Author Topic: God's regard  (Read 3127 times)

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4308
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2021, 11:14:22 AM »
For those who have complaints about the Study Bible, be sure you write out your concerns clearly and submit them to the current Bible editor at CPH. That is the best way to have your concerns represented and addressed.

Be sure to cite the specific page and text you think needs to be changed or improved. General complaints will be little help to the editor and will likely produce no results. Broad changes will not be made due to associated costs; smaller corrections may be made at a reprinting. That's the process.

I offer a reality check based on experience.  On two occasions I expressed "concerns' for two CPH books.  My letters were not stated as "complaints;" they offered specific references to sub-biblical non Confessional statements in a book that passed doctrinal review. 

The doctrine in question was the Trinity. Two essays in Women Pastors? referred to the  eternal subordination of God the Son to God the Father.  Both linked the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father to substantiate the claim that the Bible teaches the subordination of woman to man in the church and home.

Having heard nothing I contacted three pastors and alerted them to the two essays.  They wrote to CPH, President Harrison and Prof. John Pless.  The first edition of Women Pastors? quietly disappeared.  Persons who called CPH  were told it was "sold out."  The reason for a second edition was never made public, nor were existing book recalled. Many had been  shipped to partner churches in Africa.

My second failed attempt to hear from CPH concerned Lady Like Living. Here again, the book passed doctrinal review,  even when Genesis 2 was used to support a God ordained order of creation hierarchy; God> man>woman> animals.   The book clearly support a non-biblical chain of being. 

Like David Benke, my LCMS school education began with the KJV Bible; no study notes.  The Thompson Chain Reference Bible was used in high and college.   Because The Lutheran Study Bible is said to be for the laity, all the more reason to guard against taking the laity down a path that distorts how God the Father,  God the Son and God the Holy Spirit work as God in and through man and woman.

The ultimate issue here is letting the Triune God, as revealed in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, be God in the life of man and woman.  More about this after I re-read Luther's Magnificat Commentary. 

Marie Otten Meyer




   



peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17010
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2021, 12:36:15 PM »
For those who have complaints about the Study Bible, be sure you write out your concerns clearly and submit them to the current Bible editor at CPH. That is the best way to have your concerns represented and addressed.

Be sure to cite the specific page and text you think needs to be changed or improved. General complaints will be little help to the editor and will likely produce no results. Broad changes will not be made due to associated costs; smaller corrections may be made at a reprinting. That's the process.

I offer a reality check based on experience.  On two occasions I expressed "concerns' for two CPH books.  My letters were not stated as "complaints;" they offered specific references to sub-biblical non Confessional statements in a book that passed doctrinal review. 

The doctrine in question was the Trinity. Two essays in Women Pastors? referred to the  eternal subordination of God the Son to God the Father.  Both linked the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father to substantiate the claim that the Bible teaches the subordination of woman to man in the church and home.

Having heard nothing I contacted three pastors and alerted them to the two essays.  They wrote to CPH, President Harrison and Prof. John Pless.  The first edition of Women Pastors? quietly disappeared.  Persons who called CPH  were told it was "sold out."  The reason for a second edition was never made public, nor were existing book recalled. Many had been  shipped to partner churches in Africa.

My second failed attempt to hear from CPH concerned Lady Like Living. Here again, the book passed doctrinal review,  even when Genesis 2 was used to support a God ordained order of creation hierarchy; God> man>woman> animals.   The book clearly support a non-biblical chain of being. 

Like David Benke, my LCMS school education began with the KJV Bible; no study notes.  The Thompson Chain Reference Bible was used in high and college.   Because The Lutheran Study Bible is said to be for the laity, all the more reason to guard against taking the laity down a path that distorts how God the Father,  God the Son and God the Holy Spirit work as God in and through man and woman.

The ultimate issue here is letting the Triune God, as revealed in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, be God in the life of man and woman.  More about this after I re-read Luther's Magnificat Commentary. 

Marie Otten Meyer

Is it possible you're using the word "subordination" to mean different things? I doubt very much that Pr. Engelbrecht and CPH generally fail to understand the doctrine of the Trinity as well as you do. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the term "subordination" has so many nuances that what strikes one person as a problem simply fails to strike another person as a problem.

