Author Topic: Another contribution to the endless controversy  (Read 30746 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #345 on: June 13, 2021, 02:18:15 PM »

Do these verses from Genesis 2 relate to your question?


there was still no human being to farm the fertile land, (Gen 2:5d)

The LORD God took the human and settled him in the garden of Eden to farm it and to take care of it. (Gen 2:15)


Yes, that's excellent; thank you, Pr. Stoffregen (and thanks to Pr. Engelbrecht as well).

It does look like Adam had at least one vocation from the start.

Tom Pearson
The world's true oldest profession,  farming.


An interesting (at least to me) sidebar in The CEB Study Bible related to this.


Dominion or Dependence?
 
Humanity is increasingly endangering its environment. How then, should we understand God’s giving humanity power over creation in Genesis 1:26-28? These verses have been interpreted by some as granting humans unlimited power and license to exploit nature for their own use.
 
“Take charge of” (Gen 1:26; KJV, NRSV: “have dominion”) translates the Hebrew word for “rule.” It’s used elsewhere for the authority of masters over servants (Lev 25:43) and kings over subjects (Ps 72:8). So it does grant humanity power and authority over the animal world. But the word doesn’t in itself define the way power is exercised, since power can be used for either caring or harsh rule. In the context of Genesis 1, humans are viewed as God’s representatives in creation (see sidebar, “In God’s image” at Gen 1), So, “taking charge” must be understood as exercising the same kind of authority God would exercise in the natural world.
 
An entirely different picture of the human place in nature is present in Genesis 2:4b-3:24. Here the first human is made out of the “topsoil” of the earth’s “fertile land” and given their command to “farm” it (Gen 2:5, 7, 15). The word translated “farm” in the CEB almost always means “serve.” It expresses the service of servants to masters (Gen 12:6), of one people to another (Exod 5:90, and of people to God (Exod 4:23). So human beings are created specifically to serve the fertile soil. Humans in this account depend on nature rather than exert dominion over it.
 
These two different images of the human as ruler and as servant point to universally acknowledged realities. Humanity has the unique power to alter the world, but we are ultimately dependent on the earth and its life for survival. (p. 8 OT)
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 04:34:25 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
"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]

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #346 on: June 13, 2021, 03:01:10 PM »
One possible way to address "the endless controversy" is to begin with God, the nature of God by Whom and for Whom Man, male and female were created.  Both were to subdue the earth, both were to procreate sons and daughters, both were to know and be known to God.  Knowing and being known to God originated in their being holy as God's was holy and letting God be God, the source of all that was good in their life. (see Genesis one)

Thus, human life that originated with God, was created for God's purpose and was by God's design theocentric.  The essence of every human being whether male or female, their purpose (telos) and their relationship (ethics) to one another was to "Let God be God" in each of their lives and in the life of one another.

God promised to be with them according to God's nature as the source of their being.  They were to trust they had been given all that was good and necessary for their life as Man, male and female recreated in the image of God.  God would relate to each of them,  male and female, as their God and Image Maker. 

From the beginning the  common human vocation of male and female, was to give God glory in their daily life.

Beginning in Genesis and continuing through Revelation God related to man and to woman according to God's nature as the I Am WHO I AM for you. They were created to know GOD as the source of all that was necessary for a good and holy life and to be known to God as God's Beloved.   They, man and woman, were created to be the glory of God's creation.

Including "the order of creation" as a Biblical topic, whether defined as a chain of being and or an order of command, originates in the deductive reason of natural human reason.... not the mind of God as revealed in the written and Incarnate Word.

Unless it can be demonstrated that God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit relate to man and woman in any way other than according to their nature as the I AM Who I Am for you, the claim that a static immutable structured "order of creation" is a Biblical Topic or doctrine must be re-examined.  The ultimate issue is God's order for living relationship of the ONE true living God to man and woman and their letting God be God in their life.

No where does the different  manner in which God created man and woman reveal God's intent that God would relate to woman as God in and through the man.  Both were to let God be God in their life.   

Marie Meyer

aletheist

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1549
  • Greek aletheia = truth
    • View Profile
    • Catechism Devotional
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #347 on: June 13, 2021, 03:18:53 PM »
The essence of every human being whether male or female, their purpose (telos) and their relationship (ethics) to one another was to "Let God be God" in each of their lives and in the life of one another. ... The ultimate issue is God's order for living relationship of the ONE true living God to man and woman and their letting God be God in their life. ... Both were to let God be God in their life.
This expression, "let God be God," comes up repeatedly in your posts, not only in this thread but throughout all the years that I have been reading and occasionally participating in the discussions here. What is the Scriptural and confessional basis for it? Where exactly do the Bible and the Book of Concord state or imply that the purpose of every human being is to "let God be God in their life"? What does it mean in practical terms? How would the church be different if we all genuinely complied with it? What does it have to do with the proper relationship between men and women in general, let alone the "endless controversy" over whether God truly calls certain women to be pastors rather than only certain men?
Jon Alan Schmidt, LCMS Layman

