• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

lcms and wels diffs?

RadMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2007
3,580
288
79
Missouri
✟5,227.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Kretzman Commentary: Guideline of Lutheran belief. Notice the heading.

The Station and Calling of Christian Women. 1 Tim. 2,9-15.
V.9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, v.10. but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 17. V.11. Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. V.12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. V.13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. V.14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression. V.15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child-bearing if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. In the first part of the chapter the apostle had discussed the form of public worship with special reference to the participation of men. He now considers the case of the women: Likewise also the women (I admonish) to adorn themselves in modest dress, with modesty and moderation, not with plaited locks and gold or pearls or costly array, but, what becomes women professing reverence of God, by means of good works. This is also a part of the divine charge which Paul gave, not only to the women of Ephesus and of the other Christian congregations, but to the Christian women of all times. He shows them what conduct, what behavior the Lord expects of them at all times, but particularly in public worship. The mantle or dress in which they appear in public, and especially in church services, should be decent, modest, in no way suggest the specific female characteristics nor call attention to the sex of the wearer. This is further emphasized by the words: modesty and moderation. A Christian woman will show also in her dress that she avoids all that is suggestive and indecent, that she possesses the moderation and sober-mindedness which keeps sensual excitement in check. Where true chastity lives in the heart, and not a disgusting prudery, the dress of a woman will express the beauty of a womanly personality, but will never accentuate the charms of sex. It is the latter trait, so prominent in our days, which the apostle now censures in such sharp words as being incompatible with the finest adornment of Christ’s disciples. The apostle names plaited hair, the braided, waved, and curled coiffure which was affected by the super-stylish women of those days and particularly by the loose women. Another characteristic of that class of women was the extravagant use of gold and pearls, of jewelry of every description, a feature which always becomes prominent in the same ratio as morals decline. He finally names costly array, luxuriant, extravagant dress, which attracts attention by its showiness. Such lavish adornment, finery, and baubles are not conducive to the dignity of a Christian woman, particularly not in public worship; it belongs to a sphere with which Christian women have nothing in common. The adornment, the finest ornament of believers rather, that which should distinguish Christian women, is the reverence toward God which they profess and give evidence of through good works. By unselfish service of others a Christian girl or woman will be clothed with the finest garment, Col. 3, 12; her good works will be her most splendid jewels, Prov. 31, 10.
Having spoken of the appearance of women in public services, the apostle now adds a definite prohibition, forbidding women to be public teachers of a Christian congregation: But to teach I do not permit a woman, nor to exercise dominion over man, but [admonish her] to be in silence. This he connects with his command: Let a woman learn in silence with complete subjection. St. Paul undoubtedly had a reason for repeating a charge which he had given once before, 1 Cor. 14, 33-35. Learn, receive instruction, the woman should indeed, she was by no means excluded from public services; on the contrary, women often formed a very large and prominent part of the congregations, as their frequent mention in the New Testament indicates. But this learning of the woman was to be done in quietness and silence. She was not to interrupt the sermons or doctrinal discussions in public services by questions or remarks of her own, she was in no way to interfere with, or take part in, the public teaching of the congregation as such. Her position is indeed, in many questions pertaining to the household, one of coordination, in the public life and teaching of the congregation, however, strictly one of subordination, one of complete subjection. Public teaching of the Word is not permitted to women; they are not to become preachers or teachers of the congregation as such, although they may very well teach children and young people outside of public services, and may also give individual instruction to older people. Cp. Titus 2, 3. 4; Acts 18, 26. But in no way and at no time shall the woman exercise dominion over the man, neither in public worship, by presuming to be a public teacher, nor at home, nor in any other sphere of activity. The apostle once more emphasizes that she should be in silence, that her role is that of a listener and learner in public and not that of a teacher. The highest excellence of a Christian woman is that of following her calling in the quiet seclusion of the home.
The apostle now supports his rule of silence on two grounds: For Adam was created first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, overcome by deceit, was in the transgression. The priority of Adam’s creation is thus a testimony for the order of God that the man should lead and rule for all times. God made woman as an helpmeet for man, the subordination of women holding good even before the Fall. The woman was and should be in the relation of dependency to the man, from which it follows that her status should not be that of a leader or teacher in the Church. In the second place, the story of the first man shows that there was no temptation and fall as long as he was alone. As soon, however, as the woman, the weaker vessel, was present, Satan made his attack. Thus Adam was not deceived, was not seduced, but Eve was overcome by the devil’s deception; she fell into the trap set by the enemy and then persuaded her husband to join her in the foolish transgression. So the Fall was brought about, which, in its sad results, continues to this hour. Here again the subordination of the woman is plainly shown, a fact which excludes her from being a teacher in public worship, where her office would give her dominion over the man.
In order, however, to guard against the idea as if the subordination of woman in any way reduces her right and her participation in the blessings of the Gospel, the apostle adds a word of comfort: But she will be saved through child-bearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with sobriety. “St. Paul, taking the common-sense view that child-bearing, rather than public teaching or the direction of affairs, is woman’s primary function, duty, privilege, and dignity, reminds Timothy and his readers that there was another aspect of the story in Genesis besides that of woman’s taking the initiative in transgression: the pains of childbirth were her sentence, yet in undergoing these she finds her salvation.” 6) Not, indeed, as though child-bearing were a means of earning salvation, but the home, the family, motherhood, is woman’s proper sphere of activity. Every normal woman should enter holy wedlock, become a mother, and rear her children, if God grants her the gift of babies of her own. That is woman’s highest calling; for this God has given her physical and mental gifts. Unless God Himself directs otherwise, a woman misses her purpose in life if she does not become a helpmeet of her husband and a mother of children. And this is true of all Christian women, if they perform all these works of their calling in faith in the Redeemer and in the consequent unselfish love, in the sanctification which seeks to make progress day by day. In this way they all exercise the moderation, the sobriety, the chaste watchfulness over all sinful lusts and desires, which effectually drives out lewd passion and makes all the members of the body instruments in the service of God. 7).
 
