Thursday, December 6, 2007

Christian Worship.

Delete
RandomDan said...

It has often been said that WELS has the worst hymnal in all of Lutheranism. Let us discuss the bad and the good of our hymnal. Is the current hymnal good enough? Should we completely redo it? If alternatives are available, which would be best for our synod?

One of the more fascinating directions might be the development of Evangelical Lutheran Hymnal, especially in light of the fact that the ELS had Christian Worship available to them.

December 6, 2007 7:38 AM


92 comments:

Anonymous said...

When I first became Lutheran, Christian Worship (CW) was a good "training wheels" hymnal. When I left for the ELS a few years later (the WELS congregation had abandoned use of the hymnal anyway for more out-reach sensitive materials), I found the Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary (ELH) more challenging.

I won't say I think CW is a poor excuse for a Lutheran hymnal. But I do think that ELH offers more.

The one real weakness of ELH compared to CW is the Psalms. CW did a great job with layout and modification of the tones to make the Psalms very usable. A future revision to ELH needs to follow the CW model in that one regard.

An aside about liturgy and hymnals. A huge beef that I carry to this day is that no one, not the pastor during my adult instruction, not the new member mentor form the congregation that was assigned to me and my family by the elders, no one, took the time to explain what the liturgies were and why they were used.

I harp on this regularly in my current congregation. If we don't teach members and vistors that the liturgies contain the pure gold of Scripture, we can't expect them to treasure it more highly than the fool's gold offered in contemporary services.

ELSer

Anonymous said...

I can tell you with certainty that my WELS congregation will be having a Bible class soon that will focus on worship, explaining why we do what we do, at the same time looking at the significance of the liturgy.

Anonymous said...

We did the WELS series on Liturgy "Come Worship Christ". I didn't find it to be much beyond a surface study. It, like others, seems geared towards new members to the faith. I keep praying for something more substantial, but I wonder if it's even available within the selection of material.

The studies always ask questions like, "Do you think communion is important?" That's an exaggeration ... I think. Where's the WELS stuff beyond 'milk'? The majority of what I've heard and seen seems to be for new members, of which, we don't have a lot. To get any 'meat' you end up having to self-study, which is fine. But sometimes you hunger for more.

John said...

Anonymous said...

I can tell you with certainty that my WELS congregation will be having a Bible class soon that will focus on worship, explaining why we do what we do, at the same time looking at the significance of the liturgy.


That is commendable! As a member of various WELS churches for many years, I have never found a Bible study being offered that taught the meaning of the liturgy.

Anonymous said...

"That is commendable! As a member of various WELS churches for many years, I have never found a Bible study being offered that taught the meaning of the liturgy."

Well, my congregation will attempt to do just that. Pray the Lord blesses our efforts!

Anonymous said...

Dr. Art Just from Fort Wayne has a very good video Bible class on the liturgy. He's LCMS, but I don't remember there being anything that would be inappropriate in a WELS congregation either. It has more depth than "Come Worship Christ".

I vaguely recall some other studies too, but will have to check with others for titles and authors.

Michelle said...

ELSer,

The Psalms in Christian Worship, IMHO, are a major weakness, not strength. The reasoning is threefold. First, there are a large number of Psalms missing. Second, the Psalms that are included are trimmed down to six or seven verses. Finally, the Psalm tones used to chant them are pietistic, KI should not be thinking of western movie music while chanting the Psalms, but that's exactly what comes to my mind with many of the Psalm tones.

With that being said, we at least are using the Psalms in our worship. That is to be commended and encouraged. I just happen to think we can do better.

Maybe tomorrow, I will document all the changes made to the Common Service.

Anonymous said...

"First, there are a large number of Psalms missing."

Don't you realize what a monumental task it would be to set and arrange every single psalm to chant? And wouldn't you agree that some of the psalms are more suited to use in public worship than others? (i.e. Some psalms have content matter and imagery that requires more explanation and instruction than is possible in the setting of public worship.)

"Second, the Psalms that are included are trimmed down to six or seven verses."

Some psalms are extremely long. It would be taxing on peoples' voices and attention span if we had to sing every verse of every psalm. Have you seen Psalm 119?

"Finally, the Psalm tones used to chant them are pietistic,"

Really? Could you explain how tones can be inherently pietistic? I've never heard that one before. Did the pietists really like augmented thirds or something? Do diminished fourths cause people to make their decision for Christ or something?!? Seems far-fetched to me.

Sorry, Michelle, I think you are being a bit unfair and criticizing just for the sake of criticizing.

Anonymous said...

I'm not familiar with Come and Worship Christ. However, congregations I have served have used what's called a "narrative worship service." The pastor would go through the liturgy as usual, but we would have a narrator to the side who would explain what each part of the liturgy meant as we would go through it. It makes for a little longer worship service, but it has been well received. This would also be a good opportunity to have a sermon about worship and the service. This could be done with any hymnal-- ELS, WELS, LCMS, TLH, etc.

Anonymous said...

I have used TLH as a hymnal up until just a few years ago, when I started using CW. I found CW wonderfully refreshing! The only complaint I have is that some of the liturgical parts (such as the Song of Mary) are difficult for our organists to play and even more difficult for our members to sing. This is also my major complaint with the New Service Settings. We tried it, but then abandoned it. Our organists (who are good) had a very difficult time playing the New Service Settings. We received so many complaints from members that we dropped it altogether. The other complaint I have about CW is that on many of the hymns we learned as kids from TLH, CW has dropped many of the verses. I noticed this Wednesday night when we sang "Now Rest beneath Night's Shadow." Otherwise, I think CW is a good hymnal. There is no perfect hymnal--not even TLH.

Anonymous said...

"Finally, the Psalm tones used to chant them are pietistic"

Oh man. This is total "boy who cried wolf" territory. Look, pietism had a terrible influence on the Lutheran church, some remnants of which still remain today. But when people start claiming that every little thing is pietistic, they only hurt their cases and cause people to ignore all charges of pietism--even when the charge is actually fitting.

I can just hear it now: "You know, I think we need to get our organ tuned--that low A-flat was sounding awfully pietistic this morning."

RandomDan said...

Don't you realize what a monumental task it would be to set and arrange every single psalm to chant? And wouldn't you agree that some of the psalms are more suited to use in public worship than others? (i.e. Some psalms have content matter and imagery that requires more explanation and instruction than is possible in the setting of public worship.)

It isn't a monumental task because the work has already been done. The WELS Commission on Worship (CoW) took it upon themselves to write new music for the Psalms (or find it in some cases). Maybe the better question is why didn't they use the tones that have been used for nearly 1500 years and decided that there was a need for new tones?

Some psalms are extremely long. It would be taxing on peoples' voices and attention span if we had to sing every verse of every psalm. Have you seen Psalm 119?

Have you ever seen how churches divide up the Psalms? Is there anything that says one must sing all the verses in a Psalm?