Whenever people address the verses (mostly in St. Paul's letters) that refer to the significance of Adam being formed before Eve or how human, this-worldly marriage offers a picture of the union between Christ and His bride the Church, the people who object that there is a Trinitarian problem involved almost always point out what those verses can't mean, but they never (to my knowledge) say what those verses do mean except by claiming St. Paul was culturally limited and therefore not applicable to us on that topic, or by explicating them in such a way that there would be zero theological or practical difference if the verses said the opposite, that Eve was formed before Adam or that husbands should submit to their wives. 

That Mary is a major figure in salvation history is something few people have an issue with.

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #32 on: March 26, 2021, 12:43:17 PM »
Pastor Hannah:
The pastoral advantage to the reform of Palm/Passion Sunday is that the many who do not come on Good Friday will hear the "Greatest Story Ever Told" at least once on  Sunday.
Me:
Amen to that! Often on Palm Sunday, I either did not preach or gave very short sermon to allow for the reading of the entire passion story, often from Luke, which I believe reads best, but sometimes from the other gospels or a combination.

Likewise.

My conscious Christian formation was all post-Vatican II, 1978 LBW/1979 BCP.

In the parish we would begin Palm Sunday with the Procession, ideally outdoors (although the weather often did not cooperate); the Passion read in dialog form followed by an appropriate choral anthem.  We had a three year rotation of

"See How He Dies"
"Droop, there, O Sacred Head" (Gordon Young)
"A Lenten Meditation" (Wagner)

followed immediately by a responsive Intercession as the prayer of the faithful which was basically a recap of the Passion.

It is noteworthy the congregation NEVER had a Good Friday service until my arrival. 

Now, with the excuse of COVID and "keeping everybody safe" they have reverted to their former ways.

Kyrie eleison.
Greek Orthodox-Ecumenical Patriarchate

Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014.
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.

Chrismated Antiochian Orthodox, eve of Mary of Egypt Sunday, A.D. 2015

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1633
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #33 on: March 26, 2021, 01:45:09 PM »
Bishop, I noted your kind comment and appreciated it. For any are interested, here is the link (note: thread drift). Also please note that while I am the author of the article, I’m not the author of the title. :)

https://witness.lcms.org/2021/did-vatican-ii-ruin-palm-sunday/

Peter and Don, I said that there’s a lot of good info in the study Bible, but I still cannot wrap my mind around how DR passed that statement. Obviously, I have not searched the Bible like Marie has. I honestly rarely use it. I pull it out on occasion to check how the study notes dealt with this or that passage, but as I said: I’ve taken to almost exclusively using my KJV without notes. After all, as this morning’s Psalm reminded me: “The entrance of Thy words giveth light.” It is not that we need to bring some light TO God’s Word, but it is the light God gives us to bring to everything else!

Edward, good counsel!

Will, what is the specific error you see? Can you quote it with a page reference?

Marie, is your concern that there is no specific article on Mary?

TLSB was not the first Lutheran Study Bible. See p. xxii for a list of earlier examples. One could also mention the Bible that AF released just before TLSB. There is nothing un-Lutheran about publishing a Bible with notes.

Ed, Will is referring to the chart on page 1726, "Women Disciples." The second name listed is "Mary of Nazareth" which states, "She did not agree with Jesus' decision to leave the carpentry trade and live as a rabbi" using Mark 3:21 and Luke 8:19-21 as proof passages. First, I would think "Mary, the Mother of the Lord" would be a better title. Second, while we know that Mary went with Jesus' brothers, we do not know that she was upset that he wasn't working as a carpenter any longer; that's an odd assertion to make; the writer should have left it with "She was confused by His mission" (as were most of the Lord's followers!).
These are things that we can discuss among learned and reasonable people, or even among ourselves. (Luther, SA III, paraphrased).

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1633
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #34 on: March 26, 2021, 01:54:06 PM »
Dave, does that mean you won’t cite the part of Pieper that I referenced?

Let’s be clear. St. Basil the Great already made it clear that our faith doesn’t hang on Mary’s virginity post partum; it hangs on it to the birth. Luther certainly would concur with that. What he would not concur with is those who insist dogmatically that Mary HAD other children. If Scaer does that, he’s just wrong. And Pieper would call him out for it, as would Luther, as would St. Basil. Gerhard put it most simply: “We respond from Jerome Against Helvidius: We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. we do not believe that Mary had relations with Joseph after the birth, because we do not read it. So it suffices for our faith that the mother of the Messiah is called virgin in Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:35.”

