News:


Main Menu

New CPH Large Catechism

Started by peter_speckhard, January 25, 2023, 10:29:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

aletheist

Quote from: Steven W Bohler on February 01, 2023, 12:54:16 PMI guess I would say that I see such formal/authoritative/official (in the sense of holding an office to teach) teaching in the classroom as much more in line with the formal/authoritative/official teaching done from a pulpit -- both are done by those called to do such teaching on behalf of the Church rather than as private individuals.
In that case, it seems to me that the dispute is not really about 1 Timothy 2:12 vs. Acts 18:26, but about whether AC XIV--"no one should teach or preach publicly in the church, or administer the Sacraments, without a regular call"--applies not only to every pulpit and altar, but also to every theology classroom at a seminary where future pastors are being trained, and/or to every lectern where Scripture is being read during worship. Apparently, there is agreement that it does not apply to discussing or even teaching God's Word in someone's home or any other private setting.
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

Quote from: Hess on February 01, 2023, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on February 01, 2023, 10:45:21 AM

Slavery has not ended. There is still human trafficking going on. From what I understand, human trafficking in the U.S. (at least according to the police around here, since Lake County has apparently been a bit of a regional hub of it) is generally a market of young girls used for sex. And by the perfectly Biblical example of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning concubines and bearing children by them. Correct? Many of the tribes of Israel came from such unions, after all. Is it okay for a Christian to buy a concubine? Not to return an escaped one? If some thirteen year old girl escaped from human traffickers, would you urge her to go back to them and do her duty? You personally can't necessarily determine how she became a slave in the first place-- maybe she was born to slaves, maybe she grew up a regular American suburban girls but was a rebel type who became a runaway, maybe a raiding party sacked her village, who knows? Not your problem. Nor are you responsible for the strange rules that govern these other cultures and subcultures. All you know is that a slave and concubine in 2023 America and has run away from her owner to your church. What do you do, and why? Would the only reason you call the authorities instead of returning her to her owners be that you are too gutless to go by a Biblical worldview instead of a humanist one? Or might it be that the whole idea that she is a concubine is so loathsome and alien to Christianity that it makes no difference what Jacob did, we are not going to participate in such practices?

Yes, women are illegally enslaved in the US and forced into prostitution.  That's bad.  It's bad to take people captive and force them into any kind of slavery.

Meanwhile, the cobalt in your cell phone is mined by slaves or near slaves working in inhuman conditions.  Your coffee is grown by farmers who live like serfs in Colombia.  Your clothes are made by children working in sweatshops in slavery or near slavery.  Yet I'd venture to guess that every time you go to the store or start texting someone you aren't having a crisis of conscience about whether the product you're using or buying was made by someone who was forced into slavery.  But there's a good chance it was.
That's bad. Agreed. And I hope we're agreed that it is bad not just because it is illegal and the equivalent of speeding or using a fake ID to get into a bar. It is bad because it is entirely incompatible with loving your neighbor as yourself. It is bad even though the sons of Israel did it. It is bad even though slavery was a normal part of life for the patriarchs. To call it bad is not to abandon a Biblical worldview in favor of a humanist one, as though maybe these cobalt mine owners are just using child slave labor because they're more Biblically faithful and reject the humanism of the West.

As for slave labor or the equivalent in other countries, that is a major issue that I have little control over, but to tiny the degree I do have some influence, I support measures to eliminate those conditions. I vote for people who pressure our state department to pressure places like China to address these human rights abuses.

As for how we treat people who did things we recognize as bad that they didn't recognize as bad, like Jacob fathering children via concubines, we don't have to say it was perfectly acceptable for them but not for us, as though somehow right and wrong changed. Nor do we have to condemn them as though their doing it is the moral equivalent of one of us doing it today. We look at the available options they had and the reasons they understood things as they did. Some things that are bad in themselves (like prisons) are nevertheless necessary because nobody can figure out how to operate society without them. But if they could-- if prisons were shown to be unnecessary for the protection of society or the reform of criminals, then imprisoning a criminal would be a terrible thing to do. Someone who did it in those circumstances would not be the moral equivalent of someone who did it in our circumstances, or at least it would be grossly uncharitable to judge them the same way.