The Psalter is the prayer book of the church since its inception. Why not just chop the Lord's Prayer down to the bare minimum?

Really? Could you explain how tones can be inherently pietistic? I've never heard that one before. Did the pietists really like augmented thirds or something? Do diminished fourths cause people to make their decision for Christ or something?!? Seems far-fetched to me.

It sounds far fetched because you're operating under the absurd assumption that music is a neutral force. Baloney. Music can and does reinforce pietism. Listen to Contemporary Christian Music. It's pietistic to the core, and its music reinforces the me-centered ideas and notions floating around within the lyrics. Take a listen to a few pietistic clunkers within the hymnal (there are plenty to choose from) and then listen to the psalm tones. You will hear what I hear. You may not believe me, but I can tell a pietistic hymn is coming by just listening to the organist play the intro without reading the words.

Why didn't our church use the eight modes used by every other Western liturgical church?

RandomDan said...

Changes made to the Common Service.

1) Making the sign of the cross removed from the invocation.

2) Versicle removed from the confession of sins.

3) Kyrie moved to the confession of sins.

4) Inroit removed.

5) "In the peace of forgiveness. let us praise the Lord"

6) Psalm replaces the Gradual.

7) Do not stand for the verse and alleluias.

8) Feminist translation of the Nicene Creed. (They changed "man" to "fully human", which was farther than even the liberal mainline protestants were willing to go).

9) Lord's Prayer moved to the prayers of the Church rather than left before the Words of Institution.

10) Wording of the proper preface changed.

11) Gloria Patri missing from the Nunc Dimittis.

Anonymous said...

randomdan,

I read through your list and my reaction is: "So what?"

Study the history of the liturgy. It has always been a living and changing thing. Churches have changed and modified and tweaked it throughout history--often times much more dramatically than CW. Sometimes I get the impression that some people believe that the liturgy itself if divinely inspired and that no changes to it are permitted. That has never been the opinion of the Church through history.

Anonymous said...

"8) Feminist translation of the Nicene Creed. (They changed "man" to "fully human", which was farther than even the liberal mainline protestants were willing to go)."

How is that feminist? I guess I'm clueless.

Yes, "man" means all "mankind" which is indicative of all "people."

But, whether we choose to use gender neutral phrasing or not--I don't see how that is inherently "feminist."

Now, if the wording was changed to the feminine, I could see your point--but "gender neutral" (i.e. "all people" or "humankind") is not inherently feminist. It's merely recognizing that the language of our society has changed.

I am so confused on why language from the 1950s being changed is so upsetting to people. Language changes--it does and that does not mean it is inherently evil.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who knows Greek knows that it isn't feminist.

Anonymous said...

RandomDan--
As a musician myself, I am very interested to hear what musical elements you would characterize as pietistic. Specific examples that you could point to in hymn lines and psalm tones would be interesting as well.

UP said...

How about the snappy "Happy the people, the Lord has chosen to be His own." Or, "Jesus, Savior Pilot Me", "What a Friend We Have in Jesus", "How Great Thou Art", etc.

As a musician, you should know music history. As a church musician I (and you should too) know which hymns came out of pietism. The music is more emotional than that from, for example only (no, we should not sing these all the time), the German Reformation. The better Lutheran hymnody from all parts of the globe and from all of church history is objective and the music serves the text. In pietist hymnody, the music is far more emotional, to match a far more emotional subjective theology, and the text is secondary to emotions being moved by the music.

Church musicians are responsible to know the theology behind the music they are playing. This would be helpful to a lot of nonmusical pastors who don't have a clue. Take responsibility to know what you are doing and why.

And to those who are defending "fully human", take a look at what is going on in the Christian church today. Fully human means something different than "He was made man". Especially look at the Episcopal church and their feminism, and the ELCA. This is the kind of language loved by the feminists and those supporting women's ordination.

Why were the changes made to the "Common Service" in CW that RandomDan pointed out? Those are several and serious departures from the Western rite and the only reason I've seen here for them is "so what?". Does anyone have a better answer for the changes than that? Thanks.

UP

Anonymous said...

1. The tune to "A Mighty Fortress" (when played up to speed and with syncopation--as it was originally intended) is equally "snappy" and "emotional" as "Happy the People". UP claims to want music that serves the text. If the text is happy, shouldn't the music be equally happy?

2. As to "fully human", learn some Greek. The Greek word used to describe Christ (anthropos) means "human" not "male". I can't think of a single passage that describes Christ with the Greek word for "male" (aner). (By the way, if "anthropos" must mean "male", then Christ only came to save males, not all humanity. Sorry women.) Thus, the CW wording is actually more accurate. This isn't to deny that Christ was, in fact, male. But to claim that this is a loophole for bad theology is ridiculous. Women's ordination came about in those other churches because of political correctness, not because someone discovered a loophole in the Creed.

3. Here's an example of a good reason for a change in the Common Service: As a child I always felt that the Kyrie was primarily a penitential text (especially set to the music it's set to). From conversation, I know that many other people felt the same way. Thus, having the Kyrie after the Absolution was a confusing proclamation of law and gospel--confession, then absolution, then more penitence. Thus, by placing the Kyrie before the absolution, and the joyful Gloria right after the absolution, it actually provides a much clearer proclamation of law and gospel, which is what the liturgy is all about.

UP said...

So, a good reason for moving the Kyrie was because you "felt" it was penitential and so did lots of other people? That's not very compelling. Do you know why it was placed after the absolution originally? The Kyrie after the Absolution is the cry of the absolved for help in a series of petitions. It is a cry for God's aid as believers live out their lives in the shadow of the cross. By the way, the reason it was moved in CW was because Pr. Kurt Eggert knew the Kyrie had the CW placement in an old WELS hymnal and he wanted to be true to the past of the WELS, which was a departure from the Western rite. The WELS is only being consistent with the history of the WELS and is ignoring much of the rest of the Christian church. This is evidence of a very sectarian mindset.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote about music serving the text. There's no issue with happy music. Please write against what I actually wrote. Here it is again:"As a musician, you should know music history. As a church musician I (and you should too) know which hymns came out of pietism. The music is more emotional than that from, for example only (no, we should not sing these all the time), the German Reformation. The better Lutheran hymnody from all parts of the globe and from all of church history is objective and the music serves the text. In pietist hymnody, the music is far more emotional, to match a far more emotional subjective theology, and the text is secondary to emotions being moved by the music."

As for "fully human", please see what I originally wrote. "This is the kind of language loved by the feminists and those supporting women's ordination." More on this later.


UP

UP said...

Fully human:

Prof. Theo. Hartwig, when preparing people to represent the COW in the hymanl introduction program, said the the "fully human" language was a concession to be sensitive to women, so they wouldn't feel left out. I am a woman, and we aren't so stupid that we can't understand when "man" means "humans". However, Jesus Christ was born a man and those words in the Creed are about Jesus. If wording that refers to all people (for example, men to people) is changed from general male terms to be inclusive of both genders, that's fine, but this "fully human" is only about Christ.