P.S. I do apologize for the sharp tone which I should not have taken, and particularly with an older brother or sister in the faith. Please forgive me.

I'm one of those who does not believe that Mary was always virgin. Never have. Never will.

On the other hand, to each his own. I know you believe her perpetual virginity. We had a pastor in our circuit who believed the same thing. As long as those who confess this also do not insist dogmatically that Mary did NOT have other children, the I think we're all good.

My problem is that some of those that do make that assertion have been pretty dogmatic with me about it. To me, that's the issue.
These are things that we can discuss among learned and reasonable people, or even among ourselves. (Luther, SA III, paraphrased).

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: God's regard
« Reply #35 on: March 26, 2021, 02:03:40 PM »
Jim, thanks for looking up the reference. You are correct, though I’d go further. I don’t think it shows she was confused by His mission, but that she was concerned for her son’s physical and mental well being. He was “working himself to the bone” as we say. And as His mom, she loved Him and wanted to make Him take His rest.

In my experience of PV, the dogmatism runs the other way! I will say the oddest thing to me is that those who identify the Mary who is the mother of James and Joses with the Blessed Virgin have, for instance, St. Mark writing in Mark 15:40 “There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses, and Salome.” This to me is a slam dunk that the Virgin is not the same Mary, because surely, surely the Evangelist would have written: with Mary, HIS mother. And let’s add that in John 19:25 we have a reference to “his mother, *his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas.*

Now, none of that has anything to say about perpetual virginity per se. It’s just that I deny that it makes sense given the above that Mary the mother of James and Joses IS the Mary who is Jesus’ own mother. FWIW.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17010
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #36 on: March 26, 2021, 02:12:24 PM »
Jim, thanks for looking up the reference. You are correct, though I’d go further. I don’t think it shows she was confused by His mission, but that she was concerned for her son’s physical and mental well being. He was “working himself to the bone” as we say. And as His mom, she loved Him and wanted to make Him take His rest.

In my experience of PV, the dogmatism runs the other way! I will say the oddest thing to me is that those who identify the Mary who is the mother of James and Joses with the Blessed Virgin have, for instance, St. Mark writing in Mark 15:40 “There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses, and Salome.” This to me is a slam dunk that the Virgin is not the same Mary, because surely, surely the Evangelist would have written: with Mary, HIS mother. And let’s add that in John 19:25 we have a reference to “his mother, *his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas.*

Now, none of that has anything to say about perpetual virginity per se. It’s just that I deny that it makes sense given the above that Mary the mother of James and Joses IS the Mary who is Jesus’ own mother. FWIW.
I think any speculation (which ought to be avoided where possible) should be qualified. "She may have been confused about..." or "Perhap not understanding His mission, she..." or "The Scriptures do not specify what the family's concern was, but one can imagine that..." or "Christians have offered various explanations over the years as to why she..."


Weedon

  • Guest
Re: God's regard
« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2021, 02:12:56 PM »
Well stated, Peter. I do think in the interplay we see in, say, Mark 3, we have Jesus naming the 12, then the friends (or family) wanting to lay hold on him because he is beside himself, and Jesus’ family then arriving and asking to see Him, and He makes it clear that there’s a new family that has superseded the old family: those who sit at His feet and receive His Word. Of course, Luke makes it clear that Mary is in THAT family too. “But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” “But his mother kept all these saying in her heart.” 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 02:17:32 PM by Weedon »

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: God's regard
« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2021, 02:20:04 PM »
By the way, the Basil quote I alluded to earlier is:

For "he did not know her" - it says - "until she gave birth to a Son, her firstborn." But this could make one suppose that Mary, after having offered in all her purity her own service in giving birth to the Lord, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, did not subsequently refrain from normal conjugal relations. That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary's virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery. But since the lovers of Christ [that is, the faithful] do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony sufficient. -- St. Basil the Great, Homily [PG 31, 1468]

A friend of mine (Pr. Larry Beane) once likened this to the tradition of St. Peter being crucified upside down and St. Paul being beheaded outside Rome. In just the same way, the Church hands on this tradition, this bit of info, about Mary, and the point Pieper was at pains to safeguard was that there is nothing in Scripture per se that must be read as necessarily CONTRADICTING this tradition; but no one can be called a heretic for denying it (since it is tradition, not inspired Scripture) provided his Christology is otherwise sound. The reason he connects it with the Christology, I believe, is because of the close connection between the closed womb birth (alluded to in SD VIII:24) and the notion of why Joseph and Mary may not have had conjugal relations. The person who would deny the possibility of either closed womb birth or subsequent preservation of virginity because they would not be possible, has departed from the grounds of sound Christology (by denying the communication of the divine majesty, the genus maiestaticum). But note the careful lingo of SD VII:100 “and as people believe, when He was born of His mother.” As people believe is quite parallel to St. Basil’s the lovers of Christ and their testimony. But it is not “as the Scriptures declare”. Tradition, not Word of God for sure. The way I teach it is to say: “According to the tradition of the Church, Mary remained a Virgin; and the Scriptures do not rule this out, and the Lutheran Confessions clearly supposed the tradition was true, but was a tradition nonetheless.”
« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 02:56:23 PM by Weedon »

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17010
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2021, 03:19:24 PM »
On another thread there is some discussion of a recent FL article in which I included a letter circulated by my uncle back in the 1960's explaining why he was leaving the LCMS. One of his complaints was that the LCMS did not allow much leeway on doctrinal matters, but insisted that things be stated and understood  too precisely. Additionally, we were too quick to go after each other at the slightest hint of deviation.

I think this thread illustrates the pros and cons of that culture. Every single doctrine and practice has people who are passionate about it with strong opinions. Marie pays close attention to anything that addresses male and female. When CPH publishes a book that says or implies things she disagrees with on the topic of men and women, she considers it a serious problem. Even including footnotes citing books by authors who disagree becomes a matter of suspicion. Extend that same principle to other people and other doctrines and practices and you end up with a culture that demands precision and does not tolerate error. Which in general is good, but which presupposes agreement as the starting point. 

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: God's regard
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2021, 03:33:46 PM »
I think, Peter, it is a sign of a church that still believes that there is a faith once delivered to the saints; and our task is to preserve and hand that faith on. The danger (which I believe I’ve pointed out repeatedly) is to equate various doctrinal schemata for expounding that faith WITH the dogma of that faith itself. And this is at the heart of the “bifurcation” Piepkorn once decried between the Symbols and the dogmatic tradition which they inspired. It is always of interest to me where the statements of the Symbols make the dogmaticians uncomfortable. You can witness it in Gerhard when he has to deal with the Apology’s treatment of the Sacraments when to him it is settled matter that Luther got this right when he said two: no more and no less. There are many other examples.

FWIW, after Marie pointed out the problem with some of the essays in that book I did write my friend Dr. John Kleinig. We had a good but brief discussion in which I pointed out that Marie did have Chemnitz on her side. I think the desire for precision is born out of a conviction that there IS a faith once delivered to the saints; and none of us dare assume that the form of that faith we happen to be handed at any given moment is simply to be equated with that faith. Rather, we heed St. Paul’s exhortation: “Test all things; hold fast that which is good.”
« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 05:02:55 PM by Weedon »

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
the page 1726 note on the BVM
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2021, 05:29:23 PM »
no one has mentioned that the note on page 1726 has one last hang nail to file....  The section ill-named Mary of Nazareth, concludes: "Rv 12 may memorialize her special role in history as a representative of Israel and as the mother of the Church." 

back in the days of my youth when first reading this and asking about this and later in at least my Junior College days in Milwaukee (and I think at Sem in Springfield) the Rev 12 description of this woman was taught not to, definitely, be Mary of Nazareth, Mother of God.  Maybe it was a symbol of the church or something like that... but not Mary definitely.  Now, of course, the commentary on the page of Rev 12 does not mention Mary at all and uses the term REPRESENTATIVE and the pronoun SHE... but not her name Mary as such (unless I over look it).   How does that match any of you who were taught this text pre-1970?

Not that I ever thought it was anyone other, obviously, than blessed Mary.
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4308
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2021, 05:48:12 PM »
Peter writes.."Is it possible you're using the word "subordination" to mean different things? I doubt very much that Pr. Engelbrecht and CPH generally fail to understand the doctrine of the Trinity as well as you do. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the term "subordination" has so many nuances that what strikes one person as a problem simply fails to strike another person as a problem."

The above is totally in appropriate for the moderator of this Forum.

Marie Otten Meyer

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
    • View Profile
    • church history review
Re: God's regard
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2021, 05:55:27 PM »
Bishop, I noted your kind comment and appreciated it. For any are interested, here is the link (note: thread drift). Also please note that while I am the author of the article, I’m not the author of the title. :)

https://witness.lcms.org/2021/did-vatican-ii-ruin-palm-sunday/

Peter and Don, I said that there’s a lot of good info in the study Bible, but I still cannot wrap my mind around how DR passed that statement. Obviously, I have not searched the Bible like Marie has. I honestly rarely use it. I pull it out on occasion to check how the study notes dealt with this or that passage, but as I said: I’ve taken to almost exclusively using my KJV without notes. After all, as this morning’s Psalm reminded me: “The entrance of Thy words giveth light.” It is not that we need to bring some light TO God’s Word, but it is the light God gives us to bring to everything else!

Edward, good counsel!

Will, what is the specific error you see? Can you quote it with a page reference?

Marie, is your concern that there is no specific article on Mary?

TLSB was not the first Lutheran Study Bible. See p. xxii for a list of earlier examples. One could also mention the Bible that AF released just before TLSB. There is nothing un-Lutheran about publishing a Bible with notes.

Ed, Will is referring to the chart on page 1726, "Women Disciples." The second name listed is "Mary of Nazareth" which states, "She did not agree with Jesus' decision to leave the carpentry trade and live as a rabbi" using Mark 3:21 and Luke 8:19-21 as proof passages. First, I would think "Mary, the Mother of the Lord" would be a better title. Second, while we know that Mary went with Jesus' brothers, we do not know that she was upset that he wasn't working as a carpenter any longer; that's an odd assertion to make; the writer should have left it with "She was confused by His mission" (as were most of the Lord's followers!).

Thanks for getting me to the specific text. Here are a few thoughts. When reading a note in a Study Bible, it’s important to remember that there is almost always more that can be said about a topic. The information is intentionally brief.

There is a cultural fact the author might have included. The oldest son was responsible for heading the family, which would have included providing for a widowed mother. (We see Jesus doing this in John 19:26–27; for unstated reasons, Jesus entrusts His mother to a disciple rather than to a brother. What follows may explain why.) Jesus’ family role would have included the family trade, for which Joseph and Jesus were known (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). He was not simply the carpenter’s son but was a carpenter by trade. By living as a rabbi, Jesus abandoned His trade and the immediate means to support and lead the family, which would lead to family strife. Evidence of how bad that strife was can be seen in John 7:1–8 where Jesus’ brothers mock Him, do not believe in Him, and would send Him into Judea under dangerous circumstances. The brothers are deeply upset with Jesus for pursing the ministry.

Mary is not included in the statements of John 7 but she is included in Mark 3:21, 31–32. She has sided with the brothers in this family issue. In Mark 3:21, “He is out of His mind” is not an expression of concern that Jesus is bearing too much stress because of the crowds. Cf. the broader context of Mark 3 and the similar expression in John 10:20. They are deeply upset with and about Jesus rather than simply concerned for Jesus. I do not think it is coincidence that Jesus’ saying in the midst of Mark 3 is about “a house . . . divided.” (Cf. Matthew 10:34–38.) By leaving the family to purse a divine call, Jesus has divided His family. I suppose we see a prelude to this in Luke 2:41–50.

No doubt, others will have other thoughts but I thought I might fill in a bit more from culture and context to help you better understand this author's perspective.
I serve as administrator for www.churchhistoryreview.org.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17010
    • View Profile
Re: God's regard
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2021, 06:17:35 PM »
Peter writes.."Is it possible you're using the word "subordination" to mean different things? I doubt very much that Pr. Engelbrecht and CPH generally fail to understand the doctrine of the Trinity as well as you do. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the term "subordination" has so many nuances that what strikes one person as a problem simply fails to strike another person as a problem."

The above is totally in appropriate for the moderator of this Forum.

Marie Otten Meyer
No it isn't. It is a serious question. You keep pointing to a Trinitarian problem, but that doesn't seem likely to me at all given the authors in question. It seems to me far more likely that the disagreement or misunderstanding lies elsewhere, most probably in the definition of subordination. How is that inappropriate for the moderator?