"We believe, teach and confess that by conserving the distinction between Law and Gospel as an especially glorious light
with great diligence in the Church, the Word of God is rightly divided according to the admonition of St. Paul." (FC Ep V.2)

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #348 on: June 13, 2021, 03:50:35 PM »
One possible way to address "the endless controversy" is to begin with God, the nature of God by Whom and for Whom Man, male and female were created.  Both were to subdue the earth, both were to procreate sons and daughters, both were to know and be known to God.  Knowing and being known to God originated in their being holy as God's was holy and letting God be God, the source of all that was good in their life. (see Genesis one)

Thus, human life that originated with God, was created for God's purpose and was by God's design theocentric.  The essence of every human being whether male or female, their purpose (telos) and their relationship (ethics) to one another was to "Let God be God" in each of their lives and in the life of one another.

God promised to be with them according to God's nature as the source of their being.  They were to trust they had been given all that was good and necessary for their life as Man, male and female recreated in the image of God.  God would relate to each of them,  male and female, as their God and Image Maker. 

From the beginning the  common human vocation of male and female, was to give God glory in their daily life.

Beginning in Genesis and continuing through Revelation God related to man and to woman according to God's nature as the I Am WHO I AM for you. They were created to know GOD as the source of all that was necessary for a good and holy life and to be known to God as God's Beloved.   They, man and woman, were created to be the glory of God's creation.

Including "the order of creation" as a Biblical topic, whether defined as a chain of being and or an order of command, originates in the deductive reason of natural human reason.... not the mind of God as revealed in the written and Incarnate Word.

Unless it can be demonstrated that God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit relate to man and woman in any way other than according to their nature as the I AM Who I Am for you, the claim that a static immutable structured "order of creation" is a Biblical Topic or doctrine must be re-examined.  The ultimate issue is God's order for living relationship of the ONE true living God to man and woman and their letting God be God in their life.

No where does the different  manner in which God created man and woman reveal God's intent that God would relate to woman as God in and through the man.  Both were to let God be God in their life.   

Marie Meyer
I don’t think anything I believe or have stated in these endless discussions interferes with the idea that every human being should let God be God. God speaks. He spoke through St. Paul. God (not St. Paul, not men generally, but God the Creator of us all) revealed that men and women are equally His children, but are not the same. Letting God be God means listening attentively when God reveals things in Genesis 2 or in the NT epistles. Refusing to let God be God would lead us to begin with what we know of God and extrapolate from human reasoning what He must think about men and women in defiance of what He actually said. A fully theocentric worldview is not in the least bit threatened by the sharp distinction between male and female God wove into His creation and His story.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 05:55:38 PM by peter_speckhard »

pastorg1@aol.com

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #349 on: June 13, 2021, 04:14:44 PM »
In Macy’s today, a baseball cap declaring, “Sexuality is a Social Construct.”

Peter (Grew up with separate “Boys” and “Girls” drinking fountains in grade school) Garrison
Pete Garrison, STS

Terry W Culler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #350 on: June 13, 2021, 08:34:26 PM »
In Macy’s today, a baseball cap declaring, “Sexuality is a Social Construct.”

Peter (Grew

When I was in elementary school the boys and girls had different entrances.  Not sure why since we then all had to go to the same rooms, but maybe the keep the line mayhem down to just one side of the building
Goodnewsforabadworld.wordpress.com

pastorg1@aol.com

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #351 on: June 13, 2021, 10:09:31 PM »
In my day girls had “cooties” and were not to be approached. Then they’d try to kiss the boys. Yikes.

Peter (I put wet sand from the sandbox on my face to make a scratchy “beard” and chase back.) Garrison
Pete Garrison, STS

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #352 on: June 13, 2021, 10:18:09 PM »
In my day girls had “cooties” and were not to be approached. Then they’d try to kiss the boys. Yikes.

Peter (I put wet sand from the sandbox on my face to make a scratchy “beard” and chase back.) Garrison
My daughters say, “Girls go to college to get more knowledge. Boys go to Jupiter to more stupider!” To which my sons reply, “Yeah? Well we’re back! Mission accomplished!”

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #353 on: June 14, 2021, 01:10:03 AM »

Do these verses from Genesis 2 relate to your question?


there was still no human being to farm the fertile land, (Gen 2:5d)

The LORD God took the human and settled him in the garden of Eden to farm it and to take care of it. (Gen 2:15)


Yes, that's excellent; thank you, Pr. Stoffregen (and thanks to Pr. Engelbrecht as well).

It does look like Adam had at least one vocation from the start.

Tom Pearson
The world's true oldest profession,  farming.


Did some study on the Hebrew word translated "to farm" by CEB: עָבַד `abad.
More literally, the verses above could be translated, "to work the ground," like NIV does. Other translations use, "cultivate" or "till" - English words that convey a more specific meaning of working the ground.


The same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 3:23 as part of Adam's duties after the fall. It is also used of Cain's work in Genesis 4:2, 12.


However, most often (at least in the references I've looked in the Torah,) it refers to "serving other people or God or gods)," which is also translated, "worshiping God (or gods)," e.g. Exodus 3:12.