That is my beef with the iconoclasts tearing down statues-- they're engaged in anachronistic, often irrelevant, and always uncharitable condemnations of people. A teacher today who whips her student is bonkers and should lose her license. But if your great-grandmother was teacher who sometimes whipped her students, well, she was probably a perfectly good teacher. It isn't necessarily that an alien worldview is replacing a Biblical worldview, though that might certainly be in play in many cases. It might just be better possibilities replacing worse ones, making the worse ones less and less excusable.   

Dave Benke

Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 01:09:35 PM
When my father was president of CTS, he invited a woman with a PhD in Education to speak to the professors about how to teach.  They all benefited.  There was nothing wrong with that.  Should a woman know something pertinent to a topic covered in the classroom and the professor wanted her to share her knowledge with the class, there would be nothing wrong with that.  There are many things a woman may do that do not entail authoritative public teaching of theology in the church.

You mean like reading a lesson in a church service, then.  The pastor authorizes lay people to read lessons.  The lessons are "under", in that sense, the teaching authority of the pastor.  Thanks for the encouragement, RD.

Dave Benke

And RevGalRedux, thanks for continuing to look in!
It's OK to Pray

pastorg1@aol.com

Quote from: peter_speckhard on February 01, 2023, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: pastorg1@aol.com on February 01, 2023, 10:15:28 AM
A neat little lesson-point in our RCIA class was made this week...

If Jesus wanted women priests he would have, of course, first and foremost selected his Blessed Mother.

Peter (Ave Maria!) Garrison
The conclusion is fine, but the method of inquiry is suspect. I'm not keen on doctrines derived by speculation about what God would have done if He wanted x.

Amen.

Peter (Now, if I were God...) Garrison
Pete Garrison
RC Catechist

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

Quote from: GalRevRedux on February 01, 2023, 01:20:24 PM
I still lurk occasionally around here. Nice to see that the forum remains a constant in our ever-shifting world.

8)

Donna

Welcome back. We're you leading a congregation through the pandemic? Wondering how things went in your area.

RDPreus

Quote from: Dave Benke on February 01, 2023, 01:35:11 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 01:09:35 PM
When my father was president of CTS, he invited a woman with a PhD in Education to speak to the professors about how to teach.  They all benefited.  There was nothing wrong with that.  Should a woman know something pertinent to a topic covered in the classroom and the professor wanted her to share her knowledge with the class, there would be nothing wrong with that.  There are many things a woman may do that do not entail authoritative public teaching of theology in the church.

You mean like reading a lesson in a church service, then.  The pastor authorizes lay people to read lessons.  The lessons are "under", in that sense, the teaching authority of the pastor.  Thanks for the encouragement, RD.

Dave Benke

And RevGalRedux, thanks for continuing to look in!

No, not like reading a lesson in a church service.  Not at all.  The lesson is God's Word.  When Paul forbids women to teach, he's talking about teaching God's Word.  The "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.  This business of women doing what God says they may not do if it's done "under the teaching authority of the pastor" places the pastor over God's Word, rather than under it.  Kind of like a DP participating in syncretistic worship "under the authority" of the SP who says it's okay and that makes it okay.

Dave Likeness

#291
In 1969, the LCMS in a Synodical Convention voted to allow women suffrage
in congregational voters assembly.  It was up to each congregation to make
or not make this change in their parish constitution.

It seems like it was a Synodical Convention that approved the laity reading
the Old Testament lesson and the Epistle lesson in the Divine Service.
However, it was again left to the local congregation to adopt this measure.
Was this a Synodical Convention in the 1980's that allowed lay lectors?