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟80,266.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I'm SO glad I'm WELS.

me too :thumbsup:

If I were you, I would slow down and read what is actually written and address that. I am not suggesting that any of these women held authority over a man. How you ever arrived at that conclusion, I have absolutely no idea.....

From your posts.
I have no need to ask ANY WELS pastor anything as I am not the one making assertions that ARE NOT supported by Scripture and I am also not saying what you think I am. You asserted in a previous post, which is now deleted, that no women were a part of Jesus traveling ministry and I gave you many examples from Scripture that women were indeed a part of His ministry. I even gave you page numbers in the Lutheran Study Bible and supporting Scripture references so you could check it out for yourself. You obviously didn't care to do that.

And it should be obvious that I need not validate that much of what I write isn't IMO
If anybody needs to ask a WELS pastor anything, it is you as you're making assertions that are not supported by the Scriptures. The bottom line is this, you made an assertion not supported by the Scriptures and have been proven wrong.

It's unfortunate that you don't ask. I probably am in 1/2 to 1 hour phone conversations with various WELS pastors (bi-weekly on avg.). Admittedly most times it's with my brother-in-law who has probably been a WELS pastor longer than you've been alive (46 yrs ... not including schooling).

So I do have a bit more access for insight \ indepth knowledge of theological understanding that I draw from. I value very much the access to the time he puts aside to discuss questions from me, I'm sure that he would rather spend time answering questions from somebody who is generally trying to learn rather than taking the time to answer the same question from somebody who is trying to "outsmart" him.

Everything you point to is that sure women were involved, but one need to keep in mind that Jesus had no established church. He was still within the synagogue \ temple format of religious practices.

All people are "disciples" which meant one is a follower of Jeusus. Since we don't know anymore than that, your scriptural examples that you believe proofs something are nothing more than what women doing in the culture of the time. Being that women were literally in the background in the Jewish religion practices,there is no reason to think otherwise that those women were attending to the physical needs of Jesus, the apostles and the other men who comprised the 70\72. The women (following the customary practices) would be what we would call an "entourage".

As forTabitha, she simply made clothes for the poor.. is not this magic "see I'm right" example you are making it to be.

The 70\72 that Jesus sent out, there is no reason based on scripture that women were part of this. Taking into account that Jesus was still functioning as the Jewish customs were at that time, women would not have been involved.




Can't wait to see what wild allegations will come from you regarding this post. ^_^

Time for a group hug for you :groupray:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
What if a man is, ya know, wrong? ;)

Men are never wrong, dontcha know?? :D


Twin.Spin and Zec...I think you two are talking from the same sides of the coin. Both of you are WELS and I think you're talking a bit past each other.

Also, twin.spin, because I'm nosy, I wanna know who you know!! My husband been a WELS preacher for going on 12 years now. His dad is a pastor as well, retired but working hard at St. Marcus with his son-in-law. Yes, THE St. Marcus!! :D Many family friends are pastors as well.

I love the WELS connection.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
What if a man is, ya know, wrong? ;)

:eek:

I've always said, behind every good man there's a good woman kicking him in the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. If that rare occasion should arise where the man could possibly and remotely be (*gulp*) wrong,


then she ain't kickin' hard enough. :)
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
:eek:

I've always said, behind every good man there's a good woman kicking him in the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. If that rare occasion should arise where the man could possibly and remotely be (*gulp*) wrong,


then she ain't kickin' hard enough. :)

Precisely!! :p

Great, now the conversation is about who you know.

Some of us LCMS people have connections too.

I don't recall anyone saying you didn't.

The "WELS Connections" is a sort of inside joke because the synodical videos that get sent out every month are called WELS Connection.

Wow. Didn't realize people would get offended over that. :o
 
Upvote 0

QuiltAngel

Veteran
Apr 10, 2006
5,355
311
Somewhere on planet earth
✟23,347.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Sorry about that. It is just that Twin.Spin has posted several times about all the Pastors in his family and that he knows. Last was how much he talks to them. I guess we are supposed to be impressed. Maybe I am taking that wrong too.

I have been married for 31 years, my husband had been a Pastor for 25 and the 4 years before, he was in Seminary. Most of my friends are Pastors. His brother-in-law has been a Pastor for 29 years. So, you can see how knowing lots of Pastors does not impress me.

Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
 
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟80,266.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Men are never wrong, dontcha know?? :D
Twin.Spin and Zec...I think you two are talking from the same sides of the coin. Both of you are WELS and I think you're talking a bit past each other.
I had mentioned that in post #183 but he didn't see how

Also, twin.spin, because I'm nosy, I wanna know who you know!! My husband been a WELS preacher for going on 12 years now. His dad is a pastor as well, retired but working hard at St. Marcus with his son-in-law. Yes, THE St. Marcus!! :D Many family friends are pastors as well.

I love the WELS connection.

I'll send a dm
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Sorry about that. It is just that Twin.Spin has posted several times about all the Pastors in his family and that he knows. Last was how much he talks to them. I guess we are supposed to be impressed. Maybe I am taking that wrong too.

I don't think it's that we are to be impressed, but that if one wants to know about the bible or Lutheran doctrine, if one is talking to pastors then they're probably getting it right.

I have been married for 31 years, my husband had been a Pastor for 25 and the 4 years before, he was in Seminary. Most of my friends are Pastors. His brother-in-law has been a Pastor for 29 years. So, you can see how knowing lots of Pastors does not impress me.

For me personally, if I'm talking to two people who disagree and I've got one who is talking from a lot of pastors' perspectives versus one who is talking from their own, I'm generally going to look at what the first guy is saying first and then what the other guy is saying. There's a reason pastors go to seminary and there's a reason they're pastors versus laymen.

That doesn't mean I think the first guy is smart or that the second guy is wrong. I'm just going to look at what is being said by pastors.

I do that a lot with posts here that have to do with the LCMS, actually. I look at Rev's posts first because he's a pastor in the synod and I respect that.

So yeah, I guess you could say I am a little impressed when people know pastors. I didn't know many until I was married to one, and now I have a plethora of them and I love it.

Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

It was a nice break for awhile.
 
Upvote 0

porterross

I miss Ronald Reagan
Jan 27, 2006
10,720
4,179
61
just this side of Heaven
✟52,331.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
:eek:

I've always said, behind every good man there's a good woman kicking him in the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. If that rare occasion should arise where the man could possibly and remotely be (*gulp*) wrong,


then she ain't kickin' hard enough. :)


OK, but if it came down to a church issue, as in voting, and a wife and/or woman is right, especially from a doctrinally perspective, and the husband or man in question refuses to vote properly, what's to be done?

From a WELS standpoint, the man votes on behalf of the family unit and is responsible for getting it right, but we all know that there are times when that doesn't happen. A wife can't force a husband to vote as she would have him do nor should it be the other way around.

Look at it this way; if one spouse is determined to vote for someone like Obama and makes that known, should the other spouse not exercise their Constitutional right to vote against what many of us see as a dangerous choice? I would think conscience would motivate most of us to do so and stubborn, sinful, human nature doesn't end when we pass through the door of a church. If it did, there would be no need to vote on anything in any congregation, right? As it is, we know better and to imply that equally catechised and instructed women are somehow less capable of knowing how to vote properly on matters that affect congregations they are then expected to serve, is completely illogical and for me, it's wrong and not scripturally mandated.

I realize WELS members view voting differently and that it's only one of the differences that keep us apart, but it's one matter that I personally wouldn't give in on in order to be in fellowship again. Too many women have fought too hard for too long to not be treated as something other than property of men, much less somehow equal, I just can't imagine giving up an aspect of that progress. If someone wants to extrapolate something negative from that, you'll be wasting your breath. That statement is about basic human rights, not women's lib. :p


Becks, if a wife's job is to keep her husband on the straight and narrow, how is that not exercising authority over him, yet his doing the same for her (because by WELS argument he's more capable) is, and should be expected? Or is it fine to control a husband behind closed doors so it seems he's in complete command? A man is either in full authority or he's not, right? I'm confused about where the line is drawn based on what's been stated. :confused:


How long have women had the right to vote in the LCMS?
If someone mentioned it earlier, I must have skimmed over it. Given all the mud-slinging that's gone on, I claim self defense. ;)
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
A Godly husband takes into consideration his wife, his family and his church when he makes decisions.

For example, I trust that my husband keeps up to date on the political elections and candidates. It doesn't mean I don't keep up to date, but in the end, I trust his judgment on such matters, not because he's "in charge" but because I know he would never do anything to hurt me or our family or his church.

My husband asks my advice on matters. There are times when we talk things out and he changes his opinion on things because he trusts what I have to say.

When there is a vote in the congregation, he asks me what I think and we talk it out. Sometimes we disagree, and when that happens we talk more. I can honestly say that when the time came to vote I've never felt opposed to the way my husband would vote. (Actually, as pastor he doesn't vote but he does make recommendations to the council)

That's where people get screwed up with the whole idea of submission. The secular world views that as a bad word. They ask questions kinda like Rev did, like "well, do you get to choose to make your own supper?" that really don't address the issue of submission. They look at one side of the issue and think that our doctrines mean that the wife just shuts up and is at her husband's mercy. We know that is not the case.

Authority runs both ways. If my husband was failing to live up to his role as a Godly man and husband, I would have to step up and take control, much like Deborah had to in the OT. It is not Godly and it is not how He has set marriages up, but it does happen. I firmly believe that where there are women in charge, there are men who have failed to step up and be, well, men.

It has nothing to do with equality. We know that God created us equal yet different. I always chuckle that God didn't give childbirthing to men. I don't see the guys getting their boxers twisted over that one!! :D
 
Upvote 0

Zecryphon

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2006
8,987
2,005
52
Phoenix, Arizona
✟19,186.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
How you ever arrived at that conclusion, I have absolutely no idea.....

From your posts.
Can't be as I've never said any of the things you conclude I have said.

And it should be obvious that I need not validate that much of what I write isn't IMO
Why should that be obvious? If you can't validate what you write, that's your problem. I'll just stop talking to you. I don't like talking to people who can't back up what they say.

It's unfortunate that you don't ask. I probably am in 1/2 to 1 hour phone conversations with various WELS pastors (bi-weekly on avg.). Admittedly most times it's with my brother-in-law who has probably been a WELS pastor longer than you've been alive (46 yrs ... not including schooling).
Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Lemme ask you this. My grandfather was a Pentecostal preacher for 50 years, longer than your BIL has been alive. Are you impressed by that? You shouldn't be, as it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. So your brother-in-law being a pastor for 46 years, just makes him older than me and also doesn't lend any credibility to your posts.

So I do have a bit more access for insight \ indepth knowledge of theological understanding that I draw from. I value very much the access to the time he puts aside to discuss questions from me, I'm sure that he would rather spend time answering questions from somebody who is generally trying to learn rather than taking the time to answer the same question from somebody who is trying to "outsmart" him.
Yeah you probably shouldn't try to outsmart him and should actually try and learn something from him. It might help you not make assertions that are not supported by Scripture and are actually proven false by Scripture.

Everything you point to is that sure women were involved, but one need to keep in mind that Jesus had no established church. He was still within the synagogue \ temple format of religious practices.
No established church? Are you serious with this? The word for church in the NT is Ekklesia, which means assembly. Did Jesus not have followers and believers that made up an assembly? Yes He did. Another assertion of yours proven wrong.

All people are "disciples" which meant one is a follower of Jeusus. Since we don't know anymore than that, your scriptural examples that you believe proofs something are nothing more than what women doing in the culture of the time. Being that women were literally in the background in the Jewish religion practices,there is no reason to think otherwise that those women were attending to the physical needs of Jesus, the apostles and the other men who comprised the 70\72. The women (following the customary practices) would be what we would call an "entourage".


Except all the Scriptural examples I could post here of women doing just that. For instance, Peter's mother. After Jesus healed her, she fed Him and the Apostles. Mary and Martha, gave Jesus and His Apostles shelter and food. Mary went to the tomb to adorn Jesus with burial spices, attending to His needs. I could go on, but it's just not worth it. You'll just try and find some way to argue against what the Scriptures plainly say.

Tabitha, she simply made clothes for the poor.. is not this magic "see I'm right" example you are making it to be.
I'm done talking to you. You're projecting attitudes on to me that I am not displaying. You said there were no women disciples. I provided Acts 9:36 to show you that Tabitha is named as a disciple. That's all. Nothing more, no agenda here to say "I'm right and you're wrong." Who is right here is God and what He has revealed in His written word. I have provided numerous examples from His written word, you have not. You're operating on what others in your family have told you. Basically hearsay. Not good evidence in a discussion about Scriptural matters.

The 70\72 that Jesus sent out, there is no reason based on scripture that women were part of this. Taking into account that Jesus was still functioning as the Jewish customs were at that time, women would not have been involved.
No reason based upon Scripture? I've given you plenty. If Jesus were still functioning in line with all of the Jewish customs of that time He never would have talked to a woman. He never would have healed on the Sabbath. He never would have knocked over the tables in the Temple and beaten out the moneychangers. He never would have called the Pharisees on their hypocrisy. We see Jesus upsetting the standards of Jewish society many times in Scripture. It's why many considered Him a radical.

Time for a group hug for you
groupray.gif
For a group hug to work you need more people to hug me. Since it's just you, this :hug: would have been the appropriate icon. See ya around.

*Unsubscribing* as this is going in circles and I think we've all exhausted the topic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟80,266.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I never said it was BAD.

You didn't have to. Your posts are practically dripping with derision over the idea that he spoke to pastors.

I happen to think that someone who talks to pastors on a regular basis is probably going to know more about the bible than the average layperson. That's been my experience, anyway. My biblical knowledge shot up big time after I married a pastor.

First you got all upset over "connections" and now you're all up in arms about people knowing pastors. Like, how dare we post about that stuff.

I don't get it.
 
Upvote 0