The noun, עֶבֶד `ebed refers to "a slave," "a servant," "a subject," including "servants of God."
"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]

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #354 on: June 14, 2021, 10:44:37 AM »
Moderator Peter  Speckhard writes...
"I don’t think anything I believe or have stated in these endless discussions interferes with the idea that every human being should let God be God. God speaks. He spoke through St. Paul. God (not St. Paul, not men generally, but God the Creator of us all) revealed that men and women are equally His children, but are not the same. Letting God be God means listening attentively when God reveals things in Genesis 2 or in the NT epistles. Refusing to let God be God would lead us to begin with what we know of God and extrapolate from human reasoning what He must think about men and women in defiance of what He actually said. A fully theocentric worldview is not in the least bit threatened by the sharp distinction between male and female God wove into His creation and His story."

My question, "What is the sharp distinction between male and female that God wove into His creation and His story?"

During my life I have been a daughter, sister, woman, wife, mother, grandmother and now, a great-grandmother. In each area of life the defining relationship that shaped my identity, the purpose for which I was created and all my relationships, whether in the home, the church or society, was God's relationship to me. 

Neither my father, nor any of the LCMS men who were my pastor, parochial school teachers, confirmation class teacher or college theology professors, taught me that God related to me or was present in my life on the basis of any "sharp" distinction between male and female. The day of my marriage to Bill, his father preached a sermon in which both of us were directed to live out our marriage relationship with Christ at the center of our marriage. (Something about  a cord of three strands not being broken.)

Humans are distinct as male and female, a distinction that belongs to who we are as creatures, not God the Creator. 

The question is whether God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit, relate to man and woman according to Their nature as God, or according to the created "sharp distinction" between man and woman. IOW, is the living presence of God in the life of the men and women  whom God claims as His sons and daughters according to the nature of God or their distinct sexuality?  Is the One Holy Catholic Church, the ONE Body of Christ divided in two parts according to distinct sexuality of the many men and woman who ARE the Church, the Bride of Christ.

marie meyer

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #355 on: June 14, 2021, 12:10:36 PM »


My question, "What is the sharp distinction between male and female that God wove into His creation and His story?"

During my life I have been a daughter, sister, woman, wife, mother, grandmother and now, a great-grandmother. In each area of life the defining relationship that shaped my identity, the purpose for which I was created and all my relationships, whether in the home, the church or society, was God's relationship to me. 

Neither my father, nor any of the LCMS men who were my pastor, parochial school teachers, confirmation class teacher or college theology professors, taught me that God related to me or was present in my life on the basis of any "sharp" distinction between male and female. The day of my marriage to Bill, his father preached a sermon in which both of us were directed to live out our marriage relationship with Christ at the center of our marriage. (Something about  a cord of three strands not being broken.)

Humans are distinct as male and female, a distinction that belongs to who we are as creatures, not God the Creator. 

The question is whether God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit, relate to man and woman according to Their nature as God, or according to the created "sharp distinction" between man and woman. IOW, is the living presence of God in the life of the men and women  whom God claims as His sons and daughters according to the nature of God or their distinct sexuality?  Is the One Holy Catholic Church, the ONE Body of Christ divided in two parts according to distinct sexuality of the many men and woman who ARE the Church, the Bride of Christ.

marie meyer
I think God relates to you as your Father and to me as my Father, which makes us brother and sister in Christ.

The sharp distinction between male and female that God wove into creation and His story is obvious from the beginning. It is the first thing the Scriptures say about mankind in the plural-- male and female He created them. It is written into the fabric of ongoing creation; "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh," which Jesus and St. Paul both reiterate emphatically. The covenants clearly distinguish the sexes in circumcision and in the Passover. God related to all of the people of Israel, male and female, according to His nature as God and according to the covenant of circumcision, which only applied to males but which nevertheless incorporated females and made them collectively "a people." A female Jew was "uncircumcised" but nevertheless part of the people of Israel via the covenant of circumcision. I guess if you really want to you could say therefore that God related to men differently than He related to women in salvation history, but to make that argument you'd have to reject the collective unity of the people of God. The male/female distinction is even part of the pattern of the New Creation in the Gospels and NT with the bride/bridegroom relationship of Christ and Church. 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. This is part of the reason the effort to treat the sexes as the same in all but tangential procreative function always leads to confusion on the nature of marriage and anthropology (the T and other letters in the rainbow alphabet).

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.   
« Last Edit: June 14, 2021, 02:24:50 PM by peter_speckhard »

Dave Likeness

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5101
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #356 on: June 14, 2021, 01:19:28 PM »
The Apostle Paul writes: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  Galatians 3:27,28

All believers are one in Christ. It is the unity that counts and is important.   The status of Jew
and Greek, slave and free, male and female can no longer divide us, but can only unite all
baptized believers in Christ. In the first century that was a revolutionary statement. Yet the
fact remains that Christ unites all believers and that fact is crucial to understanding the Church.             

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #357 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

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #358 on: June 14, 2021, 09:55:25 PM »
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. 

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #359 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