This fully human does not fit in the words of the Creed. Yes, Jesus is fully human, but He also has a gender, as do the rest of us fully humans. Also, there's no partially humans. It's an absurdity. There is importance in Christian theology that Christ was born male. He is Son, Bridegroom.

The WELS is very careful in other issues, like fellowship, to not give an impression of agreeing with false teachers. Why would we want to give the impression that we agree with those promoting the feminization of Christ or women's ordination by these changes?

"Anthropos" can mean human (either male or female), but it can also mean just male. Matt. 10:35 uses "anthropos" in male only terms. Matt. 11:8 does too. Matt. 19:10 also.

Acts 17:31 refers to Jesus as "aner".

(Perhaps you should learn more Greek) :)

An equally disturbing change in the Creed is dropping the word "men" from the phrase "for us men". There's ambiguity now. Previously the "men" meant all, everyone in the world. Us can be very limiting. Who are the us for whom Jesus came down? Just the church? Just the WELS? Just believers as Calvin said?

UP

Anonymous said...

UP,

No, the movement of the Kyrie has nothing to do with how I "feel". It has to do with the what the Kyrie actually communicates (not what the Kyrie was supposed to communicate--there's a difference). If a large number of people are under the impression that the Kyrie is more penitence following the Absolution, then something's wrong and something needs to be changed. Note that in another CW service, the Kyrie is retained after the Absolution, but is restored to its previous function as the response to a series of prayers and is set to less "penitential" music. I think that both of CW's solutions are better than what TLH did--simply having the Kyrie, set to penitential music, separate from confession and separate from prayers.

Anonymous said...

"Prof. Theo. Hartwig, when preparing people to represent the COW in the hymanl introduction program, said the the "fully human" language was a concession to be sensitive to women, so they wouldn't feel left out."

Would you like to cite a source for this? Or is this just hearsay and false accusation?

"I am a woman, and we aren't so stupid that we can't understand when "man" means "humans"."

That may be true for you, but I have personally talked with several women extremely upset by the use of "man" for "humans".

"Yes, Jesus is fully human, but He also has a gender, as do the rest of us fully humans."

But confessing one truth doesn't deny the other. When we speak of Christ being "true man" we are primarily referring to his humanity, not his gender. When the Creed was written, the thing in dispute wasn't Christ's maleness, it was his humanity. Thus the Creed, too, primarily is referring to humanity, not maleness.

""Anthropos" can mean human (either male or female), but it can also mean just male."

I never denied that, but the overwhelming use of "anthropos" is "person" not "male".

"An equally disturbing change in the Creed is dropping the word "men" from the phrase "for us men". There's ambiguity now."

In a world that no longer is aware of the general use of "men", saying "men" provides just as much ambiguity.

UP said...

If members do not know what the Kyrie or other parts of the liturgy are included for, there needs to be some teaching by the pastor. The ignorance of liturgics should be addressed by patient teaching not by changes made to the liturgy. People should know why we do what we do in church.

If enough (an how many would that be?) people think we can do without the Creed, should that go? Maybe a majority decide they'd rather not hear a sermon every week. Then it should go.

The only reasons you have given for changes to the liturgy are feelings and not knowing why we pray the liturgy that has been handed down to us. Wouldn't it be a better place to start by finding out why the parts of the liturgy are there, and in the order most of the Western church has used before making changes?

UP

Anonymous said...

But UP, such teaching was impossible because of the error made in TLH. How can a pastor teach the people that the Kyrie is the response to a series of prayers when TLH totally removed the prayers and removed the Kyrie from its historic place and just plopped it down between Absolution and Gloria with no context or explanation? Like I said before, in one of its services, CW actually restored the prayers and returned the Kyrie to its rightful place.

TLH is responsible for more poor liturgics in Lutheranism than CW will ever be.

UP said...

"In a world that no longer is aware of the general use of "men", saying "men" provides just as much ambiguity."

How about we change it to "just us fully humans"?


"Would you like to cite a source for this? Or is this just hearsay and false accusation?"

The source is someone who was there in person for those meetings.

"That may be true for you, but I have personally talked with several women extremely upset by the use of "man" for "humans"."

Me too and as I wrote above, if someone wishes to change places where "men" means "all people", super. However the "fully human" is talking about one man, Jesus Christ.

"I never denied that, but the overwhelming use of "anthropos" is "person" not "male"."

Sure you did. You wrote," As to "fully human", learn some Greek. The Greek word used to describe Christ (anthropos) means "human" not "male"."

Also, you didn't know that "aner" was ever used for Christ. I found it for you. You're welcome.

UP

UP said...

"such teaching was impossible"

What are they teaching at the seminary? Don't they have worship classes that should help future pastors teach their congregations?

No hymnal is perfect. That's why pastors should be knowledgeable about the liturgy.

UP

RNN said...

RandomDan,

Thanks for the detailing of the CW changes. Your list is quite helpful.

So far I have seen one reason for a couple of the changes. Please, anybody, what are the reasons for the other changes?

No, the liturgy did not fall from God in heaven. Nevertheless, we live as heirs of generations of Christians who have gone before. We ought to receive the liturgy and other gifts bestowed upon us with humility and thankfulness, respecting the deep wisdom that is rooted in the liturgy.

I have never been comfortable then with the attitude that says: let's make changes because we can. Or, yeah, we made some changes, so what? Much that once was good has been lost through the changes arising from this attitude.

For instance, why no introit? No, there is no law that says that we have to have an introit. But it speaks of what is going on. We have been absolved, and now we enter in; we come before the Lord who is there to give us life and salvation in his gifts. When the introit is retained, we do so with the Lord's own words on our lips; speaking the Psalms that he has given us to pray.

So why was this dropped from CW? With it missing, a great opportunity for teaching what is happening in the service is lost.

So, if anyone can help me out with the reasons for the other changes, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

RNN

RNN said...

Dear fully human guy,

Thank you for reminding us of the Greek. But perhaps focusing so narrowly on the vocabulary takes us out of the broader context of the Creed and what it intends to confess.

The Creed confesses what God reveals in Scripture: Jesus Christ took on flesh from Mary and was born a man. He became a male, for He is and ever will be the Son of God--not the child of God, not the offspring of God, but the SON of God. So when the Father speaks from heaven: This is my beloved Son, he makes a strong point that Jesus Christ is a man. This is what the Creed confesses.

Changing the language from "man" to "fully human" seems then an odd shift. I do not know any "man" who is not "fully human." I know many "fully humans" who are female, and thus not "men" but "women."

Now, the WELS did not make this shift to support feminist theology. I am sure that that was not their motive--if I may presume to judge hearts. But there is more here than simply intentions. Whatever the reason for their shift, they ended up saying exactly what feminist and politically correct theology says: God does not have a gender. That is the impression given by "fully human."

You can find plenty of blogs or other internet sites of theologians (not WELS, but others) who talk at great length about the gendering of God as a human construct imposed on the diety. They would rejoice in describing the incarnation as Jesus becoming "fully human," leaving his gender up to you to determine for yourself.

Such notions are, of course, silly. You cannot be human without being male or female. Every person is one or the other. They might be described as two modes of being human, apart from which a person is not human. Our gender determines much about who we are. And so we worship the Son of God who became man. These words confess the truth of Scripture perfectly, especially in light of the feminist critique that surrounds us.

RNN

RandomDan said...

The error made in TLH is the error made in all Western liturgies. You have to go East to find the original petitions that go with the Kyrie.

CW didn't so much restore the petitions from the original Kyrie as take something beautiful and reword it until it's dull. If you want to see the real Kyrie (called the Great Litany and Antiphons), look here

Anonymous said...

"The error made in TLH is the error made in all Western liturgies."

So CW should have retained the error simply because the Church has been making that error for a really long time?

Anonymous said...

"This fully human does not fit in the words of the Creed."

The original authors of the creed used "human" and not "man." If they had intended to emphasize Christ's maleness, they would have used a different word than what they did. They were trying to emphasize that God became a human being. I'm sure that when our forefathers switched from German (or Norwegian) to English for the worship service, when they came upon the word "man" in the creed, they thought of "human being." We're having an issue with it now on this blog because the English meaning of the word "man" has substantially changed in the past 75 to 100 years.

Does anyone know what word was used in the old German and Norwegian liturgies?

Anonymous said...

"As for "fully human", please see what I originally wrote. "This is the kind of language loved by the feminists and those supporting women's ordination."

I still don't get it. Even if we use the term "fully human" we all know Christ had a penis and not a vagina...so I don't see how it could be a tool of the feminist to make Christ a female by using the term "fully" human.

I also find it hiliarious that even though the "fully human" guy was 100% on the Greek, it's dimissed here because it's not "true to historic liturgy"...so in essence we are saying Scripture means nothing--but the original liturgy...well, that is inspired.

Ironic and sad all at the same time that we will ignore the original language of the Holy Scriptures, but cling so rabidly ot a man-made liturgy.

Anonymous said...

I'm lost ... was it a change to make it less offensive or because it was an inaccurate translation (or another reason)? Is this only in the WELS worship?

Sorry. It's a new argument to me. I wasn't even aware of this.

Thanks.

Rob

John said...

Rob,

I have heard both reasons. We'll wait for others to reply. :)

Do you have Christian Worship hymnal available to you?

RNN said...

Before we crown anyone a Greek champion, let's look at the Greek. Note that the creed does not simply use the word "anthropos" here. It uses a verb based on the same root. Does Greek have a similar verb based on aner? If there isn't (and I don't think there is) then the argument that they would have used this word to speak of Christ being a man is wrong.

This means that your whole argument unravels. You now have less evidence for your mind-reading of the Nicene fathers. It makes your ideas that they wished to omit Jesus' gender even more of a speculation without proof.

For centuries, English versions of the Creed have translated this verb "became man." This is an exact correspondence with the Greek; for the English word man has the double significance of the Greek root anthropos--a male or a person.

So why go from this beautiful and accurate translation to "fully human." No one yet has explained why we need the "fully" in there. And Christ did not just become a human, be became a man. He had a gender.

Even the most gender-inclusive translations of the Creed outside of the WELS do not switch this "man" to a neutral "human." Seems that no one outside of the WELS concludes that Jesus' maleness meant that he did not save women. By the by, if we are going to be fully gender neutral, should we not also confess our faith in "Jesus Christ, the only CHILD of God?" Calling him a son would lead women to think that he did not save them too, wouldn't it?

And, because someone threw it out there, this is NOT an argument from any divinely-inspired liturgy. Had this person read my previous posts, s/he would have seen several references to the liturgy not being divinely inspired. No one has made the claim that they are, nor that this trumps an argument based on Greek words that are not even in the creed.

As for what our German ancestors thought when they heard the English, I have no idea. I suspect that they thought of when everybody hears that the Son of God became man: that he became man. The German word in the Creed is Mensch, just like anthropos and man.

So, why does the WELS wish to be more PC and gender-inclusive than anyone else? And why depart from an English translation that captured the Greek precisely for a strange phrase, fully human?

RNN

Anonymous said...

"even though the "fully human" guy was 100% on the Greek,"

Ah, no, no he wasn't. He was corrected by UP at 11:02 this morning and this afternoon by RNN.

Please read carefully!

mav said...

"Even if we use the term "fully human" we all know Christ had a penis and not a vagina...so I don't see how it could be a tool of the feminist to make Christ a female by using the term "fully" human."

Because not everyone does believe that Christ was born a man. There are "churches" in ELCA that refer to Christ as "Sophia". Google Ebenezer Lutheran in San Francisco.

As was asked before, why does the WELS not make a clear confession against this error by keeping the word "man", which means both human and man?

mav

Anonymous said...

"There are "churches" in ELCA that refer to Christ as "Sophia"."

Actually Sophia, the goddess of wisdom also plays the role of the Holy Spirit.

Using the term "human" is NOT the same as using the feminine...you are all really stretching and twisting this into something it is not.

I am well aware of Sophia and if you would like to know more about the teaching of Sophia, go to any ELCA seminary page and search for "Sophia"...you will find many doctrinal papers regarding this point of false doctrine.

Basically, I've come to realize that nothing is ever going to satisfy people here. There will always be something to bitch about, so it's really pointless in working through any of this.

Anonymous said...

Oh and I should also point out that Sophia is found beyond ELCA. Basically any mainline liberal denom will have a segment that has an interest in this teaching. You may also want to check out the twist on communion with the giving "Milk and Honey Communion" ritual.

mav said...

A @5:32 wrote-"Oh and I should also point out that Sophia is found beyond ELCA. Basically any mainline liberal denom will have a segment that has an interest in this teaching."

Yeah. That's my point. As I asked before, "As was asked before, why does the WELS not make a clear confession against this error by keeping the word "man", which means both human and man?"

You've still not answered my question. Please do.

Thanks bunches!

And watch the language.

mav

Anonymous said...

"As was asked before, why does the WELS not make a clear confession against this error by keeping the word "man", which means both human and man?"

Yeah, I did answer the question. I can't speak for the WELS, so I really can't answer your question in the way I think you want me to.

I really think it's a nonissue being blown up--that is my answer and I would assume you won't like that answer, but oh well.

Thanks bunches too!! ;)

As for the language..yup...sure...your welcome bunches!! [insert fake air kisses]

Whatever said...

Someone was wondering how the German version of the Nicene Creed was phrased. It's "und Mensch worden." "Mensch" is the German word for person, human, not MALE.

Hope this helps.

Whatever said...

PS: The German word for a male person is "Mann."

Whatever said...

I think the confessions support the idea contained in words "fully human," whether anyone really wants to admit that or not.

whatever said...

The Latin is "et homo factus est."

Again "homo" is the Latin word for human, as in homo sapiens" not the Latin word for male.

So we have the Greek, the German, and the Latin all weighing in on the accuracy of "fully human."

But we will still have people ignoring the facts . . .

Whatever said...

Interesting. The explanation in the Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, page 758, says that "homo" = human being, with all the implications of humanity.

The Latin word for a male person is "vir" = "human as opposed to woman or child."

Again, will those willing to look at the fact and with no WELS-bashing agenda see that there simply is no argument here?

RandomDan said...

The word wer means a fully human male and man means humanity. English is just like German, Latin, etc. Which still begs the question: why change?

Anonymous said...

"But we will still have people ignoring the facts . . ."

Yup, yup!!

Anonymous said...

"The word wer means a fully human male and man means humanity. English is just like German, Latin, etc. Which still begs the question: why change?"

It's obvious you have not taken German, Greek or Latin. They are not the same as English.

To me, if "man" means "humanity" than what is the difference between using one versus the other one?

Are men so pathetically scared of the crazy females that they have to solidfy their dominance by dickering over 2 words that mean the same thing?

I think we need to be more focused on sharing the Gospel than having these silly controversies. The Scriptures warn against frivilous controversies. Maybe we should heed the Scriptures on this.

whatever said...

"The word wer means a fully human male and man means humanity. English is just like German, Latin, etc. Which still begs the question: why change?"

RandomDan, please consult your German experts. "Wer" is a pronoun meaning "who", not a noun meaning "male." The word "wer" is not used in this phrase in the 1580German version of the Nicene Creed. The word used is "Mensch," which means "human being."

Why change? For precsisely the reason that this argument is taking place. "Fully human" is a much more faithful and precise English translation of the Greek "anthropos," the German "Mensch," and the Latin "homo." Why change? In order to remove the ambiguity of the English word "man," which can refer either to a human being or to a male. The Greek, Latin, and German all have different words for these two things. Why change? To be faithful to the meaning of the words of the confessions, that's why. My question would be, "Why would you NOT want to have the most accurate English translation?

UP said...

The Greek, Latin, and German all are closest to the English word "man", which can mean both human and male. So, the question still stands, why did the WELS change the translation?

From the University of Notre Dame(no slouches when it comes to languages):
"homo -inis c. [a human being , man, mortal]; in pl., [men, people, the world]; used like a pronoun, [he, him]; milit., in pl., [infantry]."

"Mensch {m} man
Menschen {pl} men"

The "anthropos" issue has been thoroughly dealt with above, though some seem to be conveniently ignoring that Scripture uses it both as "human" and "male".


What does the new ELS hymnal have in their translation of the Nicene Creed? Is the WELS the only church body in English speaking Christianity who made this change?

No one has yet answered the question of why WELS didn't leave the word man, which is the closest translation because it means both human and male, especially in light of current controversies dealing with the feminization of God.

A@1:43 am,

Your last paragraph is exactly what the Church Growth Movement says. Which Jesus are you going to share? A fully human Jesus or the Man Jesus? There's a difference. The WELS makes a clearer confession regarding the boy scouts. Again, why the change? Words mean something. Words in a creed of faith are chosen very carefully.

If the only reason is what was given by Prof. Hartwig that this was to placate women, that doesn't really make any sense. I can see using gender neutral, inclusive language when the Creed is speaking of all people, but I don't know of any woman who would need the WELS to take away Jesus' gender to make herself feel better.

Saying that this is a "non-issue" is a dodge, not an answer. As we see from what is happening in the Protestant denominations in this country and in Lutheranisam, mostly in ELCA, this is a big issue. That "non-issue, let's go do missions and stop talking about this" seems to be the only answer anyone has. That leads many of us to believe that, like other threads here, either no one has a defense for the WELS actions, or no one knows why their church body is doing or teaching what they are. That is sad.

UP

whatever said...

UP said "No one has yet answered the question of why WELS didn't leave the word man."

I did answer the question. I siad,after sharing the meanings of the words in three languages: "In order to remove the ambiguity of the English word "man," which can refer either to a human being or to a male. The Greek, Latin, and German all have different words for these two things. Why change? To be faithful to the meaning of the words of the confessions."

From peeople who claim to value the meaning of words, especially the meaning of words in the confessions, your desire to retain the ambiguous English word "man" is more than curious to me.

Anonymous said...

Why change the wording of the Creed? Let's go through this step-by-step.

1. The original Greek word in question is enanthropew. Every Greek dictionary I could get my hands on, including BDAG (the standard), defines this word as "to take on human form". "To take on male form" isn't even listed as a possibility. Furthermore, there isn't a single occurrence of this word in all of Greek literature that uses it to refer specifically to masculinity. That should be enough to make the case for "fully human", but there's more.

2. If the writers of the Nicene Creed wanted to make explicitly clear that they were referring to Christ's maleness, they easily could have used the word aner with a for of ginomai. So really if people want to criticize the WELS for ambiguity in the Creed, they're really criticizing the writers of the Creed itself, since they used a more general term rather than the specific male term.

3. At the time of the Council of Nicea, what was in question? Were people specifically denying Christ's maleness or his humanity? Obviously it's the latter. Why would the writers of the Creed be writing against a heresy that didn't yet exist, instead of writing against one that was very prominent? It makes no logical sense.

4. As has been pointed out before, all other translations use the more general term (homo, Mensch) rather than the more specific term.

5. This really isnt' a case of the WELS changing anything, but of English itself changing. It used to be that man was general and male was specific. In today's usage, human is general and man is specific. A good translation will always take into account common and popular usage. (This is akin to the hotly-debated non-issue of changing words like Thee and Thine to you and your in referring to God. It wasn't done to deprive God of honor. It was simply a reflection of words as they actually are used by actual people.)

6. Some have suggested that the WELS should put man into the Creed to provide a clear testimony against feminists today. I don't think they realize what they're suggesting. The Confessions are not ours to fiddle around with and modify to address current problems. We can't go in to revise the Confessions and make them say what we want them to say to make our point. We can merely translate them faithfully. And as I showed in point 1, human is simply the best translation.

Anonymous said...

From wels.net

"And became man," the older English reading, was not in error as to translation or doctrine. The reading "and became fully human," seems to be more readily understandable in our time.

Because this was being misunderstood by whom?

Rob

RandomDan said...

Whatever,

Read what I wrote, and then apologize to me for misreading my comment.

Anonymous said...

"seems to be more readily understandable in our time." In other words, IS A CLEARER TRANSLATION GIVEN THE CHANGE IN THE ENGLISH USAGE OVER THE YEARS.

I suspect that there are certainly areas for concern when it comes to doctrine and practice in the WELS. But friends, this is not one of them.

Whatever said...

RandomDan, If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please repeat your point so that I don't misunderstand.

RTMM said...

Mankind was created when man was created. Yet Adam was distinctly male. Any suggestion that Adam was some sort of a generic human being is blind. He could not have been created generically woman and man then come from him. This is not the image of God (cf. 1:27) He is man and male and from man came woman. His maleness was not diminished by his humaness, rather his maleness was enhanced by his humaness (i.e. there would soon be two, resulting from his giving his rib for woman.)

Christ was born a male, yet distinctly male, he could not have been born female, he was the second Adam and he was born male as image of the Son of God.

The church understood all this in using the word mankind, never was this generic but his maleness was embodied in that. The gender specific word then for man/male would not be used because he is the firstborn of all creation, all life must come from his side flowing with water and blood. His maleness is inheritent in the word man, which distinction has been shown above is a Scriptural distinction.

However, God never separates mankind as being, males and females. In God's creation we are not independent of one another. Behind the use of the general word man is this thought - all the way back to the garden. The use then of the term or interpretation "human", let alone "fully human" (as someone quipped, what as opposed to "partially human" is NOT an accurate translation in English (which has the same distinctions between "man" and "man") because it is not account for the Biblical understand of man, that God created man (not just a human) but man from whom woman came, and he had to be male. So the word in the creed which means mankind cannot be stripped of its full Adamic sense, "fully human" does that. Though it is correct that his humanity is at issue, "fully human" does not correctly interprete or translate the "anthropos etc" words, that is all that Christ's humanity is as second Adam. Thankfully in English we still have the distinction (a few feminists and mypotic translators aside) and so we have man and man (and it takes about 2 minutes to catechize a 7 year old on that.) He became MAN, expresses the Biblical and Confession truth, "fully human" falls short.

RTMM

RTMM said...

By the way, the arguments used for "fully human" are the same for Christ being called the "child" of God and the Father as the "Parent" of Christ. Though true, if the truth that God is Jesus' parent were under they would fall short of accurately describing the relationship even if the fatherhood or sonship were not the main issue. God is never a parent apart from being the Father. A

nd so we use the Biblical distinctions and language.

RTMM

Anonymous said...

RTMM, your words are a perfect example of sophistry, convoluted logic, and self-deluded thinking.

Please don't adopt the usual tactic of saying, "Prove it." There are too many people on this board who are not here to discuss, not here to discover the truth, only here to push their own agendas and pontificate from their agenda-driven soapboxes.

Count me gone from this board. A more bitter, loveless, and gospel-devoid bunch I have never seen.

UP said...

Mr. Whatever,

You wrote, "In order to remove the ambiguity of the English word "man," which can refer either to a human being or to a male."

So we had a Greek word, whose root means both human and male (it is used both ways in Scripture), a Latin word that means both human and male, a German word that means both human and male, and the English word "man", which means both human and male. Jesus is both human and male. Why the change to mean "human" but not "male"? That provides for more ambiguity, not less.

Wels.net says there was no error in translation or doctrine with the word "man", so your argument on the translation, which was shown to be incorrect already yesterday and will not be correct no matter how many times you give your mistranslation, is not even an argument made by the people who made the change to "fully human".

An anonymous wrote, "The Confessions are not ours to fiddle around with and modify to address current problems. We can't go in to revise the Confessions and make them say what we want them to say to make our point." I agree, yet the WELS made this change for vague and nonsensical reasons. The synod itself said that it is not because of translation, it is not because of doctrine, so then why did they do it? The only answer we have is from the COW meetings with Prof. Hartwig: to placate women. Again, this does not make sense. Jesus Christ was made man. The "fully human" is refering to only one human-Christ. If, for example, CW had made a change from "for us men" to "for us people", that would make more sense as a more understandable, inclusive term in the day and age in which we live. However, to take away Jesus' maleness does not.

Mr. Whatever, are you also the "Fully human guy"? You sound very similar. Either way, you have been beaten and that pretty soundly. Your Greek was corrected by a girl. That seems to have hurt your ego, which I suspect, is why you keep purposely mistranslating and ignoring the fact that Scripture uses "anthropos" as a specifically male term. Instead of bothering to even do a cursory check on wels.net, as Rob did, to check into the reasons for the change in the Creed, you forged ahead with your pomposity and ignorance. I hope that you will learn from this experience, as I learned from my similar beatings in my youth. You do not have all the answers. Learn from what others here have already gone through.

To the anonymous who is taking his/her toys and leaving: first-that's loser talk. second-confirming others in their errors is far more loveless than calling them on it.

UP

Christine said...

Whatever,

It's simple. Wer is an English word meaning a male of the human species. It has nothihng to do with German except for the fact that most Germanic languages have words very similar to it in their vocabulary. If you want an exapmple of where the word exists, look no further than the word werewolf. I was discussing English, not German.

RandomDan said...

Sorry. The post above is me. I didn't realize my sister had her username in this computer.

Anonymous said...

This is stupid.

Can we talk about a real doctrine?

I agree with the person who said we all know Jesus was a man. He had a penis, it was circumcised. End of story.

Sophia is a new god. She has nothing to do with Christ or any part of the Trinity. Bringing her up was totally irrelevant. Obviously those who adhere to Sophia worship reject the term "fully human" as well as they prefer "fully female." So really, stupid arguements here. You are really need to get a life.

RTMM said...

Anonymous, who cannot show what I have written is wrong so she pompously hides behind her ipse dixit and insults.

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

By your labeling Scriptures view of man and the image of God created into man as you did, you are mocking God. You are trapped in a legalistic, Biblistic sect who doesn't understand the whole counsel of God. It's arguments on this "fully human" nonsense are the same you use to say that "fruit of the vine" can mean grape juice or even grape jelly as you ignore the totality and language and theology of Scripture. You understand neither the true nature of Christ and his role as second Adam, for your logic says he could just as well been the second Eve. You are not here to learn and discuss and argue on the basis of the Scriptures as I and other have, just to spew your evil venom.

RTMM

Anonymous said...

"Count me gone from this board. A more bitter, loveless, and gospel-devoid bunch I have never seen."


Good riddance, "Jennifer."

Anonymous said...

Hahaha...the Jennifer enigma!!

Maybe it would be fun to play with that!

mav said...

"Sophia is a new god. She has nothing to do with Christ or any part of the Trinity."

Please google Ebenezer Lutheran Church in San Fransico for an example. Sophia is used as a feminine term for Christ. "She" has much to do with this discussion and the Trinity.

Maybe "you are really need to get a life".

mav

mav said...

Or at least proofread before you publish your comments.

mav

Anonymous said...

None of you has responded to the thorough list provided by Anonymous at 7:42. I'd like to see a response to that, especially to point 1 about the use of the Greek verb.

You can rage all day about people's "pomposity and ignorance" and "loser-talk", but you can't even address his most basic point.

The verb enanthropew, used in the Nicene Creed, is never used, not even once, in all of Greek literature to refer specifically to taking on a male form.

You are making a classic translators mistake and reading your preconceived theological bias into Greek words and making them say things they don't actually mean in Greek.

So, before making any more of your detailed arguments based in logic, then simply provide one example of the verb actually meaning what you say it does. Then I'll listen more seriously.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the mindset of many is that discussions like these don't matter. All that counts is "spreading the Gospel," usually through creative and innovative methods because we are in a different time.

The defense of the truth in all of its complexity, and a rigid stubbornness to that end, is seen as ridiculous, stupid or hateful. There are complaints of a lack of open-mindedness, which is usually an argument to be politically correct or an argument for relativism. Or the cry by one who is unable to disprove the other. It seems that is in line with growth movements and quite possibly defines much of the attitude of Wisconsin -- these hard doctrinal things don't matter, let's just attract new believers. Discussions have been held about that, but it seems to all tie in together, to me at least.

Rob

RTMM said...

Greek Anon,

The hermeneutical rule of the Scriptures is that the Scritures interpret Scripture. We don't do it by bare dictionary words isolated without context. There are theological concepts behind words and man (Hebrew Greek as well as English) calls mankind man, and includes mankind in man. This is Christ, the second Adam, the second man in whom all are included through Holy Baptism. He became man.

RTMM

RTMM said...

Erratum:

There are theological concepts behind words and the SCRIPTURE (Hebrew Greek as well as English) calls mankind man...


RTMM

Anonymous said...

"Or at least proofread before you publish your comments."

Mav, having read some of your comments, maybe you should take your own advice.

Just a thought.

Thanks bunches!!

Anonymous said...

*yawn*

*yawn*

*yawn*

Same tired old arguments.

*yawn*

Maybe we should have a positive post to focus on the blessings we have through faith in Christ.

I'm fine with analyzing false teaching, but this is bordering on wallowing in the ills of the visible church. We need a balance or it all just gets way too depressing.

Anonymous said...

A@7:45,

Speaking of bitching....

Anonymous said...

"A@7:45,

Speaking of bitching...."

Thanks bunches!!

But watch your language, mav is sensitive.

Thanks bunches and bunches and bunches and bunches!!!

Anonymous said...

None of you has responded to the thorough list provided by Anonymous at 7:42.

I think almost everyone has responded to anon @ 7:42.

Man means human and man. Human just means human.

RNN said...

Dear anonymi,

All right; let's go through 7:42's points. S/he wrote:

"1. The original Greek word in question is enanthropew. Every Greek dictionary I could get my hands on, including BDAG (the standard), defines this word as "to take on human form". "To take on male form" isn't even listed as a possibility. Furthermore, there isn't a single occurrence of this word in all of Greek literature that uses it to refer specifically to masculinity. That should be enough to make the case for "fully human", but there's more."

I don't have access to a Greek dictionary, so I will take your word that this is the only meaning listed. How common of a verb is this? My guess is not very. But, as you well know, translating takes into account more than the meaning listed in a dictionary. It also takes into accout the context that the word is used in. Sometimes the context demands a different meaning for a word than listed in any dictionary. For instance, in 1 Corinthians when Paul talks about God's wisdom being greater than man's foolishness. Check the Greek there.

So we must approach the Creed in this light: looking at the words used in the context. Here the Greek verb speaks of Christ being made an anthropos. When Christ became human, was he male, or female, or dont' we know? He was male. So when we talk of Christ becoming human, we talk of his being made a man. As has been pointed out before, this English word has the double connotation of human and male that perfectly fits the Greek anthropos.

RTMM has a nice discussion on mankind coming out of man and Jesus being the second Adam. I will refer you back to his post above, for what he says fits in here too.

S/he @ 7:42 continues:

"2. If the writers of the Nicene Creed wanted to make explicitly clear that they were referring to Christ's maleness, they easily could have used the word aner with a for [sic] of ginomai. So really if people want to criticize the WELS for ambiguity in the Creed, they're really criticizing the writers of the Creed itself, since they used a more general term rather than the specific male term."

RTMM spoke to this above too. Mankind comes from man--the flesh and blood, concrete Adam. The man, literally. From him comes all humankind.

Here again we find ourselves floating off into abstractions. What is fully human? It is an abstract concept used to describe a concrete reality. The creed confesses the concrete reality: Jesus Christ was made man, the second Adam, to redeem all mankind that came from the first Adam, men and women alike. "Man" is concrete and confesses Jesus flesh and blood--the issue at stake in Nicaea, as you have observed; "fully human" takes us off into abstraction that leaves room for questions regarding Jesus' humanity and gender.

Furthermore:

"3. At the time of the Council of Nicea, what was in question? Were people specifically denying Christ's maleness or his humanity? Obviously it's the latter. Why would the writers of the Creed be writing against a heresy that didn't yet exist, instead of writing against one that was very prominent? It makes no logical sense."

Actually, the main threat at the Council of Nicaea was Arianism, an attack on Christ's divinity. But that aside, when Christ became human, he did so as a man. This only lends extra strength to the confession that he was human (or, if you prefer, fully human): like all humans, he had a gender: he was a man. So confessing that Jesus Christ was made man only strengthens the confession that he was a real, concrete, flesh and blood human.

S/he continues:

"4. As has been pointed out before, all other translations use the more general term (homo, Mensch) rather than the more specific term."

But note that each of these translations, when put into English, have the double sense of "man" and "human" listed. How do we determine which meaning from the dictionary fits? By looking at the context. Here we are talking of the Son of God, who became a man when he took on human flesh. So again, "man" is the better translation, confessing that he was made a man to redeem mankind that comes from man.

S/he continues:

"5. This really isnt' a case of the WELS changing anything, but of English itself changing. It used to be that man was general and male was specific. In today's usage, human is general and man is specific. A good translation will always take into account common and popular usage. (This is akin to the hotly-debated non-issue of changing words like Thee and Thine to you and your in referring to God. It wasn't done to deprive God of honor. It was simply a reflection of words as they actually are used by actual people.)"

First off, changing "thee's" and "thou's" to "you's" and "your's" has brought more ambiguity into our confession of God in the liturgy. "Thee" and "thou" are always singular; "you" and "your" can be either singular or plural. I don't have a problem with the language shift away from the Jacobian English, but it does illustrate that changing the words also brings along a change in meaning, or at least introduces ambiguity in that which once was clear.

The same is true with "human." If English usage no longer allows "man" to mean both male and human, why have not all translations of the Creed changed? Why is the WELS the only church that uses this translation? (Please, anybody, if you know of another church that has this translation, let me know.)

If in the English world only the WELS has decided that the word "man" has so changed in meaning that it is no longer an accurate translation of the Creed, that o0ught to give us pause. It would seem to me that the other millions of English-speaking Christians who still confess Christ being made man can understand that translation just fine.

And again, as noted before, the context of the Creed reveals that the human were talking about was a man. So there is nothing wrong with using the word "man" when we talk about Christ being made human.

And finally:

"6. Some have suggested that the WELS should put man into the Creed to provide a clear testimony against feminists today. I don't think they realize what they're suggesting. The Confessions are not ours to fiddle around with and modify to address current problems. We can't go in to revise the Confessions and make them say what we want them to say to make our point. We can merely translate them faithfully. And as I showed in point 1, human is simply the best translation."

I agree that the WELS ought not mess with the Creed. But I disagree with your argument that fully human is the best translation. As RTMM pointed out, that is more of an interpretation than a straight translation.

And adding the word "fully" is altering the Creed. There is nothing in the Greek to suggest this word. That is fiddling around with the Creed.

I hope I have not put everyone to sleep. I think this is more of a serious question than some here give it credit for. This is the Creed confessed by WELS churches weekly. What we speak in church will shape our faith; this translation leaves room for errors and speculations in the faith formed by this Creed. That is why I rejoice that weekly I can confess with the church through the centuries that Jesus Christ was made man.

RNN

mav said...

Dear angry anonymous,

You appear to have no answer to what others have written, so you get mad and make typing mistakes, which I pointed out. If you have an issue with what I wrote, please point out what it is exactly. Since you've written in several times now to be snide but haven't written anything of substance, I'm guessing you don't have much to say.

I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. You come across as childish. At least the sarcasm of some of the others is humorous.

Because you are only a nasty distraction from the discussion here and are contributing nothing, I will not respond to you again unless you have something germane to the conversation.


mav

Anonymous said...

Sticks and stones will hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me.

I miss the "thanks bunches."

Thanks for your time, it was greatly appreciated.

I don't know you, so your censure means nothing. Have a great legalistic life.

Anonymous said...

"I don't have access to a Greek dictionary, so I will take your word that this is the only meaning listed. How common of a verb is this? My guess is not very."

How can you even presume to weigh in on this topic when you haven't studied the original in the original language? If you haven't done that, then all you can do is make a judgment based on your theological bias. That's improper hermeneutics when the Catholics and the Reformed do it--it's improper when confessional Lutherans do it too. Don't you see what you're saying here? "Well, I don't really know what the word means, but I'm sure that I know better than every Greek dictionary, cause my pre-existing bias tells me so." Can you imagine the damage such thinking would do if applied to all of Scripture? If you're just making "guesses" at this stuff with no knowledge of Greek, spare us the hot air and do some research. When you have gained the ability to have an informed discussion on the meaning and usage of the Greek verb enanthropew, then come back and maybe someone might take you seriously and listen.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:44,

You purport to know Greek. When will you learn to read English and respond to what people have actually written?

How does "I don't have access to a Greek dictionary, so I will take your word that this is the only meaning listed" show that RNN doesn't know what s/he is talking about. S/he is saying that s/he is taking your word for it--so if s/he takes your word for something, s/he doesn't know what s/he is talking about? That would only make sense if you didn't know what you were talking about either. So, do you know what you are talking about? It seemed like maybe you did, but now I seriously doubt that as you don't seem able to grasp a concept as simple as: "You said ____. I'll take your word for it."

RandomDan said...

I did a little research on the Kyrie and the litany from which it came. Let me just say this: if we restored the Kyrie to it's original form, we'd all be jumping off of a cliff.

Anonymous said...

I take it "St. Martin" is not Martin Luther? hahahaha

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:44,

If you recall, RNN was the one who pointed out that it was a verb in the Greek and not a noun as an anonymous originally wrote, so it seems he or she does know Greek but, as he or she wrote, didn't have access to a Greek dictionary last night.

Read what is written and not what your preconceived notions think is there.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:44,

Why didn't you answer RNN's question? How common is that verb?

RTMM said...

Anon writes,

"If you're just making 'guesses' at this stuff with no knowledge of Greek, spare us the hot air and do some research."

I hope that makes you feel better.

Now, you are making the most elementary of all mistakes, ignorning the context of Scripture which guides us in our understanding of ha adam, ish, anthropos, aner and its Latin and English counterparts. You, it seems, have bought into the feminist agenda in your efforts to defend "fully human" (human which is derived form the Latin homo). God did not create a human being he created a man, ha adam, whom he separated, whom he joined together as one flesh. Man is not independent of woman, nor woman, man, because women came from man (1 Cor. 11.8-9). Notice, woman did not come from generic humankind, but from andros, man. So Gen 1.27 and 1 Cor 11 guide every discussion on this issue. The distinctions in English, man (mankind) and man (male) reflect this divine language, man(kind) includes woman but the use of the word (Heb. GK, English etc.) is always a reminder of the first creation ha-adam and all the truths that follow from that (eg. 1 Cor. and the order of creation).

Christ is the second, Ha-adam, he is the firstfruits. He did not become humankind, mankind, he became ha adam, man from whom all will receive life from his side. Feminist theologians, such as yourself, wish to translate out of ha adam etc. the thought that life comes from man and that there is an order of creation here. You cannot separate Christ from his Adamic role, that is, as the second Adam. You and other feminists claim his maleness has nothing to do with his incarantion, or at least with the creed. Not true, and the language reflects that. Every mention of Christ the man (anothropos) is of Christ the second ha adam (and cf. Gen 1.27 and 1 Cor. 11.8-9)

To sum it up, enanthropew, homo, man etc. always must be translated man (which includes humankind) but which always includes the Adamic/Christic understanding. Translating with two eyes on the dictionary leads to mischief. One yes on the dictionary and one on the context of Scripture is how one must do it. "Fully" - which is not a part of the text - and "human" do not do justice to the use of the words in Scripture.

This failing in WS doctrine is seen in it convoluted role of women and how that relates to the doctrine of the ministry. But that for another thread.

RTMM

RTMM said...

And as long as we are all trying to help the Wisconsin Synod, we should also inform them that there other addition to the Nicene Creed "he suffered DEATH" is also a subtraction by addition. The word death is not in our Symbols' translation of the creed and therefore not proper. Our Lord's suffering was more than just his suffering of death. So by adding they substracted from the fullness of that suffering.

RTMM

Anonymous said...

Isn't it rather Nestorian like then, RTMM, to separate the created order and complimentary nature of man and woman from man to come up with a generic humankind? Shouldn't every mention of man(humankind) be a reminder of the original creation and so then of Christ?

RTMM said...

Anon at 9:49,

I think so. Otherwise we end up with humanholes in our streets for the workhumans to access (or should I say humynholes and workhumyns).

RTMM