dawn:

In 1992 I negotiated with Paul Hinlicky, editor of the Lutheran Forum, to publish Different Voice/Shared Vision, Male and Female in the Trinitarian Community.  The essays were by Marva Dawn, Dot Nuechterlein,  The Rev Richard Hinz (President of the LCMS South Eastern District) Liz Yates and Marie Meyer. None of the essays referred to the ordination of women.  The goal was to address the question:

"What is the Biblical basis for understanding who we are as sons and daughters of God and how does this affects our participation in the Church?  Paul and I reviewed the essays for publication and I approved a draft of the essays.

Unknown to me, Paul wrote an Afterword titled, "Why Women May Be Ordained" and the added an appendix "An Appeal  to Missouri for the Ordination of Women" by George L Murphy. I was to have received the Hinlicky  Afterword and the Murphy Appendix.   I did not.  The book was published without my knowledge of either the Afterword or the Appendix. In fact, I did not know they existed until after all LCMS District Presidents received a gift copy of the book.

Thus, I faced the question, "Do I ask the ALPB to recall all books sent out and reprint the essays where NO mention was made of ordaining women,  or  do write a  letter to all the DPs explaining what happened?" At the time the ALPB was low on funds. We were new at book publishing.  What to do? I spoke to each essayist.  The only one whose teaching career in the LCMS was at stake was Marva Dawn.  The others felt an explanation of what happened would be accepted without any detriment to their service in the LCMS.  Reluctantly Marva agreed not to ask the ALPB to reprint the book without the two additions. I made the final decision not to ask the ALPB for a reprint.

I have lived with the knowledge that I contributed to why Marva Dawn's  LCMS teaching career became suspect.  She came to be regarded as a "feminist" who promoted the ordination of women. 

In retrospect, I should has asked the ALPB to destroy the books as first printed and to reprint the book with only the original essays.  Mistakes were made by Paul Hinlicky, the office staff who somehow neglected to send me a final draft with the two additions and by me for not asking the ALPB to proceed with a reprint.

I tell this story not to dishonor Marva Dawn, but to somehow make amends for how her LCMS teaching career came to an end.

Marie Meyer


42
Your Turn / Re: Marva Dawn +
« on: May 08, 2021, 10:03:02 AM »
In respect to my friend Marva Dawn I offer the following:  Marva complete an M.A. degree in English and an M.Div New Testament.  She was awarded an PhD. in Christian Ethics and the Scriptures from Notre Dame.

Christian ethics from a biblical perspective was her primary interest, hence her Pro. Life position, her support of marriage as the faithful union of one man and one woman and her ongoing emphasis on justice for the poor.

Marva did not support the LCMS understanding of "the order of creation" as God's pre-Fall  natural Law mandating the subordination of woman to man in the church and home.

Why? Because it bound the consciences of  LCMS men and women to a God ordained "order of creation" structure in the church and home.The LCMS claim that the order of creation did not apply in society made no sense to Marva. (A mutual friend, Dot Nuechterlein, commented, "The message to LCMS women results in woman having a split person. Woman is by nature subordinate in the church and home, but not in society.")   

If "the order of creation" belongs to natural Law and was given to Adam and Eve prior to the Fall, then man and woman are both bound to the ethics of a structured order where woman is subordinate to the man who has natural priority and authority in relation to woman.

On the basis of her study of Old and New Testament texts Marva maintained the LCMS needed to re-examine "the order of creation"  as the God ordained subordination of woman to man. 

Marie Meyer

43
Your Turn / Re: Marva Dawn
« on: May 07, 2021, 01:45:25 PM »
It seems that your view just might be a little too simplistic, Mrs. Meyer. E.g., posts 62, 63, 64 et al.

https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7769.60

Simplistic?

Pr. Kirchner, might my view have anything to being a woman in the LCMS?

For example: In 1975 I was elected to the synodical Committee for Nominations, one of the first two women elected to any position at a synodical convention.  Thus, this was the first time men on the Committee had the opportunity to work with a woman at the synodical level, particularly a committee of considerable importance.

Chairman District President August Mennicke was welcoming and supportive, as was President Jack Preus.  However, several of the other men made it clear that they did not think it appropriate for a women to serve on this committee. I was questioned as to who was caring for my children while I was in St. Louis.  (Bill  and the children managed very well without me.)  One member of the committee just happened to mention that his wife was happy to a homemaker.  The experience was not pleasant.

Sadly, a significant number of women educated to serve as teachers or deaconesses have left the LCMS as a direct result of perceived prohibitions on how and where women may serve in the church.  For the record, they did not leave because they wanted to  be ordained.

Marie Meyer

44
Your Turn / Re: Marva Dawn
« on: May 07, 2021, 11:55:33 AM »
Marva Dawn was a Biblical scholar whose gifts were not recognized by the church she was qualified to serve.   When a vacancy occurred in the Religion Department at Concordia College, St. Paul, Marva was the choice of the faculty search committee.  LCMS President Al Barry used the influence of his office to state she was in no way to be offered a position to teach theology at an LCMS college.

One of the sad stories of our LCMS history.

Marie Meyer
I don't think your statement follows. Her gifts were recognized; that's why the search committee wanted her. Everyone knew she was gifted. Barry may or may not have had valid reasons for arguing against her appointment to a specific position, but I very much doubt his argument was that she lacked the theological acumen.

The reason was simple.  Marva Dawn was a woman.

Marie Meyer

45
Your Turn / Re: Marva Dawn
« on: May 07, 2021, 09:25:37 AM »
Marva Dawn was a Biblical scholar whose gifts were not recognized by the church she was qualified to serve.   When a vacancy occurred in the Religion Department at Concordia College, St. Paul, Marva was the choice of the faculty search committee.  LCMS President Al Barry used the influence of his office to state she was in no way to be offered a position to teach theology at an LCMS college.

One of the sad stories of our LCMS history.

Marie Meyer

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 287