| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question | |||||||
| Q: | Before I begin, let me say thank you for answering so many questions. There has been a lot of questions on gender roles recently, and I really appreciate how so many questions are answered. I recently came across several quotes from Luther on gender roles (I am sorry but I do not know if the words in brackets are part of the original quote or not). "But in the New Testament the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul, ordained that women should be silent in the churches and assemblies [I Cor.14:34], and said that this is the Lord’s commandment. Yet he knew that previously Joel [2:28 f.] had proclaimed that God would pour out his Spirit also on handmaidens. Furthermore, the four daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21[:9]). But in the congregations or churches where there is a ministry women are to be silent and not preach [I Tim. 2:12]. Otherwise they may pray, sing, praise, and say “Amen,” and read at home, teach one another, exhort, comfort, and interpret the Scriptures as best they can. (Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers, Luther’s Works 40:390-91)" Here Luther seems to entirely limit how women may speak in Church. His saying that they are to read at home seems to rule out their reading publicly in the Church. His saying they are to be silent, and then saying what they may do makes a strong case that Luther would have been against women speaking in any other way in the Church. "[1 Tim.2:]11. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I believe that Paul is still speaking about public matters. I also want it to refer to the public ministry, which occurs in the public assembly of the church. There a woman must be completely quiet, because she should remain a hearer and not become a teacher. She is not to be the spokesman among the people. She should refrain from teaching, from praying [i.e., leading in prayer] in public. She has the command to speak at home. This passage makes a woman subject. It takes from her all public office and authority. ... Where men and women have been joined together, there the men, not the women, ought to have authority. ... He [Paul] wants to save the order preserved by the world--that a man be the head of the woman, as 1 Cor. 11:3 tells us. Where there are men, she should neither teach nor rule. (Lectures on 1 Timothy, Luther’s Works 28:276-77)" Here Luther says that a woman may not be spokesman; is not any public speaking outside of what Luther has already limited the role of women to be (singing, praying along, saying "amen") an example of a "spokesmen"? Luther also appears to be saying that women cannot lead prayer. The issues with this in our synod right now appear to revolve around women lectoring, or leading prayer, or participating in some kind of "play" (i.e., Christmas). Unless I am missing something, Luther seems to be saying that women may not do any of these things. He limits what they can do, and says apart from that they must be silent. Of course, Luther was not inspired, but he was a great theologian. Do you think that we are in conflict with Luther on this issue? | ||||||
| A: | I'll begin where you ended. Luther was not inspired and is not the source of our doctrine as Scripture is. That merits emphasis because of the growing number of churchmen who are focusing mostly on the fathers in efforts to resolve debated issues and not being content with what Scripture alone says. And, Yes, Luther was by God's grace a terrific theologian. To your question: Do I think allowing or envisioning the occasional use of women or children as lectors in public worship assemblies places us in conflict with Luther? With regard to the principles, No, not at all. Luther cites and is commenting on the very same Bible sections we go back to in such discussions, and walks away from them with the same convictions that we do. With regard to the application of those principles? I suspect that, Yes, we are likely envisioning a possibility that Luther could not and did not envision. That is only personal opinion and I do not state it as authoritative. It merits further research and discussion. My point is that in the sixteenth century setting, the very thought of a woman doing something in a public worship assembly that is so similar to the way the called pastors and priests function was culturally and traditionally unthinkable or unimaginable. Female musicians (instrumental or oral) didn't even function in such settings. It would have been spiritually offensive and unwise to introduce such a thing even if it were permissible. And that is the same point that previous answers here given have mentioned as well. We care a great deal about other Christians, including confessional Lutherans, whose background, culture, or traditional applications of the agreed on principles differ from what we may envision as possible. And--to repeat what has been said previously as well--let's remember that no one is talking about any regular, Sunday-by-Sunday use of woman or child lectors in settings that invite confusion or unnecessarily blur the difference between their task and that of the called public pastoral ministers. We are speaking, for the sake of clarifying the Bible principles and potential applications, of a woman or child serving at a special event for a particular reason, when the "exercise of authority" over men does not enter the picture. | ||||||
| |||||||