Rob Morris

But now you are contradicting yourself. Priscilla was able to teach the word of God to Apollos. That was God's word. You said so last night. But now no women lectors because it's Gods Word?

aletheist

Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 03:02:04 PMThe "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.
That is precisely what is being disputed--whether reading Scripture out loud during worship is publicly teaching, and thus restricted by AC XIV to those who have a regular call. The doctrinal position of the LCMS is that it is not, although I think that a case could be made for having the pastor read all the lessons as a matter of good order. After all, in what other context would anyone seriously maintain that merely reading a text out loud constitutes teaching? Should women also be forbidden from reading Bible passages out loud during a Sunday morning class, even if it is being led by the pastor?
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)

RDPreus

Quote from: Rob Morris on February 01, 2023, 03:27:44 PM
But now you are contradicting yourself. Priscilla was able to teach the word of God to Apollos. That was God's word. You said so last night. But now no women lectors because it's Gods Word?

No, I am not contradicting myself and the Bible doesn't contradict itself either.  The Bible says a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man.  The Bible says that Pricilla taught Apollos.  So then, did she do wrong?  Or was Paul wrong to write to Timothy that a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man?  Is Paul contradicting Luke?  Or is there a difference between what Paul forbade and what Pricilla did?  Can you see the difference between Pricilla teaching Apollos privately and a woman publicly standing before the assembly during the Divine Service and reading to them the lessons from the Bible?

RDPreus

Quote from: aletheist on February 01, 2023, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 03:02:04 PMThe "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.
That is precisely what is being disputed--whether reading Scripture out loud during worship is publicly teaching, and thus restricted by AC XIV to those who have a regular call. The doctrinal position of the LCMS is that it is not, although I think that a case could be made for having the pastor read all the lessons as a matter of good order. After all, in what other context would anyone seriously maintain that merely reading a text out loud constitutes teaching? Should women also be forbidden from reading Bible passages out loud during a Sunday morning class, even if it is being led by the pastor?

Mr. Schmidt, I would like you to document your assertion that the doctrinal position of the LCMS is that reading the lessons in the Divine Service is not publicly teaching. 

RDPreus

Quote from: aletheist on February 01, 2023, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 03:02:04 PMThe "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.
That is precisely what is being disputed--whether reading Scripture out loud during worship is publicly teaching, and thus restricted by AC XIV to those who have a regular call. The doctrinal position of the LCMS is that it is not, although I think that a case could be made for having the pastor read all the lessons as a matter of good order. After all, in what other context would anyone seriously maintain that merely reading a text out loud constitutes teaching? Should women also be forbidden from reading Bible passages out loud during a Sunday morning class, even if it is being led by the pastor?

The issue before us is not primarily AC XIV or the divine call.  We're arguing over whether when St. Paul says a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man, he means to say that a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man, or whether he rather means to say that a woman may not officiate at the Mass.  We're not arguing over AC XIV, though it is tangentially pertinent to the argument.  It's whether a woman may publicly teach Christian doctrine to men.  The lector in the Divine Service assumes a role very different from the volunteer reading a passage from the Bible in Bible class.  If you regard the lector as "merely reading a text out loud" I don't think you know what is going on in the Divine Service.


Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: aletheist on February 01, 2023, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 03:02:04 PMThe "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.
That is precisely what is being disputed--whether reading Scripture out loud during worship is publicly teaching, and thus restricted by AC XIV to those who have a regular call. The doctrinal position of the LCMS is that it is not, although I think that a case could be made for having the pastor read all the lessons as a matter of good order. After all, in what other context would anyone seriously maintain that merely reading a text out loud constitutes teaching? Should women also be forbidden from reading Bible passages out loud during a Sunday morning class, even if it is being led by the pastor?

