Author Topic: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?  (Read 138173 times)

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1980 on: February 06, 2011, 08:38:56 PM »
Yes, though, I suspect you're correct the one is NOW more characteristic of ELCA and the other of Missouri - we've still got, I strongly suspect, strong minorities for the alternative way of reading in either body.

One other note that may be of interest:  there tends to be a higher valuation of the LXX and of the received text of the NT among folks who approach things like I do.  I still remember the first task of exegesis I was taught:  "Establish the text."  Well, I still do that.  I check to see what the Majority text is, and not what ended up in the trashcan in Alexandria...  :)
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 08:43:13 PM by Weedon »

Scott6

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1981 on: February 06, 2011, 09:09:18 PM »
Yes, though, I suspect you're correct the one is NOW more characteristic of ELCA and the other of Missouri - we've still got, I strongly suspect, strong minorities for the alternative way of reading in either body.

One other note that may be of interest:  there tends to be a higher valuation of the LXX and of the received text of the NT among folks who approach things like I do.  I still remember the first task of exegesis I was taught:  "Establish the text."  Well, I still do that.  I check to see what the Majority text is, and not what ended up in the trashcan in Alexandria...  :)

Absolutely about the LXX.  In fact, early in Christian history the Christians came to be the ones defending the veracity and authority of the LXX over other Greek translations over and against the Jews (and it was preferred to the Hebrew in many cases).  So even though it was the Jews that initially lauded the LXX, it was that very translation that came to underwrite Christian interpretation of the OT such that using it began to be a distinctive mark of a Christian / "min" (what the Jews called folks like Christians who held to some type of Logos theory).

As to the majority textform, eh.  I'm not as sold.  If use were the primary criteria, then in the West we should stick with the Vulgate.  I could probably be convinced, but I'd have to do more research into the actual texts involved as I haven't examined the particular questions involved in any depth before.  It hasn't been of interest to me.  Yet.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 09:52:33 PM by Scott Yakimow »

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1982 on: February 06, 2011, 10:02:33 PM »
Well, when you get around to processing that, I'd be most curious about your thoughts.  And, of course, the Vulgate in the West.  It was the volume that Lutherans continued to read from!  In case you're interested, a presentation for my Winkel Tuesday on the Magdeburg Cathedral Book of 1613:  http://weedon.blogspot.com/2011/02/winkel-presentation.html  The Vulgate was MUCH in play!  It was the Psalter they kept singing from.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42619
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1983 on: February 06, 2011, 11:27:16 PM »

Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (ESV)

...

Childbearing a requirement for salvation?  Where do you see that?

In the boldfaced parts of the text. A simple read of the main sentence.

Nonsense, Brian.  If it were a requirement for salvation, Paul would have written, "She had to bear children in order to be saved."

Paul did use διά with the genitive, which is commonly "a marker of the instrument by which something is accomplished." Thus, childbearing is the "instrument" by which salvation is accomplished.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

James Gustafson

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1984 on: February 07, 2011, 12:09:47 AM »
Paul did use διά with the genitive, which is commonly "a marker of the instrument by which something is accomplished." Thus, childbearing is the "instrument" by which salvation is accomplished.

Through childbearing all women are saved, through childbearing, Mary bore Jesus into the world.   The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh, through childbearing —if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control, we are ALL saved through that childbearing.  As Eve's decedent, the head of the serpent was crushed, through Eve's childbearing, she was saved.  Through childbearing, we are all saved—if we continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Why is this difficult?

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1985 on: February 07, 2011, 12:41:47 AM »

Paul did use διά with the genitive, which is commonly "a marker of the instrument by which something is accomplished." Thus, childbearing is the "instrument" by which salvation is accomplished.

The instrument?  Or an instrument?


The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1986 on: February 07, 2011, 12:43:59 AM »

OK, cross out the "LCMS" and "ELCA" labels and just call them two different reading styles.

This ELCA-trained pastor thanks you.

Pax, Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Karl Hess

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1987 on: February 07, 2011, 12:57:44 AM »
Oh, that version is all in my head - in more ways than one!  :) 

No, I don't think we'd conceive of Adam as ordaining Eve; it was simply Adam failing to hold to and proclaim and teach the Word that had been entrusted to him.  Allowing something else to substitute for it.  It is interesting that although the Lord charges Adam with the sin of listening to his wife's voice over God's own; the text does not actually record anything that Eve said to him.  Obviously, it was something, but what it was, we're left guessing.  And maybe there's an important point in that too - it doesn't MATTER what she said; what matters is that our first father did not hold to God's Word in the face of other words that came to him.  A lesson there for us all.

Continuing in the Missourian school of exegesis that finds meaning in the minutiae of the text--something else is there I think that we haven't yet mentioned.  I steal this reading from Peter Bender, who suggests it in his Lutheran Catechesis binder.  

