Author Topic: Another contribution to the endless controversy  (Read 30751 times)

Tom Eckstein

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 699
  • Tom Eckstein
    • View Profile
    • Concordia Lutheran Church, Jamestown, ND
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #360 on: June 15, 2021, 09:52:14 AM »
Peter writes, "There simply is no way to understand humanity as created or salvation history as revealed without acknowledging the sharp distinction between male and female that is not part of the fall but part of the original creation and redeemed in the New Creation."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marie Meyer

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

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

Tom Eckstein

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 699
  • Tom Eckstein
    • View Profile
    • Concordia Lutheran Church, Jamestown, ND
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #361 on: June 15, 2021, 09:58:20 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



 

Marie, you write:  "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."  My response:  "Why do you draw that conclusion?"

First of all, you can't equate the purpose of government/society in a fallen world with what government/society may have been like if the fall had never occured.

Second, the rest of Scripture is clear that God has specific roles for male and female in the Church and home but doesn't stress these same roles for government/society in this fallen world.  The relationship between a Christian husband and wife is connected to how Christ relates to His Bride, the Church.  But various vocations in the left-hand kingdom have nothing to do with this.
I'm an LCMS Pastor in Jamestown, ND.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #362 on: June 15, 2021, 10:19:48 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

The specific answers to specific questions require us to "let God be God" as you say. In other words, we don't answer them with natural reason but with revelation. We know from Scripture that in the home the husband is the head of the wife. We know from Scripture that women are not to exercise authority over men in the church. We can argue about translations and applications, but we at least we're letting God be God by saying that we need to look to His revelation to discover His will for us. We lack any similar verses to apply to the realm of society generally, which makes for different takes when it comes to Christians living in places with different governmental and societal relationships to Christianity or any particular church. It is going strictly by philosophical, human reasoning to extrapolate from an ontological position the idea that we must live out our faith distinctly also in society if we do in church and home. As a wife, you let God be your God in part by submitting to your husband. As a laymember of a church, you let God be God in part by letting Him speak to you through the Word and Sacraments as presented by your pastor. As a Christian woman in society, you let God be God by loving your neighbor however the opportunity presents itself. I don't know what else Scripture says about it.

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #363 on: June 15, 2021, 08:13:41 PM »
Peter writes, "There simply is no way to understand humanity as created or salvation history as revealed without acknowledging the sharp distinction between male and female that is not part of the fall but part of the original creation and redeemed in the New Creation."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marie Meyer

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

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

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

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

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

marie   I

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #364 on: June 15, 2021, 08:35:43 PM »
Peter writes, "There simply is no way to understand humanity as created or salvation history as revealed without acknowledging the sharp distinction between male and female that is not part of the fall but part of the original creation and redeemed in the New Creation."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marie Meyer

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

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

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

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

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

marie   I
Nobody would disagree that both men and women were created to glorify God as His representatives and stewards, and to know and be known by Him. The question is whether there is any distinction in how they best do those things. Every vocation is a call to glorify God somehow, and generally to serve the neighbor somehow. Does God call only men or only women to glorify Him and serve the neighbor in this or that specific way? Yes.

I think Ladylike is simply a celebration of the traditional femininity that so much of feminism denigrates as insufficiently masculine. The questions you’re asking of the book don’t address the purpose of the book. The authors are trying to defang the monster of being told to submit to your husband by showing how living with that Biblical idea (among others) is rewarding, fulfilling, and potentially playful and fun, not the stuff of the Handmaid’s Tale.

Tom Eckstein

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 699
  • Tom Eckstein
    • View Profile
    • Concordia Lutheran Church, Jamestown, ND
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #365 on: June 15, 2021, 11:08:49 PM »
Peter writes, "There simply is no way to understand humanity as created or salvation history as revealed without acknowledging the sharp distinction between male and female that is not part of the fall but part of the original creation and redeemed in the New Creation."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marie Meyer

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

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

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

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

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

marie   I

Marie, I'm aware of the book and I honestly don't see how you think it suggests that the LCMS is suggesting that women are somehow ONTOLOGICALLY different than men.  The book rejoices in the the different FUNCTIONS or VOCATIONS (if you don't like the word "roles") that Scripture clearly attributes to men and women, respectfually.  Yet the book nowhere suggests that men and women are not equal as human beings before God.  I get the feeling you are trying to find error where it simply doesn't exist!
I'm an LCMS Pastor in Jamestown, ND.

Tom Eckstein

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 699
  • Tom Eckstein
    • View Profile
    • Concordia Lutheran Church, Jamestown, ND
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #366 on: June 15, 2021, 11:11:26 PM »
Peter writes, "There simply is no way to understand humanity as created or salvation history as revealed without acknowledging the sharp distinction between male and female that is not part of the fall but part of the original creation and redeemed in the New Creation."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marie Meyer

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

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

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

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

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

marie   I

By the way, you say "Human is a category of being...male or female is not.  Human males and human females belong to the same category of being, human.  They are different in several ways, most certainly in that men are fathers, not mothers.  They most certainly are not spiritually different."  I agree with this 100%.  So, I'm not sure what your concern is.
I'm an LCMS Pastor in Jamestown, ND.


peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #368 on: June 15, 2021, 11:36:35 PM »
As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.


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 #369 on: June 16, 2021, 12:55:03 AM »
As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.


Remember in the Genesis 2 story, Eve shows up after God had presented all the animals to Adam. They were the creatures who were different - not fit for him. The attraction of Eve is that she was like Adam in nearly all aspects. Certainly much more like Adam than all the other animals God presented to him. Adam's words about Eve are not, "She's so different than me," but "she's the same. Bone from my bone, flesh from my flesh."
"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]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #370 on: June 16, 2021, 09:15:58 AM »
As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.


Remember in the Genesis 2 story, Eve shows up after God had presented all the animals to Adam. They were the creatures who were different - not fit for him. The attraction of Eve is that she was like Adam in nearly all aspects. Certainly much more like Adam than all the other animals God presented to him. Adam's words about Eve are not, "She's so different than me," but "she's the same. Bone from my bone, flesh from my flesh."
I know. Like Adam, she was human. Unlike Adam, she was female. There was a new category of thing in the world requiring a name. The objection seems to be calling this new category of thing a new category of being. I think the authors of the note intended the word "being" to be a simple noun. Here is a new category of thing/being/creature that is also uniquely new in being both the same and different from Adam just like men and women generally are the same and different. Marie seems to be taking the word "being" at a more more philosophical level as though the authors of the note were declaring that men and women are not both ontologically human, which, we all agree, would have disastrous results for soteriology and other doctrinal disciplines.

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 #371 on: June 16, 2021, 11:17:35 AM »
As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.


Remember in the Genesis 2 story, Eve shows up after God had presented all the animals to Adam. They were the creatures who were different - not fit for him. The attraction of Eve is that she was like Adam in nearly all aspects. Certainly much more like Adam than all the other animals God presented to him. Adam's words about Eve are not, "She's so different than me," but "she's the same. Bone from my bone, flesh from my flesh."
I know. Like Adam, she was human. Unlike Adam, she was female. There was a new category of thing in the world requiring a name. The objection seems to be calling this new category of thing a new category of being. I think the authors of the note intended the word "being" to be a simple noun. Here is a new category of thing/being/creature that is also uniquely new in being both the same and different from Adam just like men and women generally are the same and different. Marie seems to be taking the word "being" at a more more philosophical level as though the authors of the note were declaring that men and women are not both ontologically human, which, we all agree, would have disastrous results for soteriology and other doctrinal disciplines.


Being female was not new. That category was present among animals and plants. What made this creature a fitting helper to Adam was not her femaleness (which was present among the animals,) but that she was human like him.


Actually, the word "female" (Heb. נְקֵבָה) doesn't occur in Genesis 2, 3, or 4. It's in Genesis 1:27, then not again until 5:2, then 6:19 of the animals in the Ark. While infrequent, even אִשָּׁה ('ishshah) is used of female animals (Genesis 7:2).
« Last Edit: June 16, 2021, 11:47:51 AM 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]

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #372 on: June 16, 2021, 11:35:20 AM »
As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.

Remember in the Genesis 2 story, Eve shows up after God had presented all the animals to Adam. They were the creatures who were different - not fit for him. The attraction of Eve is that she was like Adam in nearly all aspects. Certainly much more like Adam than all the other animals God presented to him. Adam's words about Eve are not, "She's so different than me," but "she's the same. Bone from my bone, flesh from my flesh."
I know. Like Adam, she was human. Unlike Adam, she was female. There was a new category of thing in the world requiring a name. The objection seems to be calling this new category of thing a new category of being. I think the authors of the note intended the word "being" to be a simple noun. Here is a new category of thing/being/creature that is also uniquely new in being both the same and different from Adam just like men and women generally are the same and different. Marie seems to be taking the word "being" at a more more philosophical level as though the authors of the note were declaring that men and women are not both ontologically human, which, we all agree, would have disastrous results for soteriology and other doctrinal disciplines.

Being female was not new. That category was present among animals and plants. What made this creature a fitting helper to Adam was not her femaleness (which was present among the animals,) but that she was human like him.

No one is suggesting, as you imply, that a woman is no different from a cow. The new category is woman.

God could have simply cloned Adam as a helper for him. He didn't. He created woman. Thanks be to God!
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

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 #373 on: June 16, 2021, 11:53:54 AM »
As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.

Remember in the Genesis 2 story, Eve shows up after God had presented all the animals to Adam. They were the creatures who were different - not fit for him. The attraction of Eve is that she was like Adam in nearly all aspects. Certainly much more like Adam than all the other animals God presented to him. Adam's words about Eve are not, "She's so different than me," but "she's the same. Bone from my bone, flesh from my flesh."
I know. Like Adam, she was human. Unlike Adam, she was female. There was a new category of thing in the world requiring a name. The objection seems to be calling this new category of thing a new category of being. I think the authors of the note intended the word "being" to be a simple noun. Here is a new category of thing/being/creature that is also uniquely new in being both the same and different from Adam just like men and women generally are the same and different. Marie seems to be taking the word "being" at a more more philosophical level as though the authors of the note were declaring that men and women are not both ontologically human, which, we all agree, would have disastrous results for soteriology and other doctrinal disciplines.

Being female was not new. That category was present among animals and plants. What made this creature a fitting helper to Adam was not her femaleness (which was present among the animals,) but that she was human like him.

No one is suggesting, as you imply, that a woman is no different from a cow. The new category is woman.

God could have simply cloned Adam as a helper for him. He didn't. He created woman. Thanks be to God!


Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.


Then the LORD God said, "It's not good that the human is alone. I will make him a helper that is perfect for him." So the LORD God formed from the fertile land all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky and brought them to the human to see what he would name them. The human gave each living being its name. The human named all the livestock, all the birds in the sky, and all the wild animals. But a helper perfect for him was nowhere to be found. (Genesis 2:18-20, CEB)


What was different about this last creature was not that she was female, but that she was human like the man.
"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]

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 976
    • View Profile
    • church history review
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #374 on: June 16, 2021, 12:00:20 PM »
Marie, I think Tom, Peter, and Don are correctly describing the writer's intention in this case. A philosophical ontology was not in my mind as editor. As I've noted, I had not experienced this use of the term in this category of doctrine before seeing it on ALPB. It appears to be a Roman Catholic use, although someone cited Aulen saying something similar, perhaps because of views about apostolic succession that he shares with Roman Catholics.
I serve as administrator for www.churchhistoryreview.org.