The issue before us is not primarily AC XIV or the divine call.  We're arguing over whether when St. Paul says a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man, he means to say that a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man, or whether he rather means to say that a woman may not officiate at the Mass.  We're not arguing over AC XIV, though it is tangentially pertinent to the argument.  It's whether a woman may publicly teach Christian doctrine to men.  The lector in the Divine Service assumes a role very different from the volunteer reading a passage from the Bible in Bible class.  If you regard the lector as "merely reading a text out loud" I don't think you know what is going on in the Divine Service.


When women conveyed the message from the angel about the resurrection of Jesus to the men, were they teaching? Were they expressing a doctrine? What was it that came out of the women's mouths?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Rob Morris

Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 03:34:45 PM
Quote from: Rob Morris on February 01, 2023, 03:27:44 PM
But now you are contradicting yourself. Priscilla was able to teach the word of God to Apollos. That was God's word. You said so last night. But now no women lectors because it's Gods Word?

No, I am not contradicting myself and the Bible doesn't contradict itself either.  The Bible says a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man.  The Bible says that Pricilla taught Apollos.  So then, did she do wrong?  Or was Paul wrong to write to Timothy that a woman may not teach or exercise authority over a man?  Is Paul contradicting Luke?  Or is there a difference between what Paul forbade and what Pricilla did?  Can you see the difference between Pricilla teaching Apollos privately and a woman publicly standing before the assembly during the Divine Service and reading to them the lessons from the Bible?

You are moving the goalposts, respectfully. You just said no women lectors because that's God's word. But Priscilla spoke God's word. So what you should be saying is no women lectors because that's public teaching.

But then you would get stuck on the challenge of women Sunday school teachers. That's God's word. That is publicly taught with the church's authority. How do you handle that? You could handle it by saying no women teaching in the divine service, but you have already said that that's not what you're saying. You could handle it by saying no women in the pastoral office, but you have already said that's not what you're saying.

I am sorry to say it, but in the end, this comes across as no women doing whatever RDPreus doesn't think they should do. And what started this whole thread were  some very loud voices who have started to conflate "my application of scripture" with "the only non-heretical application of Scripture." I spent enough time in the Pentecostal world for my antenna to start twitching like crazy when people start talking like that. It is fundamentalist Pietism by another name.

It's why all along my point has been that you have arrived at a place that you feel is a faithful application of the scripture, but others can arrive at different places. You can't just say your position is the plain teaching of scripture. It simply isn't. Present-day church and the first century church have too many differences. Every one of us must do the best we can to humbly apply what we are able to learn.

And it's why interactions on such challenging issues should be marked over and over again by grace of heart and restraint of language.

Dan Fienen

#299
Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: aletheist on February 01, 2023, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 01, 2023, 03:02:04 PMThe "lesson" in the Divine Service is by definition teaching God's Word.
That is precisely what is being disputed--whether reading Scripture out loud during worship is publicly teaching, and thus restricted by AC XIV to those who have a regular call. The doctrinal position of the LCMS is that it is not, although I think that a case could be made for having the pastor read all the lessons as a matter of good order. After all, in what other context would anyone seriously maintain that merely reading a text out loud constitutes teaching? Should women also be forbidden from reading Bible passages out loud during a Sunday morning class, even if it is being led by the pastor?

Mr. Schmidt, I would like you to document your assertion that the doctrinal position of the LCMS is that reading the lessons in the Divine Service is not publicly teaching.


The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Convention Proceedings: the 57th Regular Convention, Wichita, Kansas, July 7-14, 1989, p. 118.