The devil's way is always to pervert God's creation, since he is not able to create on his own.  So when the serpent enters the garden, he engages in a theological discourse with Eve.  This in itself is an attack on God's created order; Adam and Eve are not autonomous individuals--they are one.  If you want to talk to them, particularly about something so weighty as God's Word and the true worship of God, you should be talking to Adam since he has been created first and Eve has been taken out of Adam and made His helper.  Adam is the teacher and the authority in his family; Eve is not the one who teaches God's word or makes decisions for the family.  In fact, Eve's stealing of the fruit was not only disobedience in that God had forbidden them to eat it, but that she had made this decision unilaterally which would effect both of them who had been made one flesh.

I think that this is what Paul is getting at in 1 Timothy 2.  "For Adam was created first..."  Eve, created second and taken from Adam, is not to exercise authority over Adam but to be his helper.  "And Adam was not deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."  Why wasn't Adam deceived?  This forum is evidence enough that women are not stupid and are quite capable of holding their own with men intellectually, and equal or superior to men at being able to read people and spot liars.  So why was she deceived, but not Adam? I'm not sure I know the answer to this, although I do note that Peter calls the wife "the weaker partner" in marriage.  I have had women in the church tell me that they think only a man ought to be the principal of our parochial school because they need to  keep order and put up with constant complaints.  What is interesting is that the women who say this are divorced, have careers and are successful in them.  I also had an argument with someone on here awhile back about the verse in Isaiah (I think) where Israel is said to be under God's curse and that this is shown because He "makes women their rulers" and children their counsellors, or something to that effect.  And I also vaguely remember and exchange between Deborah in Judges and a man who is afraid to go out to battle without her, which if I remember correctly she says something like, "If I go out to battle with you, you will have no glory because you needed a woman to help you lead."  Which is either  her critique of Israelitish sexism (unlikely) or her acknowledgement that it is the role of  man to lead.  

"Women will be saved through childbearing."  Right--that is the woman's primary calling--that is the context in which her curse is pronounced.  She is not to exercise authority over a man--that is not her God-given place; she is to be under the authority of her husband (or father), becaue woman was created second, not first, and because (it seems) as the weaker partner she was the one deceived by the serpent and is not created to serve in the ministry or otherwise govern or rule men.  However, says Paul, she will be saved through bearing children--if she continues in" what is it, faith and self-control, or love and self-control?  At any rate, remaining in the faith, fulfilling her calling, she will be saved.  That is more than any of us could ask for.  It's the reward.  Being a pastor, or the head of the house, or the president is not the reward for a Christian--they are simply the places in which God has seen fit to call me to serve.  One person he calls to this and another to that.  But whether we think our calling is good or lousy (don't most people wish they had someone else's calling)--what is eagerly to be desired is not a temporary calling on earth but eternal life.  That is already promised us in Christ.  Oswald Bayer quotes a letter from Paul Gerhardt where Gerhardt writes to his son and says something to the effect of "always be ready to lend to the poor, even if they cannot pay you back," and Bayer says that the reader is expecting Gerhardt to go on, "Because God will pay you back when you show mercy to His poor."  But instead Gerhardt writes, "Because God has paid you back already" by giving His Son to be forsaken with the millstone of our sins tied around His neck.  That is how it is when our calling seems lowly and worthless to us.  If that is what God has called you to do, consider it holy and excellent work, because it has His command.  And the reward that we do not deserve has already been given us gratis--the forgiveness of sins through the suffering of Jesus.  

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12240
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1988 on: February 07, 2011, 10:36:57 AM »
This may or may not make any sense.  I have thought that perhaps part of what Paul is saying about women being saved through childbearing is that while his has stated that the man is to be the head of the household, women also have a unique role that only they can fulfill - childbearing.  Both are worthy of honor.

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Scott6

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1989 on: February 07, 2011, 11:13:37 AM »
Seems to me the Ap is pretty good on this.  Here's what I quoted earlier:

Likewise, “She will be saved through childbearing,” and so on (1 Timothy 2:15). If the adversaries could produce such a passage about celibacy, then certainly they would celebrate a wonderful triumph. Paul says that woman is saved by childbearing. What more honorable thing could be said against the hypocrisy of celibacy than that woman is saved by the conjugal works themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by bearing children and the other duties? But what does St. Paul mean? Let the reader observe that faith is added, and that domestic duties without faith are not praised. “If they continue,” he says, “in faith.” For he speaks of the whole class of mothers. Therefore, he requires especially faith, through which a woman receives the forgiveness of sins and justification. Then he adds a particular work of the calling, just as in every person a good work of a particular calling should follow faith. This work pleases God because of faith. So the duties of the woman please God because of faith, and the believing woman is saved who devoutly serves her calling in such duties. (Ap XXIII:32; Concordia 214-5)

So it focuses upon the role of faith in salvation and then takes the reference to childbearing as a particular work characteristic of a woman's calling and sees it as pleasing to God only on account of faith.  Not bad for a difficult text.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42619
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1990 on: February 07, 2011, 01:05:41 PM »

Paul did use διά with the genitive, which is commonly "a marker of the instrument by which something is accomplished." Thus, childbearing is the "instrument" by which salvation is accomplished.

The instrument?  Or an instrument?

As someone else mentioned, there is a definite article.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

hillwilliam

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1991 on: February 07, 2011, 01:16:27 PM »
see I think it is theologically wrong to introduce terms into the Genesis narrative that just don't occur or belong there...

I submit that this paper by Rolf Preus tends to disagree.

http://www.christforus.org/TheServiceofWomeninandfortheChurch.htm

Rolf points out that the divine command (law) to not eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden was given by God to Adam prior to the creation of Eve. "The divine command not to eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden came to Eve through Adam."  As you have stated, Pr. Mozolak, pastors preach law and gospel. Adam preached the divine law to Eve. So, according to your criterion, he was Eve's pastor.

"God speaks to the woman through the man.  The man spoke for God.  God chose to speak to the woman through the man.  When the man disobeyed God it was because he listened to the voice of his wife [Gen. 3:17].  God had not given to Eve the authority to speak on his behalf to the man.  By listening to her voice and obeying her Adam acquiesced to her assuming the pastoral office.  He made her his pastor.  He ordained her.  The ordination of a woman was the original sin."


Let's sum this up:

Man is the head of the woman as Jesus is the head of the Church.

Adam is, therefore, the Pastor of Eve. His ordination was made by God and we inherit that ordination within our family units by virtue of being born "men". The Latter Day Saints have a similar teaching.

Common logic would therefore follow that men are be empowered to preside over a Eucharist within their family.

Considering that Pastors can, on occasion, preside at another Pastor's altar. Every man should be able to preside at any altar within his congregation, district, or synod.

Oh what a tangled web. So am I my wife's Pastor or were you just using hyperbole?

kls

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1992 on: February 07, 2011, 02:09:47 PM »
Let's sum this up:

Man is the head of the woman as Jesus is the head of the Church.

Adam is, therefore, the Pastor of Eve. His ordination was made by God and we inherit that ordination within our family units by virtue of being born "men". The Latter Day Saints have a similar teaching.

Common logic would therefore follow that men are be empowered to preside over a Eucharist within their family.

Considering that Pastors can, on occasion, preside at another Pastor's altar. Every man should be able to preside at any altar within his congregation, district, or synod.

Oh what a tangled web. So am I my wife's Pastor or were you just using hyperbole?

Just so you know, you also mock Luther:

Thus this text truly pertains to the church or theology. After God has given man the administration of government and of the home, has set him up as king of the creatures, and has added the tree of life as a safeguard for preserving this physical life, He now builds him, as it were, a temple that he may worship Him and thank the God who has so kindly bestowed all these things on him. Today in our churches we have an altar for the administration of the Eucharist, and we have platforms or pulpits for teaching the people. These objects were built not only to meet a need but also to create a solemn atmosphere. But this tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Adam’s church, altar, and pulpit. Here he was to yield to God the obedience he owed, give recognition to the Word and will of God, give thanks to God, and call upon God for aid against temptation.

Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ;  Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther's Works, Vol. 1  : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5. Saint Louis : Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1958 (Luther's Works 1), S. 1:94

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12240
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1993 on: February 07, 2011, 02:22:13 PM »
Seems to me that when it was just Adam and Eve, there was no established church per se and no pastoral office such as we know it today established yet.  Part of the whole question to be decided there by Adam and Eve was whether such an office would later be needed.  To call Adam Eve's pastor perhaps works as an analogy, he served for Eve some of the same functions that pastors serve for congregants today.  But to posit that the pastoral office existed at that point (who established it? when?  why was it needed?) and that Adam held (was called?  by whom?) to that office stretches things a bit.

Trying to decide whose sin was greater, Adam's or Eve's, seem a rather futile exercise.  Both were guilty, both had a hand in bringing sin into the world, both exhibited some of the less attractive qualities of sinful people immediately thereafter (hiding, denying, blaming others, etc.).  Learning from their mistakes could be useful.  Trying to make Adam or Eve more guilty and by extension making men or women more responsible for the sin in the world simply extends that blaming game that Adam and Eve played with God.  Didn't work well for them, doesn't really help us now.

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

kls

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #1994 on: February 07, 2011, 02:52:53 PM »
Trying to make Adam or Eve more guilty and by extension making men or women more responsible for the sin in the world simply extends that blaming game that Adam and Eve played with God.  Didn't work well for them, doesn't really help us now.

I don't believe I've heard anyone put forth that either Adam or Eve had a greater sin, but I could have missed it; from what I've read, both are equally culpable.  What does help us now is knowing one of the reasons why God ordained the authority that He did within the home and the church (Gen 3:16) . . . that Eve sinned first in her failure to heed God's Word (1 Tim 2:14).