Quote
To Address Appropriate Roles for Women and Men in Worship

RESOLUTION 3-14

Overtures 3-90-91 (CW, pp. 195-96)

Whereas, The Gospel images and expectations of women—particularly those associated with the incarnation, the resurrection, and the ministry of Jesus—present strong and persistent recognition of the active and vital roles of service that women can offer to our Lord and to others; and

Whereas, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) has stated that there are certain distinct functions which should not ordinarily be carried out by the laity (who may hold auxiliary offices) but which are to be exercised by the pastor, including the following: 1. Preaching in the services of the congregation 2. Leading the formal public services of worship 3. The public administration of the sacraments 4. The public administration of the Office of the Keys (Women in the Church, p. 42); and

Whereas, The CTCR has also stated in its report Women in the Church: "There is no ceremonial law in the New Testament regarding the reading of Scripture in the context of public worship. Nor is there explicit apostolic prohibition of such reading by women. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the CTCR that the reading of the Scriptures is most properly the function of the pastoral office and should therefore not ordinarily be delegated to lay per son, woman or man," (Women in the Church, p. 45); and

Whereas, The use of lay assisting ministers, both female and male, is permitted within the rubrics of Lutheran Worship for the reading of the lessons, except the Gospel and the leading of the prayers of the people; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod urge and encourage the continued service of women and men to our Lord and His church in accordance with His will as set forth in Holy Scripture; and be it further

Resolved, That the CTCR report Women in the Church and especially Section III, "Guidelines for Practice," be commended for study and guidance; and be it finally

Resolved, That the congregations of the Synod proceed with care and sensitivity in making decisions permitting the lay reading of the Scriptures, recognizing decisions in this regard lie in the area of Christian judgment.

Action: Adopted (15).



Concerning the CTCR report "Women in the Church," it seems to me that while the CTCR did not give a definite yes or no in that report on women reading the lessons, it did write that

QuoteThe reading of the Scriptures belongs to the priesthood of all believers, men and women. . . . .Moreover, there is no ceremonial law in the New Testament regarding the reading of Scripture in the context of public worship. Nor is there explicit apostolic prohibition of such reading by women. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the CTCR that the reading of the Scriptures is most properly the function of the pastoral office and should therefore not ordinarily be delegated to a lay person, woman or man.

Why would the reading of the Scriptures most properly be a function of the pastoral office when, "the reading of the Scriptures belongs to the priesthood of all believers"? One reason could be tradition. This seems to have been a large part of the CTCR's concern. Since the readings have traditionally been done by pastors, to have lay people read them could create confusion as to the pastoral role.

I wrote to the CTCR about this. In a personal letter in response to my inquiry as to the CTCR's rationale, Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger wrote, "I think you have captured the essence of the Commission's rationale for this opinion when you surmise that 'the reasoning was perhaps primarily that it has been traditional in our church to have the pastor do the reading and so to have lay people read could produce confusion.'"

That is hardly a firm doctrinal stance that the reading of the lessons should only be done by the pastor. I am not aware of there being a doctrinal position of the LCMS on whether or not reading the lessons is teaching. But apparently it is not the doctrinal position of the LCMS that it is teaching in the sense that therefore it should only be done by pastors.

I would also point out that in the Rubrics for LSB, the Old Testament and Epistle lesson may be read by the lay assistant.

Rolf, I disagree with you on this point, that the Scripture Lessons in the worship service should only be read by the pastor. In disagreeing with you, I do not assert that you are being misogynistic, fighting the feminism wars or any such thing. Far too often in our discussions on this forum, participants demean each other by attributing motivations to each other for which they have no basis and rather than discuss the points of contention, simply try to discredit each other. I do not want to perpetuate such behavior. I am confident that you are trying, to the best of your ability, to be faithful to God's word, and careful in your interpretation. As am I. I simply think that you are wrong on this point.

Neither, however, do I want to enter into a detailed discussion on this. This is far too complex a topic to be reasonably researched and exhibited in a format like this forum. If you, or anyone else, wants to know my reasoning on this topic, I refer you to the article, "Lay Readers in Public Worship," Concordia Journal, October, 1995, pp. 400-414. Subscribers to the Concordia Journal may access this article online through ATLAS. Access information is available on the page after the Table of Contents of any recent issue. Alternatively, anyone can send me a PM with their email address, and I will email a copy.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk